Climate Change

Home , Break Through (book)

Climate Change: Global Warming The evidence for global warming is growing.1 Glaciers are rapidly melting, and sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is shrinking.2 Species are migrating when they can, as their environment changes, or dying out.3 The climate is becoming more erratic—increasing rain in some regions, severe drought elsewhere, more violent tropical storms forming over a warmer ocean, and more frequent tornadoes in the United States.4 What is causing climate change? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 to answer this question. The IPCC coordinates the voluntary participation of thousands of scientists in analyzing climate data and has the support of 195 countries. It was honored in 2007 with the Nobel Peace Prize for its fourth assessment, published that year.5 At the end of 2011 the IPCC confirmed its previous assessment that: “At least some of the weather extremes being seen around the world are consequences of human-induced climate change and can be expected to worsen in coming decades.”6 This research is the basis for the following conclusions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Scientists know with virtual certainty that: • Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since preindustrial times are well-documented and understood. • The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other GHGs is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. • An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906 to 2005 in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans. (IPCC, 2007) • The major GHGs emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs will continue to rise over the next few decades. • Increasing GHG concentrations tend to warm the planet.7 In these assertions “virtual certainty” (or “virtually certain”) means a “greater than 99 percent chance that a result is true.”8 The EPA acknowledges that “[i]mportant scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms.”9 It asserts as very likely, however, that increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are causing higher global temperatures and rising sea levels.10

1 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

To consider the ethical as well as environmental and economic issues raised by climate change and global warming, we have to understand the earth’s carbon cycle and how it has been distorted by industrial development. The Carbon Cycle Carbon on Earth is stored in rocks, fossil fuels, the oceans, and the soil. In the carbon cycle, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make carbohydrates, and organisms consume carbohydrates, releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is also absorbed by the oceans, as well as utilized by ocean plants and stored on the ocean floor as sediment. Soil, too, absorbs CO2, but also releases it when the soil is cultivated or exposed by erosion. The earth’s carbon cycle maintained a level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about 280 parts per million until the Industrial Revolution. Burning fossil fuels throughout the twentieth century has greatly increased the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere, and now this flow is four times as great as the absorption rate of the oceans.11 At the beginning of 2012 12 the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 393 parts per million and is increasing by more than six gigatons per year, largely because of the following: • Fossil fuel emissions. About five gigatons of carbon are being emitted into the atmosphere each year from the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas. • Soil organic carbon destruction. Due to excessive tillage (cultivation) and soil erosion, carbon in the soil is being oxidized and is entering the atmosphere. • Deforestation. As forests are burned to clear land or for other reasons, a significant amount of carbon is released into the atmosphere. To stop global warming, we have to correct these distortions of the carbon cycle by reducing carbon emissions and removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As the oceans warm they absorb less carbon dioxide.13 In a warming environment, however, plants absorb more CO2. Therefore, we should give priority to reforestation, change agricultural practices to make them more sustainable, and reclaim marginal land. This strategy will require adaptive management of forests and also a shift from industrial farming to agroecology. Sustainable forestry involves cutting mature trees and removing dead wood, which maximizes the net carbon absorption of a forest. As plant life decays, part of its carbon is converted by microorganisms into organic matter, and this is oxidized and returned to the atmosphere. Unlike industrial agriculture, agroecology increases the organic carbon held in the soil.

Thus the answer to global warming requires (1) reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, (2) ending deforestation and instituting sustainable forestry,14 and (3) replacing industrial agriculture with sustainable farming.

2 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Carbon dioxide is not the only GHG. Carbon monoxide, fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide are also GHGs, as is methane, which has twenty times the effect of carbon dioxide on the earth’s temperature. To date, methane in the atmosphere is largely the result of feeding cattle corn, which they have trouble digesting. Chapters 9 and 12 present arguments for eating less beef, which would reduce the number of cattle raised for beef and thus lower methane emissions. Only stopping global warming, however, will prevent massive releases of methane from thawing permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere, which contains twice as much carbon as is now in the earth’s atmosphere.15 Water vapor, like GHGs, reflects heat rays back to the earth, and there is now evidence that its level in the atmosphere is increasing over some continents.16 The main cause of increasing water vapor, however, is the warming of the earth (and especially the oceans) due to GHGs. There is no way to stop the increase of water vapor without reducing the rising level of GHGs in the atmosphere—which means decreasing our use of fossil fuels. Responsibility To address our environmental crisis, we have constructed ethical presumptions to: • Do our duty to restore and maintain the integrity of the earth’s ecosystems. • Reduce our ecological footprint by living with greater frugality and gratitude. • Care for nature and other species by farming, eating, and living sustainably. • Respect human rights to sustainable development and a healthy environment. Now we apply these presumptions to global warming and then test these convictions by considering the likely consequences of acting on them. Duty From 1960 to 1990 “the richest 20 percent of the world’s population increased its share of world income from thirty times greater than the poorest 20 percent to sixty times greater.”17 In this same period, the United States, with 5 percent of the world’s people, was responsible for about 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.18 These facts support the equity argument in chapters 4, 7, and 10, which asserts that industrial societies should pay more of the costs required to reduce fossil fuel emissions than less affluent societies. The Kyoto Protocol was the first international attempt to reduce GHG emissions. It was adopted in 1997 as an amendment to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and came into force with sufficient ratifications in 2005. The Kyoto Protocol accepts the moral argument that developed countries have a greater duty than developing countries to reduce their GHG emissions, and it requires the industrial nations that have ratified the Protocol to reduce these emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.19

3 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

As of November 2011, the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by 192 countries. President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol and pledged that the United States would reduce its GHG emissions by 7 percent before 2012. President George W. Bush, however, opposed ratification of the treaty by the Senate, arguing that the Kyoto Protocol unfairly “exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.”20 In support of his position, President Bush claimed that the Senate’s 95–0 vote against ratification “shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.”21 This 1997 Senate resolution opposes any international agreement requiring the United States to make reductions in GHG emissions, unless it also includes mandatory limitations on developing countries. The resolution also rejected any agreement that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”22 Other objections to the Kyoto Protocol include claims that the scientific evidence for global warming is uncertain, the targets for reducing GHG emissions are unrealistic, and an effective strategy to lower carbon emissions would require “replacing the command-and- control regulatory scheme with flexible results-oriented policies, and providing incentives to install state-of-the-art technologies.”23 European nations and Japan, however, have accepted the equity argument and also the mandatory regulations of the Kyoto Protocol.24 Under the Protocol, a cap-and-trade program in carbon emissions began in 200525 and after 2007 was required for all members of the European Union (EU). A country exceeding its cap in carbon emissions must buy emission credits from another country that has met its cap and has credits to sell.26 At the UN Climate Change Conference in 2011, the United States again rejected the equity argument, despite the delegate from India’s strong statement: “Equity is the centerpiece, it cannot be shifted.”27 China, as well as many other countries, supported India’s argument that an equitable allocation of costs for addressing climate changes would require taking into account the more limited economic capacity of developing countries and the large

