A scientific paper in subject of “Applied ethics”

Topic: “What is climate change, why and how can we

save our environment?”

Student: David Menčik Professor: dr Evangelos Protopapadakis

Athens 2018.
 Abstract: The goal of this essay is to raise awareness about environmental issues that are
present in today’s world. In the essay three questions will be asked. What is present climate
change, why should catastrophic consequences of climate changes be avoided and how can man
resolve this problem. Before presenting the answer to this question a short introduction will be
written in which it will be shown that knowledge of facts is not enough for resolving crucial
problems of environmental issues and that environmental ethics and science need to work
together in answering this questions. Science is there to give the facts, environmental ethics is
there to present value based questions and technology is there to provide the finale answer to
resolving the question of saving the environment.

1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 3
1.1 KNOWLEDGE VS ACTION ........................................................ 3
1.1 KNOWLEDGE FOR AND AGAINST HUMANITY .............................. 4
2. CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................ 5
2.1 WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................... 5
2.2 SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ............. 6
2.3 SCEPTICISM ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF RESOLVING THE CLIMATE
CHANGES BY CHANGE OF THINKING ............................................... 7

3 WHY SHOULD CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGES BE

PREVENTED?........................................................................ 9
3.1 ANTHROPOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTALISM ................................ 9
3.2 OBLIGATION TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AS THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF
ANTHROPOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTALISM ..................................... 10
3.3 NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTALISM....................... 11
4. HOW TO PRESERVE ENVIRONMENT? ............................. 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................. 13

2
 1. Introduction

1.1 Knowledge vs action

The difference between theoretical sciences and practical sciences have been made 2300
years ago by Aristotle. This antique differentiation can be applied today on the difference
between scientific discovery about problems concerning environment on one side and
environmental ethics on the other. Theoretical sciences that are observing environmental
changes such are meteorology, chemistry and physics are value neutral and present only a
detailed, careful and verified observation of phenomena. Climate change is one of the
phenomena that has been observed by these sciences. Meteorologist will make conclusions
based on the supporting results and give recommendation for what we should do based on the
facts of a scientific study1. Scientist will bring knowledge of all the facts concerning climate
change, that it is occurring, why it is occurring and even with the data concerning the possible
answer of reversing the damage. It will give factual readings of increased levels of CO2 as can
be seen from history of meteorology when Charles Keeling proved that increase in the levels
of carbon-dioxide are a fact and that the concentration of this greenhouse gas in air is partially
because of fossil fuel consumption 2 . This conclusion was important for the raising the
awareness that man is at least partially if not fully responsible for the causation of current
climate change.

However knowledge of the facts alone does not determine what should be done3- This is the
reason why environmental ethics has its value. It brings on the light of the most philosophical
question of value or why climate change should be stopped. Science without ethics is
metaphorically speaking like a man that sees but when he tries to share to world what he has
seen nobody understands his language. To continue with the metaphor environmental ethics
without the support of science would be like a blind man speaking of what he has seen. For the
prevention of environmental crisis it is crucial that science and environment ethics work
together. When speaking of the question why the climate change should be stopped it needs to

1
See - DesJardins, Joseph R, Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, Wadsworth,
Boston, 2006 page 11
2
Keeling did this by measuring amount of Carbone-dioxide at various levels of the polar ice cap and concluded
that there is difference in global temperatures in earlier period of Earth’s history to one post industrial
revolution
See -DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, page 6

3
be introduced that this field of studies is pluralistic in its conclusions. Anthropocentric
conception of environmentalistic ethics in its basics has man as the superb being to whom the
question of environment should be subdued. Non-anthropocentric concept of
environmentalism has its basics in the value of environment because of nature itself.

However some things are the same to both positions they both ask questions about value of
nature only their conclusions differ in answering the question for what reason should the nature
be valued. Despite all the factual evidences there is skepticism about climate changes mainly
because this question of environment is not only the question of science and environmental
ethics but of economics and politics as well.

1.1 Knowledge for and against humanity

Question that may be posed is why should environmental ethics exist or why should we not
appoint to the science the question of what is good and what is bad for humans?

