What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World
A vital new moral perspective on the climate change debate.
Esteemed philosopher John Broome avoids the familiar ideological stances on climate change policy and examines the issue through an invigorating new lens. As he considers the moral dimensions of climate change, he reasons clearly through what universal standards of goodness and justice require of us, both as citizens and as governments. His conclusions—some as demanding as they are logical—will challenge and enlighten. Eco-conscious readers may be surprised to hear they have a duty to offset all their carbon emissions, while policy makers will grapple with Broome’s analysis of what if anything is owed to future generations. From the science of greenhouse gases to the intricate logic of cap and trade, Broome reveals how the principles that underlie everyday decision making also provide simple and effective ideas for confronting climate change. Climate Matters is an essential contribution to one of the paramount issues of our time.
(Taken from publisher's website.)
Esteemed philosopher John Broome avoids the familiar ideological stances on climate change policy and examines the issue through an invigorating new lens. As he considers the moral dimensions of climate change, he reasons clearly through what universal standards of goodness and justice require of us, both as citizens and as governments. His conclusions—some as demanding as they are logical—will challenge and enlighten. Eco-conscious readers may be surprised to hear they have a duty to offset all their carbon emissions, while policy makers will grapple with Broome’s analysis of what if anything is owed to future generations. From the science of greenhouse gases to the intricate logic of cap and trade, Broome reveals how the principles that underlie everyday decision making also provide simple and effective ideas for confronting climate change. Climate Matters is an essential contribution to one of the paramount issues of our time.
(Taken from publisher's website.)
210 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
26 people are currently reading
337 people want to read
About the author
John Broome
12 books6 followersLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
John Broome s a British philosopher and economist. He was the White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name
John Broome s a British philosopher and economist. He was the White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 25, 2020
We're going to be reading this book in my Climate and Ethics class so in like three months I'm going to have to write an academic essay about it but hey, right now, I can write my thoughts on it without thinking about grades! Watch me make lots of uninformed claims!
In Climate Matters, Broome attempts to answer questions relating to climate change through ethics. Each chapter deals with a specific query and together, he builds a framework for considering the climate.
I knew Broome as the guy who said economics is a field of ethics since economics knows how to calculate stuff but without ethics, we don't know what we value. Therefore, I was not surprised that economics features heavily in this book. As a PPE student, it was delightful to see Broome use economical theory to base ethical actions. When we read his paper in class last semester, it wasn't entirely clear to me how ethical economics looks in practice. Here, we see it in action and it's just so cool.
However, if you're a hardcore philosophy person, you won't enjoy this book. There's a lot of economics for an ethics book. Broome's conclusions are mostly philosophical but he gets there through economical terminology and theory. That can definitely be unfortunate if you prefer the logical philosophical way.
Other reviews claim this book is outdated. In some ways, they're absolutely right. Broome leaves room in case it turns out climate change is nothing to worry about but nowadays, that's an odd claim. In 2020, it seems painfully obvious that climate change isn't going to be a problem in 400 years. Climate change is going to be a problem soon. We are going to experience it, we are already experiencing it.
Additionally, Broome falls into the classical "all of us need to do something" mindset. He discusses mostly individual responsibility. His comments about governments don't really go deeper than debating whether the government needs to act. I was shocked that he does not discuss companies. I mean, the impact of massive companies is far superior than individuals. It's convenient to pretend that if all of us close the lights more often climate change will go away but that's simply not the case. Large scale companies need to change.
This is a fascinating topic because where is that change supposed to come from? Can the government dictate climate friendly policies when the impact of climate change is still mostly in the future? Which policies are the most effective in order to curb the companies' effects? Are we willing to accept an economic impact for the climate? This connects with what Broome writes about our responsibilities to future generations. However, the work needs to be done on a larger scale than individuals so it is a shame that Broome only really asks the ethical individual questions.
However, despite these flaws, I think Broome's exploration is incredibly worthwhile. The questions he raises are still relevant. For example, how do we make ethical choices when the future is uncertain? When research can contradict itself? What do we owe future generations? What does the government owe future generations?