4 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013). number of poor people in these countries, as well as the fact that developed countries were the main cause of rising carbon emissions throughout the twentieth century. The United States not only continues to resist the carbon cap- and-trade international program created by the Kyoto Protocol, but also has yet to create a federal carbon cap-and-trade program.28 Therefore, seven states (led by California) and two Canadian provinces have formed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which “requires partners to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions, develop a market- based, multi-sector [carbon emissions trading] mechanism to help achieve that goal, and participate in a cross- border greenhouse gas registry.”29 The WCI’s goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.30 In 2008 on the East Coast, ten states from Maine to Maryland initiated the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which creates a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions from 233 power plants. The RGGI’s 31 goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10 percent by 2018. In 2007 the EU pledged to reduce GHG emissions 50 percent by the year 2050 from levels measured in 1990,32 and the Group of Eight industrial nations (G-8) agreed to “consider seriously” this goal.33 Because of US opposition, the G-8 did not affirm the binding reductions accepted by the EU. Scientific research, however, suggests that significant reductions in carbon emissions are needed to prevent disastrous climate changes around the world.34 In 2011 the US Department of Energy reported that the global output of carbon dioxide had increased by 6 percent in one year, the largest annual increase on record. Additional pollution in the United States and China accounted for half the increase. As carbon emissions from burning coal rose by 8 percent in 2010, the large increase of CO2 emissions in 2010 is likely due to new coal-fired power plants in China, India, and the United States.35 Character The United States acknowledges a duty of fairness to other nations, but gives priority to its duty to promote the well-being of Americans. Might we resolve this conflict of duties by considering the kind of persons that we believe we should be? As we saw in chapter 5, this way of making ethical decisions often involves telling stories. What story would you like your grandchildren to tell about how you responded to global warming? A story about facing our ethical challenge to reduce carbon emissions would likely involve choices such as the following: • Driving a fuel-efficient car and using mass transit when it is available. • Instead of driving, walking and riding a bicycle whenever we can.

5 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

• Avoiding all unnecessary air travel. • Reducing energy use and waste, recycling more, and consuming less. • Eating lower on the food chain to increase the supply of grain for food. • Supporting public policies that address the causes of global warming. In chapter 5 we looked at the stories of Cinderella, Johnny Appleseed, and Bob the Builder, which present characters who have integrity, express gratitude for life, and are frugal. Tales like these prompt us to ask: How might we live with more integrity, gratitude, and frugality? How might we reduce our ecological footprint?36 For those who are religious, there are many compelling stories to consider. Jewish scripture tells of God bringing the Israelites out of slavery to a fertile land, and commands their descendants to care for strangers because God cared for their ancestors when they were strangers. Christian scripture tells about the Good Samaritan, who cared for an enemy, to explain that God calls everyone to love others as we love ourselves. Islamic scripture tells of Noah calling all people to act justly in order to abide by the will of the one God. These stories do not directly concern global warming, but illustrate how being ethical means seeking greater justice for others. In addition, every religious tradition at its best promotes grateful stewardship of the earth’s resources. Many Americans are active in their churches, so it is surprising that Catholic and Evangelical teaching about stewardship has had so little effect on the self-serving environmental policies of the United States. Relationships Chapter 6 describes the importance of relationships in making ethical decisions. Contemporary science verifies that empathy for others is natural, and child psychology confirms the natural development of empathy in children.37 Being ethical involves acting with empathy and reason out of concern for the well-being of others—with an expanding view of our moral community. Empathy helps us see the world as others do, and in facing global warming this means seeing the world through the eyes of people living on low ground near the rising sea, or in the Arctic on frozen ground that is thawing. Global warming threatens land, livelihoods, and lives, and when we see this with empathy as well as reason, we are more likely to act with compassion. Concern for relationships also means a more inclusive way of making decisions. Facing moral choices about global warming should include all of us in local, state, national, and international decision-making. We have a moral responsibility to consider the welfare of others and to make the best decisions we can for all those who are affected by climate change. From this ethical perspective, it seems clear that the United

6 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

States should be cooperating with international efforts to address climate change and global warming. Finally, global warming threatens not only human life, but other species. We face a tremendous loss in biodiversity from climate change and thus have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions to preserve biodiversity. It may be, however, that anthropocentric decision- making will be unable to protect endangered species. Rights Chapter 10 notes that the right to sustainable development has been part of international law since the 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”38 Agenda 21 and the Beijing Declaration help to clarify that this means economic and social development that is environmentally sustainable. The right to health and a healthy working environment is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICESCR. The right to a healthy environment was first asserted in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The 1992 Rio Declaration reaffirmed this right, and the FCCC states: “The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind.”39 These moral and legal rights are being asserted by developing countries and poor communities around the globe. All these rights claims, however, are rejected or ignored by the United States, which has refused to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Kyoto Protocol. The United States also rejects the claim that the right to a healthy environment is a legal right under international law. Predicting Consequences The virtually certain consequence of failing to decrease GHG emissions will be more rapid global warming, and the very likely consequences include climate change that will involve more flooding in some places and severe drought elsewhere. Many species are already disappearing, but some will be sufficiently “fit” to survive in these rapidly changing environments. The bacteria causing tropical diseases are already on the move, due to the earth’s warming, so we can expect malaria to soon be endemic in southern Europe and southern regions of the United States.40 Our ethical presumptions require actions by individuals, governments, and corporations to reduce GHG emissions and to secure more carbon dioxide in forests and farmland. This requires ending industrial agriculture and deforestation and substantially reducing our use of fossil fuels for transportation, heating buildings, and generating electricity.41