It is undoubtable that development of science has helped people in many aspects of life. All
sciences had some practical use that has helped people to live better lives, from medicine
increasing the life expectancy to physics inventing the electricity with the list being virtually
indefinite. However progress in science and technology often had for its by-product progress in
war technology having for its consequences suffering of many people. Numerous examples for
this phenomenon can be given but two most notable ones, are chronologically, Fritz Haber’s
invention of chemical warfare used in World War I and the invention of weapon of mass
destruction or more particularly Nuclear Bomb. It can be seen that chemists and physicists in
numerous occasions from which only two were mentioned worked against the humanity even
though their causes were often justified4. Ethics in scientists’ view of the world is often left
aside because in the time of war there is often a question of the greater cause. That the situation
is not all that “black” it needs to be said that some scientists had rejected working in a war
oriented project strictly from moral reasons5.

Second reason for dismissing value based science is that scientific research was not only
pointed against human beings but also against animals where there is still present a debate in
bio-ethics should experiments on animals be allowed or forbidden. Criticism of crucial

4
Haber said that chemical warfare would shorten the war and therefore less losses would be needed. The main
reason for starting the Manhattan project was prevention of German victory in Second World war.
5
Most famous Serbian scientist Nikola Tesla was asked to work in the development of Nuclear Bomb but
refused saying that he will not participate in creating a weapon that will be used for an attack. It needs to be
noted that there is a myth that Tesla had scetches for Laser weapon that would be used for defence of a
country but that his writing were stolen by FBI after his death.

4
questions in environmental ethics and applied ethics generally is often pluralistic because it is
hard to have a monistic point of view when answering difficult real-life questions.. This is the
case because environmental ethics does not exist in a vacuum of philosophical arguments6

2. Climate change

2.1 What is climate change

After presenting the importance of philosophical field of environmental ethics further
questions need to be answered. First of all the question what is climate change. In last 30 years
awareness of climate changes rose to unprecedented level. This phenomenon is however
directly connected with the fact that environmental challenges are becoming obvious in
everyday lives of the people7.

But what is climate change and why does it happen? As it has been said in the previous
chapter effects of climate changes were spotted by meteorologist. Climate change is a
phenomenon that can be observed during a long period of time and can be connected with the
increase of the gases that have the possession of what has been called the “greenhouse effect”8.
The existence of the greenhouse effect is not a problem because without it life on the planet
would not be possible. Problem that is arising is focused on implication of the increasing levels
of the greenhouse gases that is leading to the global warming and altogether climate changes.
Greenhouse gases function as the glass in a greenhouse they let the heat from the sunlight but
prevent warmer air from “escaping” atmosphere and to high concentration of them lead to rise
in the global temperature of the earth.

Good and bad thing is that global warming is caused by humans. It is bad, because it could
have been prevented and it is good because it can be stopped by human actions. Emission of
carbon-dioxide that has been increased in last two centuries from the beginning of the industrial
revolution is not an asteroid that is inevitably going to collide with the Earth in next thirty years.
Climate change caused by humans can be stopped by humans. For this reason it needs to be
said that global climate change is not problem of others because every individual makes small

6
Light, Andrew, Environmental Ethics in A companion to Applied ethics, edited by R.G. Frey and Christopher
Heath Wellman, Blackwell publishing, Oxford, 2003 page 643
7
More extreme weather is the best show for this climate challenges, often hurricanes, extremlely hot and cold
temperatures etc.
8
In the end of 19th century Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that “greenhouse gases” chiefly carbon
dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Gases that trap heat and keep the planet warm enough for life.
See Hood, Robert, Global warming in A companion to Applied ethics, edited by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath
Wellman, Blackwell publishing, Oxford, 2003 page 674

5
contributions to climate changes in everyday life by driving cars, cutting trees using electricity,
burning the fossil fuels9 etc.10. Evidence for climate change comes from huge variety of sources
and can be observed daily from shrinkage of glaciers on the south-pole to overall increase of
temperatures in last few decades. Possible outcomes are terrifying starting with rise in ocean
levels due to melting of snow and ice in the Earth’s polar region leading to flooding of numerous
islands and cities to even more catastrophic consequences such as temperatures in which life
would not be any more possible11

2.2 Skepticism about the existence of climate change

Even though climate change is obvious some skepticism surrounds this question. Arguments
for scepticism are sometimes reasonable and sometimes completely irrational.

