Book Summary: The Ethics Of Climate Change

Words: 863
Pages: 4

Climate change raises many ethical questions. Climate change is already having devastating effects on the world. The science of economics can also help humans find solutions and know the underlying cause and effects. There are many theories and principles offered by many economists and philosophers about climate change and what we should do. As a society we must take into account all ideas and options and make a decision that will be good for us in the present and the future.
“The Ethics of Climate Change” by John Broom gives the reader a different viewpoint, an ethical one, on issue of climate change. The climate change raises a number of ethical questions. Science, including the science of economics, can help humans to discover the cause
…show more content…
Nicholas Stern and his colleagues argues that we need to act now and take preventive measure because there are more benefits than costs in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Others like William Nordhaus argue in opposite of Stern; that the need to act is not so urgent. They both use the discount rate to make logical arguments. The discount rate measures how fast the value of goods diminishes with time. Another ethical consideration is using the theories of prioritarianism and utilitarianism when discussing discount rates for the future in relationship with wealth. If the world’s economy continues to flourish like it is right now, people in the future will have more goods than the present people will. Prioritarianism attaches less value on people’s benefits in the future because future people will be better off. Prioritarianism gives priority to the poor because it is much harder for them in the future than the people who are rich and stable. Utilitarianism attaches equal values to the benefits of the future and the present. To add on to the debate, some philosophers believe in pure discounting, which is the idea that we should care more for the people that are close to us in time than those in the distant future. “An opposing view is that we should be temporally impartial, insisting that the mere date on which a harm occurs makes no difference to its value” (Broom, 100). Pure