7 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Agriculture What are the likely consequences of replacing industrial agriculture with sustainable farming? A shift to agroecology would hold more carbon in plants and the soil. Where a commodity crop (like corn) is grown as a monoculture, as is the case in industrial agriculture, the soil is usually left uncovered after the harvest until a new crop comes up in the spring. Sustainable agriculture, however, uses cover crops to protect and nourish the soil, which increases the plant and soil absorption of carbon dioxide. Ending industrial agriculture would also lower the amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels to produce fertilizers and pesticides, run farm machinery, and transport food long distances. Terminating current government subsidies for commodity crops and reducing the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides would save billions of dollars. Relying on sustainable farming, however, would likely mean increased costs for food producers and higher prices for consumers. It is not possible to predict all the costs and benefits of a shift to sustainable farming, but the adverse consequences do not clearly outweigh the benefits. Forests What are the likely consequences of reducing deforestation and managing forests sustainably? Forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transform this carbon through photosynthesis into carbohydrates. Forests also release oxygen into the atmosphere, increase rainfall, cool the earth, hold the soil, prevent erosion, and provide habitats for animals. Therefore, assessing the consequences of sustainable forestry must include not only the likely short-term costs of logging fewer trees—a loss of jobs and income in some communities, an increase in the price of timber and products made of wood, and higher costs to manage forests—but also long-term environmental benefits.42 Sustainable forestry also generates income from jobs and fees for the recreational use of forests. JPMorgan Chase limits its lending for logging to sustainable forestry management and requires proof of decision-making that includes local communities. Companies, such as Home Depot, verify that lumber in their stores was logged responsibly. We may presume, therefore, that the sustainable management of forests is cost effective. Transportation What are the likely consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels for transportation? First, reducing waste is always cost effective. Cargo ships that reduce their average speed by just two knots “could save 5 percent of fuel use and emissions,” which is significant because cargo ships are responsible for over 4 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide.”43 A more innovative way of saving fuel involves using a giant kite that helps pull a ship forward. Cargill estimates that using such a kite on its cargo vessels will generate enough propulsion to reduce fuel consumption by a third. According to a UN study, up to 44 100 million tons of CO2 could be saved every year if this technology were used widely.

8 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

A 2008 congressional report suggests that ending flight delays would save “US airlines more than $2 billion in wasted jet fuel” each year, and reducing motor vehicle traffic congestion in cities would save costs and reduce carbon emissions. Motor vehicles emit a higher percentage of the GHGs released each year than airplanes. Car companies in the United States have long resisted tougher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but in 2007 Congress voted to raise fuel efficiency by at least 25 percent over the next fifteen years.45 In 2009 the Obama administration raised the fuel efficiency standard for cars produced in 2012–2016 to 35.5 mpg. Two years later, the administration and thirteen automakers agreed to reach a fuel efficiency of 54.5 mpg by 2025 for cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States.46 Second, as fossil fuels are being depleted, developing alternative fuels for transportation is a long-term necessity. Scientists are experimenting with solar energy, electric vehicles, and hydrogen, but greater investment is needed to speed up research and development.47 To reduce carbon emissions, Congress has provided a subsidy for ethanol to be produced for use in motor vehicles. Yet the use of most biofuels generates more GHG emissions than gasoline, if the full emissions costs of producing the biofuels are considered.48 Fossil fuels are burned to irrigate, harvest, process, and transport crops, and producing biofuels by cutting forests or plowing grasslands releases GHGs into the atmosphere and also destroys the plants that naturally absorb carbon emissions.49 Using sugar cane, however, is “eight times more productive than corn. It grows year round. It must be processed fast, so CO2-spewing transport to distant ethanol plants is impossible (unlike corn). Its leftover biomass can be used to produce electricity, enough, by some estimates, to provide a third of Brazil’s power needs by 2030. Ethanol already accounts for about 50 percent of car fuel in Brazil.”50 Brazil claims that it is not clearing forests to grow sugar cane, but this is misleading, because cattle ranchers sell pastures to farmers (who will grow sugar cane) and then move their herds into the Amazon, where deforesting is easy and land is cheap.51 To preserve forests and farmland, there is now a push to make ethanol from nonfood crops such as reeds and wild grasses, but these species may easily spread from biofuel plantations and grow in nearby farms. Thus there are ecological dangers and potentially significant costs to be considered.52 Sufficient investment, however, will likely be successful in creating energy-efficient biofuels made from waste products such as corncobs, citrus peel, and wood chips.53 The use of ethanol for fuel, plus greater fuel efficiency for cars, as well as an increase in oil production in the United States, will likely make the country self-sufficient in gasoline for the short term. Eventually, however, this fossil fuel will be depleted.54

9 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Third, despite the development of greater fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, the reduction in carbon emissions from transportation is not likely to be sufficient or rapid enough to stop global warming. Therefore, we must reduce our driving and flying. We should walk and cycle more, do business at a distance using computer technology to share information, utilize conference calls, and take vacations that burn less gasoline. Airplane emissions are less than 5 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted each year, but airplane travel is growing at 5 percent annually, and at this rate the number of miles traveled by passengers will triple by 2030.55 To create an incentive for airlines to increase fuel efficiency, beginning in 2012 the EU will assign a carbon emissions limit for each airline using an airport in the EU and impose a fee on any airline that exceeds its limit.56

Motor vehicle emissions constitute more than 20 percent of the global CO2 emissions annually.57 Thus, transportation using fossil fuels for power is producing about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.58 In the United States carbon emissions are growing overall at a rate close to 3 percent a year, and at this rate will double the CO2 in the atmosphere in twenty-three years!59 We should not assume that the long-term cost of paying for the effects of global warming will be less than the cost of investing now to cut our carbon emissions. Heating Buildings and Water What are the likely consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels to heat buildings and water? Chapter 14 describes how energy loss in a building can be reduced with increased insulation in the ceiling, walls, and around doors, as well as using energy-efficient windows. Also, energy that is wasted, such as the heat from machinery running in one section of a building, can be used to heat other rooms. Reducing waste, or using it, will generally mean lower costs as well as lower carbon emissions. Over the past thirty years the Weatherization Assistance Program of the US Department of Energy has provided weatherization services to more than six million low-income households. Besides saving money, weatherization reduces the fossil fuels used to heat homes and therefore also lowers carbon emissions.60 In many places heat pumps are the most efficient way to heat buildings. Like a refrigerator, a heat pump moves heat from one space to another. All heat pumps have an outdoor unit (condenser) and an indoor unit (evaporator coil), and a refrigerant to transfer heat. When the pump compresses the refrigerant into a liquid, its temperature rises. If the refrigerant is allowed to expand, it becomes a gas and its temperature falls. The gas can then absorb heat.