1. First argument that this particular climate change is not our problem is that climate
changes happened before. When looking into past we can see that many climate
changes happened from the Ice-age to extremely long hot periods of weather. This
argumentation can be proven wrong if connecting the dots between causes and effects
of climate changes. It needs to be said that big climate change doesn’t happen by
itself, Dinosaurs became extinct not because an asteroid killed all of them then
because the hit of the asteroid led to climate changes that led to extinction of
Dinosaurs. Climate change is always triggered by a cause, from eruption of Super-
Volcano or hit of the Asteroid to human’s carelessness.

2. Second sceptical argumentation about climate change is that increased emission of

greenhouse gasses due to burning fossil fuels is not of any importance. There have
been assertions that increased emissions of greenhouse gases due to the burning fossil
fuels have about as much effect on global climate as when a butterfly shuts its wings12
This argument can be proven wrong empirically because it can be observed that

9
Usage of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and different products such as gasoline or kerosene has increased and its
by-product is that amount of carbon dioxide has increased.
10
For more information about individuals influence to climate changes see
Powers, Madison, Moral Responsibility for Addressing Climate Change in the Routledge companion to
Bioethics, Edited by John D. Arras, Elizabeth Fenton and Rebecca Kukla, Routledge, New York, 2015 pages 135
& Hood, Robert, Global warming page 676
11
For the list of all possible consequences of climate changes see DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an
introduction to environmental philosophy, page 4
12
Hood, Robert, Global warming page 678

6
 global warming is happening and that climate changes are becoming more and more
obvious as the years pass by.

3. When speaking about butterflies it is funny coincidence that third skeptical argument
can be proven wrong by the effect of butterfly effect. This argument is based on
misunderstanding of the term climate and can be presented pretty easily. “There is no
global climate change, how can there be any when the snow is falling”. Cold weather
during the winter is not an argument for denying the climate changes because weather
is a chaotic system and as Edward Lorenz meteorologist who invented the term “The
butterfly effect” would say weather cannot be accurately predicted but only forecasted
because flapping of the wings of butterfly in one part of the world can lead to
catastrophic consequences in another part of the world13.

4. Going from rational to less rational skepticism about the climate changes certainly
there are many irrational but one of the funniest is the remark of the Republican
Congressman John Shimkus, who sits on both the House Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, who expressed his
scepticism about climate change in terms of his belief in God’s promise to Noah that
the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood for a second time14. Mythology or religion
and science don’t go hand in hand and scientific evidence for climate change are not
matter of believing or not believing in something.

2.3 Scepticism about possibility of resolving the climate changes by change of

thinking
It has been already pointed out that environmental challenges that are present today were
made by man. The man of the past that are partially guilty for this were not thoughtless or
dishonorable people, but people who were thought of as geniuses in their field of interests15.
Inventions that are today thought as of the polluters of the environment were creating easier
lives for the previous generations and their actions had many beneficial consequences to both
preceding generations as well as to this generation. Their inventions led to affordable energy,

13
This phenomenon has been adressed in 9th episode of documentary series „Cosmos the space-time odyssey“
hosted by Neil de-Grasse Tyson.
14
DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, page 5
15
For example James Vat cannot be blamed for inventing the steam engine because his discovery led to
benefits in transportation etc.

7
faster transportation increased life expectancy and many other benefits but as well had for its
by-product some of the environmental problems we are facing today16.

16
See DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, pages 7-9

8
 3 Why should catastrophic climate changes be prevented?
In the introductory chapter it was written about the main questions of climate changes mainly
what is climate change, why should catastrophic events be avoided and what are possible
solutions of this problematic. In second chapter the question what is climate change has been
answered. That part of essay can be considered as more of scientific part of this essay. This part
of the essay can be thought of the most important one for the question of environmental ethics
because it will give possible answers as why the climate changes should be prevented.

