, , , ,


(Five-minute read)

Why is this?

Because we have not yet grasped the enormity of what is happing.


Because there are so many dimensions to the climate problem – natural science, social science, policy etc.

It’s all jolly well to say that human-induced climate change is widely regarded as one of the greatest – if not the greatest – moral challenges of the 21st century. Not merely does it raise numerous ethical issues, but many of these are profoundly difficult and take us to the limits of our moral imagination.

Moreover, the ethical dilemmas posed by climate change arise at multiple levels – for citizens, scientists, policymakers, organisations, companies, nation-states and the international community – and traverse many different areas of moral inquiry.

If we go on ignoring climate change there will be a social collapse not because the world is getting warmer but because we will be unable to feed ourselves.

There might well be a growing realisation by the public that the weather is changing but in the scientific community, there is a growing realisation that we are rapidly approaching if not already reaching tipping point.

The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased.

If existing feedbacks change because the climate changes, or if new feedbacks like permafrost or methane hydrates become relevant, 2C rise will not be the bottom of the range. Add in the extra warming arising from the loss of ice and you have temperatures rises away above.An activist showing the Extinction Rebellion logo

You don’t have to be a climate scientist to agree that these anomalies are a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming is exceedingly small.

It is not possible to continue with unstainable capitalist profit which is destroying itself by ignoring science.

Here are the questions yet to be answered.

What is the nature and extent of our responsibilities to future generations?

What is the value of individual species and ecosystems, and how should we value the possible extinction of millions of species?

How should we make decisions in the face of uncertainty, including the possibility of catastrophic and irreversible damage to our planet?

What criteria should be used to determine the appropriate targets for the
stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?

Who should pay for the inevitable costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to what extent, if at all, should those who suffer the negative impacts of climate change be compensated?

How should the international community respond if certain sovereign states block effective global action or refuse to contribute fairly to the collective effort?

The above are also the reasons that we will be unable to act as one.

Capitalism unsustainable policies for profit ensure this. No one wants to bear the cost.

So there is only one solution to make a profit for profit sake pay.

A world aid commission of 0.05% on all profit. ( See previous posts)

All human comments appreciated. All like clicking and abuse chucked in the bin.