10 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

In the winter the heat pump extracts heat from outdoor air and transfers it inside, where it is circulated by a fan. Because even cold air contains heat, a heat pump is efficient even during winter months and is very commonly used to heat buildings in northern Europe. For every kilowatt of electrical power it uses the heat pump produces 4 kilowatts of heat, which makes heat pumps four times as efficient as standard electrical heating systems.61 Geothermal heat pumps rely on the stable heat of the earth to provide heating and air conditioning and are also used to heat water. Because 70 percent of the energy used in a geothermal heat pump is renewable energy from the ground, installing these heating systems is an effective way of reducing carbon emissions. The EPA estimates geothermal heat pumps can lower energy bills by a third and includes these systems in its Energy Star program. Through 2016 it is offering a 30 percent tax credit for installing a geothermal heat pump in a principal residence, whether or not the system is used for domestic water heating.62 Power Plants What are the likely consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels to produce electrical energy? Power plants now burning fossil fuels produce about a third of the global GHG emissions.63 The major source of the world’s power continues to be coal. The United States has about six hundred coal-burning power plants and more under construction.64 China now uses more coal to produce energy than the United States, Japan, and the EU combined. India is increasing its construction of coal-fired power plants, in an attempt to meet its energy demand.65 European nations are also investing in coal-fired power.66 The Union of Concerned Scientists has verified that a typical coal-burning power plant produces about 3.7 million tons of 67 CO2 annually—equal to cutting down over 160 million trees. To reduce carbon emissions, power plants either need to use fuels producing less carbon dioxide or, if these plants burn coal, the CO2 produced must be sequestered in geological repositories. Carbon capture and storage is being tested in Europe, but several countries have canceled projects due to projected high costs.68 At the end of 2011 the World Bank was preparing to loan money to Kosovo to build a new coal-burning power plant. Kosovo has few natural resources but lots of “brown coal” (lignite). It also has a lignite-burning power plant built by the Soviets that is the largest point source of air pollution in Europe. With unemployment at 45 percent, Kosovo needs the jobs the World Bank project would create. Environmentalists, however, are demanding that the World Bank fund only economic development that is environmentally sustainable. Without efficient carbon capture and storage technology, this would rule out support for a lignite-burning power plant in Kosovo.69 Burning natural gas to generate electricity produces lower quantities of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide than burning even the cleanest coal.70 But natural gas (like all fossil fuels) is a nonrenewable resource, so burning it to produce power does not fulfill our responsibility to future generations—which will not be able to rely on this source of fuel after we use it up. In the short term, however, generating electricity from natural gas will reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming. 11 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

At current levels of consumption, there is sufficient natural gas that can be recovered using conventional methods to last at least seventy-five years. The International Energy Agency also estimates that the known resources of natural gas that require unconventional methods of extracting71 and processing are at least as large as the resources recoverable using conventional means. In 2011 “unconventional gas” was already 60 percent of US production.72 Gas prices spiked in 2005 and 2008, but have generally declined over this period, due to increasing supply.73 Nuclear energy generates electricity without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. The British are reviving their nuclear plants, and France relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its electricity. In contrast, the United States obtains only 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and Germany has turned to alternative sources for its energy.74 In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress included incentives for new nuclear plants. Public opinion, however, is divided. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes expanding nuclear power because of the risk of catastrophic events, such as a reactor meltdown or an attack on a nuclear facility.75 Also, expanding nuclear power would increase radioactive waste, which will remain a significant hazard for centuries. The need to lower carbon emissions is urgent, but even beginning construction of new nuclear plants today would not make a substantial difference in lowering emissions for at least twenty years.76 Without increasing nuclear power, however, a country will need massive investment in wind and solar power to replace the electricity now being produced by burning coal and natural gas.77 In 2010 the countries of the EU greatly expanded their power generation. Plants using natural gas made up 51 percent of the increase, and renewable energy sources 41 percent. This was the fifth year that renewable energy sources were 40 percent or more of the new power installations. In 2010, 17 percent of the new generating capacity was wind power.78 At the end of 2010 the new Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) for EU member states entered into force, setting a renewable energy goal for 2020 of at least 20 percent of the energy consumption. Each country has accepted a legally binding target for its share of renewable energy. Also, EU member states are required to submit National Renewable Energy Action Plans detailing the measures that must be taken to reach their renewable energy targets.79 In China, wind power has grown rapidly since early 2005, when a renewable energy policy was implemented.80 In 2010 China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest leading wind power country.

12 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Moreover, China produces 75 percent of the world’s hot water heated by rooftop solar collectors.81 The United States currently has more installed electrical power generating solar capacity than China and also produces more solar equipment. In 2011, however, as the United States cut funds for renewable energy research and development, China launched a five-year plan to increase its solar energy production.82 Despite this growth in renewable energy, China’s carbon emissions rose by 5 percent between 2008 and 2009,83 and this is also true for the rest of Asia. By 2010 carbon dioxide emissions in China were 50 percent greater than in the United States.84 Although renewables account for no more than 10 percent of India’s energy, wind power installations were 70 percent of the new energy capacity added in 2010.85 Investment in solar power has until recently been too costly, but in 2009 India announced its National Solar Mission to develop solar energy. Two NGOs, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Indian Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), are working with the Indian government to ensure that this program realizes its goals.86

In 2011, 14 percent of US electrical power was generated by renewable sources, but most of this was hydroelectric. Wind power accounted for only 3 percent.87 Thirty-nine states, however, have required electric utilities to generate a specific amount of electricity from renewable sources.88 Despite these efforts, the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere continues to rise. Carbon dioxide levels were 354 parts per million (ppm) in 1990, 389 ppm in 2010,89 and 393 ppm at the beginning of 2012.90 At the same time, the average global temperature increased by 30 percent.

13 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Taxes Cap-and-trade programs create financial incentives to lower carbon emissions and create a market in emission “credits,” but many argue that a tax on carbon consumption is needed.91 Now that the price of gasoline is rising in the United States, consumers are motivated to increase their energy efficiency to lower their costs. So it may make sense to add an environmental tax to gasoline, if income taxes are generally reduced, and the income from an added tax on gasoline is invested in developing alternative sources of energy. In his 2007 appearance before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, Al Gore made such a proposal: “We should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on employment and production, and make up the difference with pollution taxes, principally [on] carbon dioxide.”92 Ray Anderson, the founder of Interface Incorporated, agreed, arguing that “the tax code is ‘perverse,’ in that it puts heavy taxes on good things, like income and capital, and leaves a lot of bad things, like energy use, relatively unscathed.”93

Amory Lovins suggests that a “feebate”—a fee (tax) when buying a less fuel-efficient car and a rebate (tax credit) for buying a more efficient car—would be more effective than a gas tax.94 “Fuel taxes are a much weaker way to influence how efficient a car someone buys because they are diluted, roughly seven to one, by other costs of owning and running a car and then are heavily discounted.”95 Fuel taxes are also more regressive (have greater impact on the poor) than a feebate on cars would be. Perhaps the best strategy is to “tax the industrial emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture technologies and other environmental innovations.”96 This tax and investment policy has “led to a large decrease in emissions in Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”97 Those who oppose any form of carbon tax argue that markets provide a more cost- effective way of shifting investment to alternative fuels as the price of fossil fuels increases. Yet we should not rely on markets alone to limit an environmentally damaging activity, 14 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013). because not charging a high enough price for scarce resources, such as clean air and water, means these resources will be used excessively. In economics, this is known as “market failure.”98 Economist Wallace E. Oates explains: “Many of our environmental resources are unprotected by the appropriate prices that would constrain their use. From this perspective, it is hardly surprising to find that the environment is overused and abused. A market system simply doesn’t allocate the use of these resources properly. In sum, economics makes a clear and powerful argument for public [government] intervention to correct market failure with respect to many kinds of environmental resources. Markets may work well in guiding the production of private goods, but they cannot be relied upon to provide the proper levels of ‘social goods’ (like environmental services).”99 Markets have not included in the price of fossil fuels the cost of the environmental damage due to global warming or the cost of developing alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions. Governments exacerbate this market failure if they fail to administer energy and environmental policies that will correct it and by not informing consumers so they will understand the need for more effective regulation of our use of the environment.100