3.1 Anthropocentric environmentalism

First answer to the question why should catastrophic climate changes be prevented is because
of the man. This view is based on the fact that climate changes should be stopped because it is
needed to prevent dangerous anthropogenic problems because of the climate system17. This kind of
reasoning prefers consideration of human interests opposed to the interests of other beings or the
environment itself18. In this kind of argumentation it is pointed out that climate change would
have dangerous effects to the human health and his wellbeing with little or no care about the
wellbeing of other species. For example of this kind of understanding one quotation will be
enough to show the ignorance of this view: My criteria are oriented to people, not penguins.
Damage to penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is, without more, simply irrelevant.
One must go further, by my criteria, and say: Penguins are important because people enjoy
seeing them walk about rocks…. I have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake19.

Approach towards environmental problems in human context is present in many different

applied sciences such as environmental sociology or environmental health that are not
concerned with the environment per se but only because man is located in environment20. This
view of the environment is in its basics utilitarian. Environment has no value for itself but only
as a mean for serving human. Nature has instrumental value and is to be managed for the greater
good of community. Unfortunately this kind of reasoning has many problems and can be very
dangerous because it is egoistic in its nature. Man can destroy environment with the supposition

17
Powers, M, Moral Responsibility for Addressing Climate Change page 133
18
See -Light, A, Environmental Ethics pages 634-635
19
These are the words of William Baxter paraphased by DesJardins
DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, page 60
20
See -Light, A, Environmental Ethics page 645

9
that the idea was to help people live in environment because care of environment itself is not
present.

3.2 Obligation to future generations as the main argument of anthropocentric

environmentalism
When talking about care about environment from anthropocentric reasons there is no reason
more intuitive as obligation to future generations. In one survey the more than 85 percents of
persons asked about the question of preservation of environment gave obligation to future
generation as the crucial argument for why environment should be preserved. It is quite unusual
that high proportion of respondents mentioned the same topic in answering an open-ended
question21.

In what way should we act towards the nature so that future generations get the possibility to
live good life? Answer to this question lies in understanding of the term sustainability.
Sustainability means that the needs of present people should be met without endangering the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs22 In the basis of this conception is that no
activity should be done that has the danger of degradation of the biosphere in a way that future
people would suffer from it. However some skepticism is present concerning the need of
preservation of ecosystem for future generations. First skeptical argument can be presented as
if the question of future generations is non sequitur because from the question of care about
future generations in present times implies that we don’t know what life would future
generations be and what will they like. But does this argument from ignorance really holds its
ground. Answer to this question is one of moral grounds as it seems that it is our moral
responsibility that even though we do not know who they will be, that they will be, what they
will be like, or what their needs, wants, or interests will be23 we should sacrifice our real needs
for future assumed needs. It is not reasonable to use technologies such as nuclear power that
might put human race of future at risk, and it seems reasonable that some basic needs of future
people should be taken care of.

What are the needs that future people will certainly have? Minimally, this would include an
adequate supply of clean air and water, a moderate climate, protection from poisons and
disease, and so forth. For example, we know the science behind radiation and how it affects

21
Light, A, Environmental Ethics pages 645-646
22
See DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, page 74-76
23
See IBID page 78

10
living beings24. It is not on people of present to decide if humans of the future would like to
have right to basic goods or not it is only morally responsible to think so and we must do so
that our actions today may not violate the right for basic needs of people of the future. If not we
are responsible future persons, to deliberately bring into being persons who will almost
certainly be unhappy25.

3.3 Non-Anthropocentric environmentalism

Anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric environmentalism have one thing in common, both
points of view want to preserve the environment. Their difference is in the reason why the
environment should be preserved. Non-anthropocentric environmentalism has in its basics the
idea that value of nature can best be described such that it is directly morally considerable in
and of itself, rather than only indirectly morally considerable because it is appreciated or
needed by humans26. This point of view would be completely against the reasoning of William
Baxter concerning the “penguin question” presented in previous chapter. Non-anthropocentric
environmentalist would say that it is our duty to preserve ecosystem and all beings in ecosystem
not because of utilitarian use based values but because environment and all its beings have value
in themselves.