There's a chapter about population growth. Now, as far as I know, it's mostly agreed that the problem isn't population growth- it's what each society does. The West ruins the environment far more than places with a bigger population but less of a footprint. So the question isn't how many people are here but rather where they are. Incidentally, I'm hoping to write my final paper about the responsibilities of richer countries towards poorer ones so I'm gonna wait with my thoughts on this till I properly do some reading.
With covid-19, that chapter about population growth felt different. It reminded me of that economics class where we discussed how a smaller population means more capital per person and then the slideshow pointed out that a plague is good for capital gain. Needless to say, it was a little uncomfortable to read. Sure, theoretically, that makes sense but now that there is a literal plague, it's not great to hear that people around you will die but good news! More capital for everyone!
Covid-19 has forced us to take ethical questions and bring them to life. Broome writes about assigning value to human life. He ponders whether a life of an 80 year old is equally worth a life of a 17 year old and well, that's an interesting theoretical question but nowadays, it's hard to only see it as just that. Sure, perhaps a young person's year is "worth" more but heck, I care about my grandparents and that's something that's hard to quantify economically speaking.
To conclude, I think it's going to be fun to come back to this review at the end of the semester and see what I think about it after spending more time with this book. If you're interested in climate change and ethics, I imagine there are more recent publications but if you like economics and philosophy, this is a lot of fun.
What I'm Taking With Me
- The last chapter is a fantastic summary of everything so hopefully I'll remember to go back there when I get confused.
- Ugh, this class was supposed to be full of class discussions and now that it's online it's not going to be the same, my Zoom anxiety has no bounds.
- I absolutely adore the fact that Broome just went, "hey economists, you all are nothing without ethics". However, his fondness of utilitarianism is kind of off putting. Like, you can't just assume utilitarianism like that.
- We're going to be meeting Broome! I'm so ridiculously excited, he's like an actual academic celebrity!!
------------------------------
Level of being Hermione: I finished reading a course book a week before the beginning of the semester.
The real ethical question is whether I can count this book as part of my reading challenge if it's technically for uni. Review to come!
In Climate Matters, Broome attempts to answer questions relating to climate change through ethics. Each chapter deals with a specific query and together, he builds a framework for considering the climate.
I knew Broome as the guy who said economics is a field of ethics since economics knows how to calculate stuff but without ethics, we don't know what we value. Therefore, I was not surprised that economics features heavily in this book. As a PPE student, it was delightful to see Broome use economical theory to base ethical actions. When we read his paper in class last semester, it wasn't entirely clear to me how ethical economics looks in practice. Here, we see it in action and it's just so cool.
However, if you're a hardcore philosophy person, you won't enjoy this book. There's a lot of economics for an ethics book. Broome's conclusions are mostly philosophical but he gets there through economical terminology and theory. That can definitely be unfortunate if you prefer the logical philosophical way.
Other reviews claim this book is outdated. In some ways, they're absolutely right. Broome leaves room in case it turns out climate change is nothing to worry about but nowadays, that's an odd claim. In 2020, it seems painfully obvious that climate change isn't going to be a problem in 400 years. Climate change is going to be a problem soon. We are going to experience it, we are already experiencing it.
Additionally, Broome falls into the classical "all of us need to do something" mindset. He discusses mostly individual responsibility. His comments about governments don't really go deeper than debating whether the government needs to act. I was shocked that he does not discuss companies. I mean, the impact of massive companies is far superior than individuals. It's convenient to pretend that if all of us close the lights more often climate change will go away but that's simply not the case. Large scale companies need to change.
This is a fascinating topic because where is that change supposed to come from? Can the government dictate climate friendly policies when the impact of climate change is still mostly in the future? Which policies are the most effective in order to curb the companies' effects? Are we willing to accept an economic impact for the climate? This connects with what Broome writes about our responsibilities to future generations. However, the work needs to be done on a larger scale than individuals so it is a shame that Broome only really asks the ethical individual questions.