In most countries the price of emitting carbon is not great enough to prompt every coal power plant to invest in carbon capture technology. Therefore, governments must tax the use of carbon.101 ““Burning coal to generate electricity is the greatest cause of global warming, and although its costs in this regard are uncertain, they are certainly immense. If

15 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013). these environmental impacts (externalities) were factored into the cost of coal-powered electricity, photovoltaic cells would immediately be competitive as a source for generating electricity. A major shortcoming in the 2007 energy bill passed by the US Congress was that it did not extend tax credits to producers of wind, solar, and other renewable fuels.102 The 2008 energy bill included authorization for “a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind and a multiyear extension of the solar power investment tax credit,”103 but was blocked in the US Senate by opponents who claimed that any long-term benefits were outweighed by short-term costs. Four months later, however, the $700 billion Economic Growth and Stabilization Act of 2008 extended existing tax credits for renewable energies and included rebates for those purchasing plug-in hybrid cars.104 In 2009 the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the Waxman-Markey bill) was passed by the House of Representatives, but it was never brought up for a vote in the Senate. The following year a climate and energy bill entitled The American Power Act (the Kerry-Lieberman bill) was introduced in the Senate, but it never even came to the floor for debate. The goal of the American Power Act was to reduce US carbon emissions by 17 percent before 2020 and by over 80 percent before 2050. Environmental NGOs were divided over the American Power Act, even if they supported a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. Yet, a poll by a Republican public opinion firm showed that majorities of self-identified conservatives and Republicans support a national energy policy that would boost domestic energy production and limit CO2 emissions.105 By 2010 it was clear that inordinate spending by the energy industries had accomplished its goal of preventing energy legislation in the United States. From 2009 through the middle of 2010, while renewable energy companies spent $47 million on lobbying, the electric utility industry spent more than $264 million and the oil and gas interests $250 million.106 This economic model, however, is clearly shortsighted. “Consider a standard incandescent light bulb, powered by a coal-fired power plant. If the coal plant is 33 percent efficient (the average in the U.S.), and the light bulb is 3 percent efficient, then the net conversion of energy to light is just 1 percent. That is pathetic—and typical. An L.E.D. light, powered by an efficient natural gas turbine, converts 20 percent of the total energy to light—a 20-fold increase.”107 Power this light with wind or solar energy, and it is even more efficient and does not add any carbon to the atmosphere. In Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era, Lovins argues that business can get the United States off oil and coal by 2050 (and save $5 trillion) through innovation that emphasizes design and strategy. “You don’t have to believe in climate change to solve it,” says Lovins. “Everything we do to raise energy efficiency will make money, improve security and health, and stabilize climate.”108 The environmental policies of Interface, P&G, and Walmart support this conclusion.

16 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

Taking Action Environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote in 2007: “Everyone involved knows what the basic outlines of a deal that could avert catastrophe would look like: rapid, sustained, and dramatic cuts in emissions by the technologically advanced countries, coupled with large- scale technology transfers to China, India, and the rest of the developing world so that they can power up their emerging economies without burning up their coal.”109 By 2010 it was clear that China was advancing more rapidly than the West in renewable technology, and that climate change and global warming from carbon emissions into the atmosphere could not be prevented. “The momentum of the heating, and the momentum of the economy that powers it, can’t be turned off quickly enough to prevent hideous damage.”110 It is also clear now that one of the best strategies for mitigating the environmental damage resulting from climate change is biomimicry. Ecosystems maintain their integrity by making many adjustments. The resilience of an ecosystem involves small adaptations of organisms, species, and the system as a whole. We may infer, therefore, that adapting to climate change will require decentralizing agriculture, industry, and power production. This will mean solar installations and wind turbines on rooftops to heat water and provide electricity and not investing solely in mammoth “clean” coal-burning or nuclear power plants, or even vast solar arrays and wind farms in desolate areas. It will also mean increased farming in and close to cities to provide more food locally. In addition, it will require individual acts of creative conservation by hundreds of millions of concerned citizens. In the Chinese city of Rizhao, which is the size of Boston, 95 percent of the residential buildings are equipped with rooftop solar water heaters, which were built by private companies and sold by entrepreneurs.111 Anyone visiting a European or Asian city, or Jerusalem for that matter, will be struck by the number of solar water heaters on rooftops, as this renewable energy technology is hardly being used in US cities. In Africa a fifth of the world’s people live without electricity or are unable to afford it. Solar lighting is the best answer and is now available in several countries at no or low cost. No cost solar lighting is created by inserting a plastic bottle filled with water and a little bleach into a ceiling so its upper half extends above the roof, where it is hit by the sun, creating 17 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013). light in the lower half of the bottle for the room below. Lanterns that are rechargeable using solar power offer a low cost alternative source of light that can be used at night.112 Small-scale technology to generate power provides a more secure source than any large power plant and empowers individuals, families, and local communities. Investing in this technology will give us a better chance of adapting to climate change. Doing Ethics We began this chapter by stating that the answer to global warming requires:

• Reducing fossil fuel emissions of CO2 (and other GHGs). • Ending deforestation and instituting sustainable forestry. • Replacing industrial agriculture with sustainable agriculture. As of 2011, however, nations and individuals are not making the changes needed to accomplish these goals. Since the 1950s the earth’s land has warmed by 1.6 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Furthermore, the global output of CO2 increased in 2010 by 6 percent, the largest annual increase on record. The US and Chinese economies account for half this increase. In 2011 China derived 1.7 percent of its gross domestic product from renewable energy and energy efficiency, making it second among nations, after Denmark (3.1 percent). The United States was seventeenth (0.3 percent).113 The Chinese have accepted that climate change is a fact of life, but Americans are in denial. In April 2011 the House of Representatives rejected the following statement: “Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate changes is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”114 Ethics requires an honest assessment of the facts as well as affirming moral presumptions about what is right, and then testing these by our best estimate of the likely consequences of acting on them. Since 1990 China’s annual CO2 emissions per capita have increased from 2.4 to 7.7 tons, whereas in this same period of time annual emissions per capita in the United States have declined slightly, from 21.7 tons to 18.6 tons. Despite China’s rapid development of renewable resources to meet its growing energy demands, the level of carbon emissions per person in China is rising. In the United States the slight decline in the carbon emissions per person is more the result of the economic recession, rather than a serious effort to reduce the nation’s carbon