This model of environmentalism seems to have a wider perspective of the problem than
anthropocentric because it is worried about extinction of species, preservation of forests and
many other problems that don’t seem important in anthropocentric model of environmentalism.
For the conclusion it needs to be said that both of this concepts have their advantages as well
as their flaws and that both present valid answers why environment needs to be saved. After
speaking about what is climate change and why should we save the environment most practical
question needs to be asked how can we save the environment?

4. How to preserve environment?

The question how to save or preserve environment is in one meaning the same question as
how to preserve life on Earth. As Carl Sagan puts it in his speech about the Pale Blue Dot,
people have the obligations to the Planet as if they take care of themselves because Earth is the
only Planet that can sustain life. Sagan spoke thirty years ago and couple of things at least
theoretically changed from his speech to today. The biggest and most realistic idea is one of

24
IBID page 79
25
IBID page 81
26
Light, A, Environmental Ethics pages 633

11
Elon Musk and one of his companies Space-X to colonize Mars. Even though this kind of
undertaking works on preservation of human species it doesn’t care much about the Earth itself.
Colonization of Mars is presented as the final solution if climate change due to the levels of
greenhouse gases gets to extremely high levels and Earth couldn’t sustain life anymore27.

Other alternatives are more optimistical for the question of environment itself. Alternative
environmentally based energy sources such as solar panels, usage of power of wind in
windmills and many other that would work towards preservation of environment unfortunately
were not as popular for political reasons as for example Nuclear energy. Imagine the knowledge
and technology that we would possess in the area of alternative energy sources, if the money
spent on nuclear research in the last century had been spent instead on solar energy research or
any other environmentally based energy generator28

Alternative energy presents the mitigation or effort to slow the accumulation of greenhouse
gases. Mitigation can be seen in acts of reducement of usage of fossil fuels by providing
alternative solutions such as electric car instead of a car that is running on gasoline etc. However
mitigation is very complex term that consists of providing economic and technological
resources necessary for others (e.g., poor nations) to reduce emissions, and preserving “carbon
sinks” (e.g., rainforests) that absorb GHGs that otherwise would accumulate in the
atmosphere29.

The second type of responsibility involves adaptation, if mitigation cannot be achieved

modification of human behavior of environment should be made in order to avoid harmful
consequences. Whatever changes is to occur it will do occur slowly thereby giving the ever-
adaptable human species plenty of time to adapt. Life on Mars would represent the final solution
about the adaptation of human beings that would not care about the Earth anymore and would
see it only as a place where humans once lived and could have lived furtherly but consciously
decided not to because they could have stopped the scenario that has happened but decided not
to.

27
It needs to be said that it has been scientifically proven by Astrophysicsist of XX century that planet Venus
today has the average temperature of more than 400 degrees celzius once was very similar to Earth.
Concentration of greenhouse gases made planet into „Hell“ and the same process is more or less happening to
Earth every day.
28
See See DesJardins, J.R , Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental philosophy, page 14
29
Powers, Madison, Moral Responsibility for Addressing Climate Change, page 134

12
 Bibliography
1. DesJardins, Joseph R, Environmental ethics an introduction to environmental
philosophy, Wadsworth, Boston, 2006

2. Light, Andrew, Environmental Ethics in A companion to Applied ethics, edited by R.G.

Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman, Blackwell publishing, Oxford, 2003 pages 633-
650

3. Hood, Robert, Global warming in A companion to Applied ethics, edited by R.G. Frey
and Christopher Heath Wellman, Blackwell publishing, Oxford, 2003 pages 674-685

4. Morris, Theresa, Hans Jonas’s Ethic of Responsibility, Suny press, New York, 2013.

5. Powers, Madison, Moral Responsibility for Addressing Climate Change in the Routledge
companion to Bioethics, Edited by John D. Arras, Elizabeth Fenton and Rebecca Kukla,
Routledge, New York, 2015 pages 133-147

13