However, despite these flaws, I think Broome's exploration is incredibly worthwhile. The questions he raises are still relevant. For example, how do we make ethical choices when the future is uncertain? When research can contradict itself? What do we owe future generations? What does the government owe future generations?
There's a chapter about population growth. Now, as far as I know, it's mostly agreed that the problem isn't population growth- it's what each society does. The West ruins the environment far more than places with a bigger population but less of a footprint. So the question isn't how many people are here but rather where they are. Incidentally, I'm hoping to write my final paper about the responsibilities of richer countries towards poorer ones so I'm gonna wait with my thoughts on this till I properly do some reading.
With covid-19, that chapter about population growth felt different. It reminded me of that economics class where we discussed how a smaller population means more capital per person and then the slideshow pointed out that a plague is good for capital gain. Needless to say, it was a little uncomfortable to read. Sure, theoretically, that makes sense but now that there is a literal plague, it's not great to hear that people around you will die but good news! More capital for everyone!
Covid-19 has forced us to take ethical questions and bring them to life. Broome writes about assigning value to human life. He ponders whether a life of an 80 year old is equally worth a life of a 17 year old and well, that's an interesting theoretical question but nowadays, it's hard to only see it as just that. Sure, perhaps a young person's year is "worth" more but heck, I care about my grandparents and that's something that's hard to quantify economically speaking.
To conclude, I think it's going to be fun to come back to this review at the end of the semester and see what I think about it after spending more time with this book. If you're interested in climate change and ethics, I imagine there are more recent publications but if you like economics and philosophy, this is a lot of fun.
What I'm Taking With Me
- The last chapter is a fantastic summary of everything so hopefully I'll remember to go back there when I get confused.
- Ugh, this class was supposed to be full of class discussions and now that it's online it's not going to be the same, my Zoom anxiety has no bounds.
- I absolutely adore the fact that Broome just went, "hey economists, you all are nothing without ethics". However, his fondness of utilitarianism is kind of off putting. Like, you can't just assume utilitarianism like that.
- We're going to be meeting Broome! I'm so ridiculously excited, he's like an actual academic celebrity!!
------------------------------
Level of being Hermione: I finished reading a course book a week before the beginning of the semester.
The real ethical question is whether I can count this book as part of my reading challenge if it's technically for uni. Review to come!
November 26, 2017
A good overview of the ethical side of climate change but a bit too short and heavy on the economics.
December 28, 2019
Thank god it's over
I wanted to read this for a course I'm doing at university and I only have a few thoughts to share:
• it's very outdated (not its fault)
• it's way too philosophical/economical for this poor science student
While it was interesting to read (or listen since I audiobooked it) things from a different point of view than my own, it was also very disquieting and some things gave me chills because of the sheer objectivity in which they were shared. I acknowledge this philosophy/economy/ethics world is not at all mine and I will just stick to the science thank you very much.
Also can the author stop using "she/her" when referring to a generic person, just use they ffs
I wanted to read this for a course I'm doing at university and I only have a few thoughts to share:
• it's very outdated (not its fault)
• it's way too philosophical/economical for this poor science student
While it was interesting to read (or listen since I audiobooked it) things from a different point of view than my own, it was also very disquieting and some things gave me chills because of the sheer objectivity in which they were shared. I acknowledge this philosophy/economy/ethics world is not at all mine and I will just stick to the science thank you very much.
Also can the author stop using "she/her" when referring to a generic person, just use they ffs
July 27, 2019
It's hard to believe this book is only 7 years old. With its constant repetitions that climate change is a slow process that will mostly affect future generations and which might turn out to be a not-very-serious problem and which will likely not have very serious economic impacts, it feels like it might as well have been written in the nineties.
That is one serious issue I had with the book: it is extremely out of date; practically obsolete. As well, it completely discounts any impacts to non-human entities of any kind, from ecosystems to non-human sentient animals. If your concerns re: the climate crisis relate at all to impacts to anything other than people, you will find no treatment of them here.