18 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013). footprint. The United States has the highest level of CO2 emissions per capita in the world.115 Many Americans who accept that there is global warning think the problem is primarily caused by economic development in China, but this rationalization is inaccurate and self-serving. Everything in this book about environmental ethics applies to the ecological crisis of climate change and global warming. Moreover, as most readers are living in the United States, the conclusion that what we do matters cannot be overemphasized. The ethical presumptions we have clarified affirm that we should: • Do our duty to restore and maintain the integrity of the earth’s ecosystems. • Reduce our ecological footprint by living with greater frugality and gratitude. • Care for nature and other species by farming, eating, and living sustainably. • Respect human rights to sustainable development and a healthy environment. Before we act we cannot know all the consequences of acting, and we can never know for certain that by trying to resolve a problem we will succeed. Yet we know that doing what is right and being good persons are worthwhile. Living an ethical life is right. Living more sustainably for the sake of nature and future generations is good. Protecting the rights of others is worth doing. If ethics matters at all, then it certainly matters as we face the climate changes in our biosphere that are causing global warming. Our species has created this problem. Moreover, we are the only species on Earth that can act ethically. We have evolved the capacity to ensure that we survive as a species and thrive as a humane civilization. Adapting to our changing global ecosystem is the great moral challenge of our time. The world is evolving, and we should evolve with it. The facts are frightening, but humans have an immense capacity to do what is right and to live with integrity and gratitude. We cannot prevent global warming, because it is already occurring. Yet we can hope to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of climate change, if we learn to live sustainably within the ecological constraints of the earth’s biosphere.

NOTES 1. Deborah Zaborenko, “Human Warming Hobbles Ancient Climate Cycle,” Reuters, April 27, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2541737720080427; and Kenneth R. Weis, “Scientists Blame Ocean Dead Zones on Climate Change,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 20, 2008, A-6, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/MNQNV50EU.DTL. 2. Haider Rizvi, “Record Glacier Melt Spurs New Calls for Climate Action,” OneWorld.net, March 18, 2008, http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/158959/1. 3. Beth Borenstein, “Narwhals More at Risk to Arctic Warming than Polar Bears,” Live•Science, April 25, 2008, http://www.livescience.com/animals/080425-ap-narwhal.html. See also Deborah Zaborenko, “Polar Bears Listed as ‘Threatened’ Species’,” Reuters, May 14, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUSN1452119020080514; and David Pearlman, “Greenhouse Gases Called Threat to Pacific Life,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 4, 2008, B-1, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/03/BA9011IG0Q.DTL.

19 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

4. Keith Bradsher, “A Drought in Australia, A Global Shortage of Rice,” New York Times, April 17, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html; Joe Romm, “Climate Progress,” March 4, 2012, ThinkProgress, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/04/437185/tornadoes-extreme- weather-climate-change/. 5. “History,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml#.T1DqxPWibAE. 6. Justin Gillis, “U.N. Panel Finds Climate Change Behind Some Extreme Weather Events,” New York Times, November 18, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/earth/un-panel-finds-climate-change- behind-some-extreme-weather-events.html. See “Press Note,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/srex/SREX_press_release.pdf. 7. “State of Knowledge,” Climate Change—Science, US Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. The abbreviation GHGs is used for greenhouse gases. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. See William Nordhaus, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,” New York Review of Books, March 22, 2012, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are- wrong/. 11. David J. C. MacKay, Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air (2009), http://www.withouthotair.com, 242. 12. “Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations (ppm) Derived from In Situ Air Measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii,” http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv. 13. “Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Scientist Finds,” ScienceDaily, November 24, 2009, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124140957.htm. 14. The greater the global warming, the harder sustainable forestry becomes. In many places warmer or drier temperatures make trees more vulnerable to insects and fire. Justin Gillis, “With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Key Climate Protectors,” New York Times, October 1, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html. 15. Justin Gillis, “As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks,” New York Times, December 16, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/warming-arctic-permafrost-fuels-climate-change- worries.html. 16. “Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?” National Geographic News, November 10, 2005, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html. 17. Sara van Gelder, “Environmental Ethics,” in Charles J. Kibert, ed., Reshaping the Built Environment, 64. 18. Peter Singer, One World, 32. 19. “Kyoto Protocol,” UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. 20. “Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts,” The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html. 21. Ibid. 22. “Byrd-Hagel Resolution,” S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st sess. (1997), http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html. Critics argue that the carbon emission reductions by signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are not going to be met and that the protocol “epitomizes the environmentalist obsession with limits.” Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 114, 120. 23. Charlie E. Coon, “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol,” The Heritage Foundation (May 11, 2001), http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm. 24. Most Americans do not realize that the Kyoto Protocol is being implemented in many parts of the world. See “UN Approves Thousandth Kyoto Clean Energy Project,” Reuters, April 14, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL1426496820080414. 25. “Cap-and-Trade Systems,” Catalyst 4, no. 1 (Spring 2005), Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/page.jsp?itemID=27226959. In a cap-and-trade program “an aggregate cap on all sources is established and these sources are then allowed to trade amongst themselves to determine which sources actually emit the total pollution load. An alternative approach with important differences is a baseline and credit program. In a baseline and credit program a set of polluters that are not under an aggregate cap can create credits by reducing their emissions below a baseline level of emissions. These credits can be purchased by polluters that are under a regulatory limit. Many of the criticisms of trading in general are targeted at baseline & credit programs rather than cap type programs.” “Emissions Trading,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade. 20 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

26. The UN supports carbon emissions trading, but indigenous groups are critical of it. Haider Rizvi, “Carbon Trading Blasted by Indigenous Groups,” OneWorld.net, May 7, 2008, http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160386/1. 27. Fionna Harvey and Damian Carrington, “Durban Climate Conference Agrees Deal to Do a Deal—Now Comes the Hard Part,” The Guardian, December 12, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/12/durban-climate-change-conference-2011- southafrica?intcmp=239. 28. A carbon emissions cap-and-trade program “could, if done right, generate billions of dollars in private investment for cleaner sources of energy.” Nordhaus and Shellenberger, Break Through, 120. 29. “Western Climate Initiative,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Regional_Climate_Action_Initiative. 30. “Jumping ahead of state and federal regulators, a Bay Area air quality district today became the first in the nation to impose fees on businesses which pump some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide into the air each year.” Kelly Zito, “Air Quality Agency Approves First-in-the-Nation Fees for Emissions,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 2008, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/BADN10QD60.DTL. 31. Felicity Barringer and Kate Galbraith, “States Aim to Cut Gases by Making Polluters Pay,” New York Times, September 15, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/16carbon.html. “Welcome,” Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, http://www.rggi.org/. 32. “Environmental Groups Slam German Climate Plans,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070821/sc_afp/germanywarmingpolitics. For critical arguments about trading carbon emissions, see “Emissions Trading,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_trading. 33. David Jackson, “Greenpeace, Others Pan G-8 Warming Deal,” USA Today, June 7, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2007–06–07-bush-g8-warming_N.htm. 34. Juliet Eilperin, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say,” Washington Post, March 10, 2008, A01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html. 35. Seth Borenstein, “Biggest Jump Ever Seen in Global Warming Gases,” USA Today, November 3, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story/2011–11–03/huge-increase-in-global-warming- gasses/51065082/1. 36. To assess your ecological footprint, see “Ecological Footprint Quiz,” http://www.earthday.net/footprint/info.asp. To consider using carbon offsets to reduce your ecological footprint, see “Why Carbon Offsets?” http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/why_offset/, and “Voluntary Carbon Offsets,” Voluntary Carbon Offset Information Portal, Stockholm Environmental Institute, Tufts Climate Initiative, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/. 37. Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler, Bringing Up a Moral Child, 8. 38. Our Common Future, http://ringofpeace.org/environment/brundtland.html. 39. The FCCC, http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php. 40. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “As Earth Warms, Virus from Tropics Moves to Italy,” New York Times, December 23, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html. “After a month of investigation, Italian public health officials discovered that the people of Castiglione di Cervia were, in fact, suffering from a tropical disease, chikungunya, a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region. But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe. Aided by global warming and globalization, Castiglione di Cervia has the dubious distinction of playing host to the first outbreak in modern Europe of a disease that had previously been seen only in the tropics.” 41. Steven Mufson, “Is This Green Enough? We Can Clean Up Our Act but It’ll Cost Us,” Washington Post, April 20, 2008, B01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802664.html. 42. “Once the forest is mature and an old tree dies and rots for every new tree that grows, the forest no longer soaks up significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.” Singer, One World, 33. 43. Juliette Jowit, “Cargo Ships Told to Go Green by Slowing Down,” The Observer, June 15, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/15/travelandtransport.carbonemissions. 44. Beth Buczynski, “Giant Kites Help Shipping Company Cut Carbon,” Care2, March 5, 2011, http://www.care2.com/causes/giant-kites-help-shipping-company-cut-carbon.html#ixzz1h8iSzi7A. 45. Nicole Olsen, “Automakers Back Higher Fuel-Economy Standards,” OneWorld.net, July 31, 2007, http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/151819/1. 46. “Obama Raises U.S. Fuel Efficiency Standard to 54.5 mpg,” Environmental News Service, August 2, 2011, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2011/2011–08–02–091.html. 21 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

47. MacKay argues that electric cars are a more viable alternative than hydrogen cars. Sustainable Energy, 127–132. 48. The only possible exception seems to be “sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is easily refined into fuel.” Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat,” New York Times, February 8, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html. 49. Ibid. “EU Defends Biofuel Goals amid Food Crises,” AFP, April 14, 2008, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gp1nkJeC-IhlYkVtsvPfp3u7mOWQ. 50. Roger Cohen, “Energy Lessons,” New York Times, June 5, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/opinion/05cohen.html. 51. Andrew Downie, “Brazil Defends Ethanol in Food-Versus-Fuel Fight,” Christian Science Monitor, May 5, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p04s01-woam.html. 52. Elizabeth Rosenthal, “New Trend in Biofuels Has High Risks,” New York Times, May 21, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/science/earth/21biofuels.html. 53. Downie, “Brazil Defends Ethanol in Food-Versus-Fuel Fight.” 54. Thomas L. Friedman, “A Good Question,” New York Times, February 25, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-a-good-question.html. 55. Mark Rice-Oxley, “Air Travel Latest Target in Climate Change Fight,” Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p01s01-woeu.html. “Growth of CO2 emissions on this scale will comfortably outstrip any gains made by improved technology and ensure aviation is an even larger contributor to global warming by 2025 than previously thought. Governments must take action to put a cap on air transport’s unrestrained growth.” Cahal Milno, “Airline Emissions ‘Far Higher than Previous Estimates’,” The Independent, May 6, 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climatechange/airline-emissions-far-higher-than-previous-estimates-821598.html. 56. “Airlines, Emissions and Europe’s Sensible Plan,” New York Times, February 26, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/airlines-emissions-and-europes-sensible-plan.html. 57. Nick Hopwood and Jordan Cohen, “Greenhouse Gases and Society,” http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm. 58. Higher prices for petroleum will reduce travel by airplane and motor vehicles and will also increase incentives for airplane and motor vehicle manufacturers to improve energy efficiency. 59. “If something is growing at a steady rate, and you want to know how long before it will double, divide the growth rate into sixty-nine.” James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 137. 60. Weatherization Assistance Program, US Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap.html. 61. MacKay, Sustainable Energy, 147. 62. Energy Star, EPA, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index. 63. Hopwood and Cohen, “Greenhouse Gases and Society.” 64. “Claims about a 250-year supply of coal won’t stand up to scrutiny for long, either. Yes, the United States has more coal than any other nation. But we’ve been mining coal in this country for 150 years—all the simple, high-quality, easy-to-get stuff is gone. What’s left is buried beneath towns and national parks, or places that are difficult, expensive, and dangerous to mine.” Mining “hard-to-get coal will also devastate Appalachia, where huge mountaintop-removal mines have already buried 700 miles of streams and 400,000 acres of forests.” Jeff Goodell, “What It Costs Us,” Washington Post, August 26, 2007, B01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401206.html. 65. Keith Bradsher and Kenneth Barboza, “China’s Burning of Coal Casts a Global Cloud,” New York Times, June 11, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html. 66. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Despite Climate Worry, Europe Turns to Coal,” New York Times, April 23, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html. 67. “Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html. 68. Nina Chestney, “It’s ‘Make or Break’ for Europe CCS: Shell,” Baltimore Sun, November 2, 2011, http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-rt-us-shell-ccstre7a12x9–20111102,0,7212359.story. 69. Lisa Friedman, “World Bank Studies Coal-Fired Power Plant for Kosovo,” Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, January 17, 2012, http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/news/world-bank-studies-coal-fired-power-plant-for-kosovo.” 70. “Clean Energy: Electricity from Natural Gas,” EPA, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/natgas.htm. 71. Joe Nocera, “How to Extract Gas Responsibly,” New York Times, February 27, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/nocera-how-to-frack-responsibly.html. 22 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