Thirdly, with rare exceptions, it doesn't include its sources. Only two of its economic sources are named (the Stern report and William Nordhaus's work); other economic claims, such as the above that growth will continue regardless, are to be taken on faith. An IPCC report is named as a source of climate data in one section, but in the rest of the book, predictions and forecasts are given without sources, so they can't be evaluated.
Fourthly, his assumptions about the solutions to the climate crisis appear totally unfounded; again, he doesn't give his sources, so it's impossible to know where he's getting this from, but in some spots (eg. p. 179) he states that decarbonizing would mean having "to close down immediately almost all the activities that make our lives good. We would have to live at a level that is just enough to maintain the propagation of our species." ...no? Seriously, I know the GND and Project Drawdown etc. were still in the future in 2012, but Planet B and other frameworks weren't; solutions for transitioning rapidly off fossil fuels were available even then that wouldn't knock us back to the paleolithic.
And lastly, I am not in any sense a fan of utilitarian philosophy, and you guessed it, that's the position he was writing from. So even the framework he was basing his arguments on was completely unpersuasive to me. You, on the other hand, may find it refreshing to be treated to pages contemplating whether the deaths of millions of people from climate impacts can be considered a bad thing. (I mean, he does end up concluding that it's bad; but to my knowledge we don't engage in extended navel-gazing about the badness or goodness of other things that kill millions of people.)
It isn't terrible. His argument for carbon off-sets was relatively persuasive and I'm going to look into that for myself. But I found it both deadly dull and frustrating, and that, in combination with how swiftly the state of knowledge on climate has changed since 2012, makes this book not worth a current reader's time.
That is one serious issue I had with the book: it is extremely out of date; practically obsolete. As well, it completely discounts any impacts to non-human entities of any kind, from ecosystems to non-human sentient animals. If your concerns re: the climate crisis relate at all to impacts to anything other than people, you will find no treatment of them here.
Thirdly, with rare exceptions, it doesn't include its sources. Only two of its economic sources are named (the Stern report and William Nordhaus's work); other economic claims, such as the above that growth will continue regardless, are to be taken on faith. An IPCC report is named as a source of climate data in one section, but in the rest of the book, predictions and forecasts are given without sources, so they can't be evaluated.
Fourthly, his assumptions about the solutions to the climate crisis appear totally unfounded; again, he doesn't give his sources, so it's impossible to know where he's getting this from, but in some spots (eg. p. 179) he states that decarbonizing would mean having "to close down immediately almost all the activities that make our lives good. We would have to live at a level that is just enough to maintain the propagation of our species." ...no? Seriously, I know the GND and Project Drawdown etc. were still in the future in 2012, but Planet B and other frameworks weren't; solutions for transitioning rapidly off fossil fuels were available even then that wouldn't knock us back to the paleolithic.
And lastly, I am not in any sense a fan of utilitarian philosophy, and you guessed it, that's the position he was writing from. So even the framework he was basing his arguments on was completely unpersuasive to me. You, on the other hand, may find it refreshing to be treated to pages contemplating whether the deaths of millions of people from climate impacts can be considered a bad thing. (I mean, he does end up concluding that it's bad; but to my knowledge we don't engage in extended navel-gazing about the badness or goodness of other things that kill millions of people.)
It isn't terrible. His argument for carbon off-sets was relatively persuasive and I'm going to look into that for myself. But I found it both deadly dull and frustrating, and that, in combination with how swiftly the state of knowledge on climate has changed since 2012, makes this book not worth a current reader's time.
March 20, 2024
if you approach the climate issue from a social welfare economics perspective, you'd enjoy his ideas. i do think they offer an interesting perspective, but broome evidently centres Western thought in his approach. as such, his ideas of justice (particularly his intergenerational philosophies) don't sufficiently consider anyone who doesn't fit the Western norm, including racialised, disabled, and otherwise other-ed people.
that being said, i found ch.4, in which he outlines his notion of duties of goodness vs duties of justice, quite compelling. unfortunately, he seems to overlook these ideas in many of his own arguments lol
that being said, i found ch.4, in which he outlines his notion of duties of goodness vs duties of justice, quite compelling. unfortunately, he seems to overlook these ideas in many of his own arguments lol
December 1, 2020
Hard to believe I read this book just a few years ago since I've forgotten most of it. Anyway, it's a decent primer for thinking about climate change, but the philosophical discussion was not entirely convincing, and I wish the book did a better job highlighting the dangers of climate change.