72. “Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas?” International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook: 2011, http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf. 73. “Natural Gas,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm. 74. Roger Cohen, “American Needs France’s Atomic Annie,” New York Times, January. 24, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24cohen.html. 75. “Global Warming: UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming,” Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html. 76. John Vidal, “Nuclear Expansion is a Pipe Dream, Says Report,” The Guardian, July 4, 2007, http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2117711,00.html. 77. See MacKay, Sustainable Energy, 212. 78. “European Union,” Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=127&L=0%25B. 79. “Renewable Energy: Progressing towards the 2020 target,” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (January 31, 2011), http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0031:EN:HTML:NOT. 80. Junfeng Li, “China’s Wind Power Development Exceeds Expectations,” Worldwatch Institute (June 2, 2008), http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5758. 81. Jazmine Rodriguez, “‘Tipping Point’ for Renewable Energy,” OneWorld.net, June 19, 2008, http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160914/1. 82. Melanie Hart, “China Goes Solar as America Stumbles: New Five-Year Plan Boasts Big Ambitions,” Center for American Progress (September 7, 2011), http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/china_solar.html. 83. “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fuel Consumption: Highlights,” 2011 edition, International Energy Agency, http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf. 84. Joe Romm, “Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Pollution in 2010, Chinese CO2 Emissions Now Exceed U.S.’s by 50%,” Climate Progress, November 3, 2011, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/03/361158/biggest-jump-ever-in-global-warming-pollution-in-2010- chinese-co2-emissions-now-exceed-uss-by-50/. 85. “Asia,” Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=21. 86. Anjali Jaiswal, “Solar Energy: A Dynamic Growing Potential for India,” Natural Resources Defense Council (October 14, 2011), http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ajaiswal/solar_energy_a_dynamic_growing.html. 87. “Renewable Energy in the United States,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States. 88. “Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards,” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (October 31, 2011), http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm. 89. “Greenhouse Gas Index Continues to Climb,” ScienceDaily, November 9, 2011, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109143007.htm. 90. “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm) derived from in situ air measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii,” http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv. 91. Gregg Easterbrook, “Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution,” New York Times, March 9, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09easterbrook.html. See Jim Robbins, “Sale of Carbon Credits Helping Land Rich, but Cash Poor Tribes,” New York Times, May 8, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/earth/08carb.html. 92. “Market Forces Essential to Halting Global Warming: Gore” (December 9, 2007), http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTgqt91jaTdJt5–5dSWGwnEXY41A. 93. Cornelia Dean, “Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet,” New York Times, May 22, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html. 94. “Californians support the idea of charging ‘green’ vehicle fees that would make drivers of gas guzzlers pay higher taxes and offer discounts for those driving less-polluting vehicles, according to a survey by a transportation researcher at San Jose State University.” Michael Cabanatuan, “Poll: Make Gas Guzzlers Pay Higher Fees,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 3, 2008, A-1, http://sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/03/MNIMVUPFF.DTL. 95. Farid Zakaria, “A Cure for Oil Addicts,” Newsweek, August 6, 2007, 34. 96. Monica Prasad, “On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” New York Times, March 25, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25prasad.html. Denmark was successful because it overcame the temptation to maximize tax revenues and invested these revenues in renewable energy development that was also good for the economy. 23 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).

97. Ibid. See Thomas Friedman, “Flush with Energy,” New York Times, August 9, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html. 98. Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 133. Economist Arthur C. Pigou addressed the problem of “unpriced goods” early in the twentieth century. 99. Wallace E. Oates, “An Economic Perspective on Environmental and Resources Management,” in Wallace E. Oates, ed., The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resources Management, xiv, in Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 134. Economist Theo Panayotou writes: “A combination of institutional, market and policy failures results in underpricing of scarce natural resources and environmental assets, which is then translated into underpricing of resource-based and environmental-intensive goods and services. . . . As a direct result producers and consumers of products and services do not receive correct signals about the true scarcity of resources they use up or the cost of environmental damage they cause. This leads to the socially wrong mix of economic output: overproduction and over-consumption of commodities that are resource- depleting and environment-polluting, and underproduction and underconsumption of commodities that are resource-saving and environment-friendly. Thus, the emerging pattern of economic growth and structure of the economy is one that undermines its own resource base, and is ultimately unsustainable, since relative scarcities are not respected.” Theodore Panayotou, Instruments of Change: Motivating and Financing Sustainable Development, 6, quoted in Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 135. 100. Sewell Chan, “Bloomberg Calls for Tax on Carbon Emissions,” New York Times, November 2, 2007, http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/bloomberg-calls-for-tax-on-carbon-emissions/index.html. 101. MacKay, Sustainable Energy, 225. 102. Editorial, “The Senate Shills for Big Oil,” New York Times, March 3, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03mon4.html. 103. Editorial, “Big Oil’s Friends in the Senate,” New York Times, May 5, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/opinion/05mon2.html. In California, however, utility companies must “generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal power by 2010.” Ilana DeBare, “PG&E Plans Big Investment in Solar Power,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 15, 2008, D-1, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/BUP412B774.DTL. 104. “The Senate bill, if passed, would have required that total US emissions of greenhouse gases be cut to 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and up to 71 percent by the year 2050 primarily through a ‘cap-and- trade’ system that would give companies financial incentives to reduce their emissions.” The legislation also proposed a forty-year, $800 billion “taxrelief fund” to encourage consumers to switch to cleaner technologies. Jim Lobe, “As Climate Bill Dies, Greens Express Hope,” OneWorld.net, June 9, 2008, http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160824/1/45. 105. “Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill Generates Praise and Outrage,” Environment News Service, May 12, 2010, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010–05–12–01.html. 106. Daniel J. Weiss, Rebecca Lefton, and Susan Lyon, “Oil Companies and Special Interests Spend Millions to Oppose Climate Legislation,” Center for American Progress Action Fund (September 27, 2010), http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html. 107. Energy expert Hal Harvey, quoted in Thomas L. Friedman, “Take the Subway,” New York Times, March 3, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-take-the-subway.html. 108. Ibid. 109. Bill McKibben, “Carbon’s New Math,” National Geographic 212, no. 4 (October 2007): 34. 110. Bill McKibben, Eaarth, 212. 111. Ibid., 190–191. 112. Tina Rosenberg, “Innovations in Light,” New York Times, February 2, 2012, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/innovations-in-light/. 113. “US ranks 17 as Clean Tech Producer, China Is No. 2,” FoxNews.com, May 8, 2011, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/08/ranks-17-clean-tech-producer-china-2/. 114. Ben Geman, “Amendment that Says Climate Change is Occurring Fails in House,” The Hill, April 4, 2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/154445-house-votes-down-climate-science-amendment. 115. “China’s CO2 Emissions Now on a Par with Italy’s (Per Capita),” CleanTechnia.com, October 27, 2011, http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/27/chinas-co2-emissions-now-on-a-par-with-italys-per-capita/.

24 Text from Chapter 15 of Doing Environmental Ethics by Robert Traer (Westview Press, 2013).