June 30, 2018
A really great book for introducing some of the main moral issues climate change raises—in fact, I'm planning to assign this when I teach environmental ethics in the fall. I really appreciated Broome's background in economics and the accessible discussion of relevant tools from economics throughout the book. I learned a lot and would recommend this to philosophers and non-philosophers alike.
July 18, 2021
If one talks and argue about climate change on the high horse of morality then flying a private jet is permissible.... yeah right...
I do recommend reading it. Just because I didn't like it doesn't make it bioenergy.
I do recommend reading it. Just because I didn't like it doesn't make it bioenergy.
April 3, 2024
Honestly not a bad school read. It was informative and made me think, but it was a little dry at times. Would still recommend if you’re looking to learn about the ethical issues associated with climate change.
August 31, 2017
A philosophical/economic approach to ethics regarding climate change. Clear and concise, but look elsewhere if you're looking for a scientific discussion.
December 27, 2017
Too long winded for something that could be explained more concisely. New, fresh ideas on climate justice from a philosophical perspective.
December 28, 2021
:( sad bc i just finished my final cc ethics paper and it was mala no disrespect to broome you were so nice to read and wonderful leagues better than nordhaus but also i just hate econ majors so
Read
December 15, 2023another book for school thank u envr322 for getting me to my reading goal
October 3, 2013
I'm completely won over to the climate change issue. I don't believe that the vast majority of climate scientists can all be wrong. I'm also won over to the proposition that climate change is as much a moral and ethical question as a practical one of mankind today doing all it can to minimise carbon emissions and prevent extreme weather and rising sea levels in the future as much as it can. I think people living today do have an obligation to leave an livable-on planet to people up in the future.
So having said that, I really should have found this book a Good Read. But I'm afraid I didn't. I should have felt moved by it but I wasn't. It was simply too dry and academic for my taste (and intellectual level,I suppose), and once the author had got really into his stride discussing the intricacies of economic modelling of future scenarios I'm afraid I completely turned off and skimmed to the end of the book, hoping for some interesting conclusions; some inspiration to stir me to greater effort to live more sustainably. I didn't find any though and was left disappointed. I felt that the 'message', if there was intended to be one, could have been presented in one sentence: please don't wreck the earth's atmosphere and seas today because others in the future will want to use it after you. I didn't need a book which was 25% after-notes to tell me that.
I'm sure this is an excellent text book for students of economics or moral philosophy, but I'm afraid it just wasn't for me. Sorry.
So having said that, I really should have found this book a Good Read. But I'm afraid I didn't. I should have felt moved by it but I wasn't. It was simply too dry and academic for my taste (and intellectual level,I suppose), and once the author had got really into his stride discussing the intricacies of economic modelling of future scenarios I'm afraid I completely turned off and skimmed to the end of the book, hoping for some interesting conclusions; some inspiration to stir me to greater effort to live more sustainably. I didn't find any though and was left disappointed. I felt that the 'message', if there was intended to be one, could have been presented in one sentence: please don't wreck the earth's atmosphere and seas today because others in the future will want to use it after you. I didn't need a book which was 25% after-notes to tell me that.
I'm sure this is an excellent text book for students of economics or moral philosophy, but I'm afraid it just wasn't for me. Sorry.
December 21, 2015
This is definitely the best philosophical treatment on climate change for non-philosophers. Broome writes with great clarity and lays out most of the philosophical issues raised by the issue of climate change, including the difference between individual and state obligations, the non-identity problem, dealing with uncertainty, and discounting. His normative theory is consequentialist. There is also a basic overview of the science of global warming and the economic issues that would underlie a climate change agreement. One of the virtues of the book is its examination of the philosophical questions raised by the technical questions in policy debates. For example, one technical question for the economics of climate change how much we should spend now to prevent harms in the future--the discount rate. Many economists believe we should use the market discount rate. Broome raises several arguments against this view, some of which are persuasive. For example, future generations are not represented in the market for loanable funds.
A further virtue of the book is its ecumenical spirit. The book is pitched not as an end to the debate but a contribution to democratic argument over climate change policy. It is a contribution to a dialogue, not an effort to end the conversation.
A further virtue of the book is its ecumenical spirit. The book is pitched not as an end to the debate but a contribution to democratic argument over climate change policy. It is a contribution to a dialogue, not an effort to end the conversation.
December 19, 2012
The great virtue of this book is how careful, clear and readable it is. It sets out a modified consequentialist framework for discussing climate change and takes the reader through some of the key philosophical issues, such as uncertainty, the value of lives and discounting the future. Broome explains how many of the supposedly technical choices made by economists in thinking about these problems actually involve controversial political and philosophical assessments. Broome carefully distinguishes between out individual responsibility (centrally not to treat others unjustly by imposing harms on them) and the responsibility of the state (a stronger duty to promote the best overall outcome). The ideal audience for this book, is, I think someone working in science, engineering, economics or policy who wants to understand the philosophical issues here. Broome does a really excellent job of setting them out without bullying the reader and whilst being scrupulously transparent about the choices he's making in the text.
February 27, 2015
A Professor at the University of Oxford, John Broome is one of the world’s experts on climate change. His book briefly reviews the science, which includes uncertainty about precisely how and when the climate will change. He also discusses how to cope with that uncertainty, considers how justice is involved, and compares harms and benefits that are widely separated in time, (since the costs of alternate energy are borne now to produce benefits in the distant future).
An average person from a rich country born in 1950 will emit about 800 tons of CO2 in a lifetime, which it is estimated will cost more than six months of healthy human life. Even if we’ve already passed the point of no return with climate change, our individual emissions either accelerate or delay catastrophe. On the other hand, individually reducing our carbon footprints won’t solve the problem since everyone would have to do it; the solution requires government action.
An average person from a rich country born in 1950 will emit about 800 tons of CO2 in a lifetime, which it is estimated will cost more than six months of healthy human life. Even if we’ve already passed the point of no return with climate change, our individual emissions either accelerate or delay catastrophe. On the other hand, individually reducing our carbon footprints won’t solve the problem since everyone would have to do it; the solution requires government action.
February 8, 2016
This book approaches the ethics of climate change primarily from a utilitarian based morality. The emphasis in his analysis is on economics. Broome's book is short and focused on his argument. Don't expect a survey or history of ideas about the subject. I gave this book 5 stars because I found the arguments to be clear and presented in a way that seemed thoughtful and trustworthy. But I was rating the book, not the argument. While I believe that an economic perspective can illuminate and at times become a vehicle for our values, I am skeptical about the role in economics as solution to climate change. Access to the economic model is inherently limited. Neither, people from the future, nor non-human life forms are visible in an economic sense except through the proxy value to presently living humans. Broome did not, and I am not sure that he can, overcome the limitations of our own perspective, whether economic or otherwise.
January 24, 2013
Somewhat technical at times, but Broome writes in a very clear and measured manner, making his arguments a little easier to follow. Learned the difference between a person's duty of what goodnes and justice would require, and how that differs from a government's duty. Not a page turner and nothing very shocking, but glad I struggled through and read this book.
May 18, 2013
An easy-to-read discussion of the effects of climate from a handful of different angles. While I am hesitant to agree with a few of the methodologies put forward, I believe that, in the end, it is important to be having this discussion in the first place. To that end, both Broome and I agree.
August 14, 2014
Started well, very repetitive.
January 1, 2017
Very good, if a little confusing on some of the economic theories.
July 12, 2024
En eneste cost-benefit analyse av alt som er fint og godt:'(
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews