Etika klimatické změny: Co je a co není správné ve světě, který se otepluje

by James Garvey

Etika klimatické změny vyšla původně sice již v roce 2008, takže by se mohlo zdát, že ve světle nových poznatků musela zastarat. Garveyho kniha však není v první řadě souborem faktů o změně globálního klimatu a vlivu člověka na ni, ale filosofickým dílem, jež pojímá dané téma jako morální problém. To znamená, že některé faktické informace, jež Garvey uvádí, je třeba ve světle nových poznatků aktualizovat, ale filosofický obsah jeho knihy a návrhy na řešení situace jsou nejen stále platné, nýbrž vyznívají nyní naléhavěji než před deseti lety. O existenci klimatické změny a vlivu člověka na ni lze totiž dnes pochybovat ještě méně než tehdy, avšak lidstvo mezitím udělalo pro řešení ekologické krize žalostně málo a vyhlídka na katastrofu nabyla ještě reálnějších obrysů. Vzhledem k tomu, že téma se tak či onak týká nás všech, je rovněž záslužné, že James Garvey napsal svou knihu velmi přístupným stylem.

Genres: Climate Change, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Environment, Politics, Nature, Science

275 pages, Paperback

First published March 21, 2008

Reviews

[Sarah Clement · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a slim volume, so it leaves you with more questions than answers, but it certainly does prompt your thinking. It starts quite slow, going briefly over the science of climate change and the concept of moral philosophy. For me, I found that the first 3 chapters (A Warmer World, Right and Wrong, and Responsibility) were just rehashing what I already knew, what is implicit in what I do, and what is actually enshrined in institutional principals, but I think that's precisely what makes this book accessible for a broader audience. The second half of the book is what really makes it worthwhile, as it addresses both arguments against action and how we might approach action, both collectively and individually. It's here that I wanted more, but I certainly enjoyed what was there. It prompted interesting moral questions whilst still recognising that this is not reflected in the reality of how climate change is addressed in practice, but still reminding the reader - again and again - that we were focusing on morality and not pragmatism. Some readers might find this frustrating because such reasoned moral arguments can rarely, if ever, come into real-life debates about climate change action, but it is characteristic of a philosophy book and therefore has to be appreciated on its merits as just that.

That said, there were many sections of the book that left me wanting for more discussion - not least the last chapter on individual responsibility - and I thought this brief whistle stop tour through moral philosophy needed more substance, especially in order to translate the arguments to action. I was excited to see Garvey raised the issue of psychological characteristics, as I think one of the most frustrating characteristics of contemporary philosophers is that they behave as though certain philosophical questions can still be contemplated independent of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, the discussion in this area is too brief to be useful in terms of marrying moral philosophy and psychological human reality, and this remains an area that I think merits a much fuller discussion - perhaps just not by a philosopher.

While I enjoyed this book and thought it had a lot of merit, I'm still not entirely sure of its audience. I can't imagine a student of philosophy getting much out of it, and a climate change denier certainly wouldn't touch it - nor would they be open to the arguments contained in it. In the end, I wonder if it's a book directed toward those who already believe that climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time, and it simply articulates arguments that are already felt by that audience.

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 3 out of 5]

In that I was looking for something to motivate me to do more, as well as counter-arguments for those who stand in the way, this book was a hit. I think I could have used a bit more philosophy, actually, it's all very applied here and written so non-specialists can follow both the science and the arguments, but I would have appreciated some more post-holocaust ethics. Somehow Kant and utilitarianism don't do it for me anymore.

Freakier is the effect of the book being 10 years old. Projections in it are out dated, everything is much much worse than scientists predicted... for example the book says somewhere that we'd be at 380ppm by now but it's already well over 410ppm... the anger or whatever you are supposed to feel when you read about how inconsequential and therefore unethical the Kyoto agreement was, and how it didn't go into effect anywhere until 2005... that already in the 1990s the scientists were saying we have to cut emissions by 60 to 80% and instead it took 15 years to agree to cut 8% and even those cuts haven't happened, in fact, emissions are up... it's enough to make a reader despair. And of course, it's not about the numbers, it's about the floods and the droughts and the extreme events and the hunger... the climate catastrophe is upon us and like the monkeys we are we just keep on consuming two or three more planets than we actually have.

Just remembered that this book also massively spoils The Sirens of Titan ...

[Hendrik Schuthof · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting reflection on the moral shortcomings with regards to climate change. It talks of states as well as individuals but keeps these separate. The result is a wonderfully clear work that calls upon its readers to start doing the right things.

[Chuk's Book Reviews · Rating 3 out of 5]

Follow/Subscribe: YouTube, Patreon, Instagram

3.5 Stars

Feelings about the book:
- A random charity shop pick-up (I'm going to make this a bookshelf category now lol), and this was a pretty good book.

Premise/Plot:
- This book is a moral call for immediate action on climate action. James Garvey brings up questions of obligation and responsibility. As he explores why progress has been so slow on a philosophical level around climate change.

Themes:
- Life or death, global north vs global south's climate perspective, justice, utilitarianism and more

Pros:
- A quick, easy and genuine read

- Does what it says on the tin really - it got me thinking about the ethics of climate change

Cons:
- I may be wrong about this - but it doesn't seem like it'll help to shape discussions and plans from a cultural and media propaganda perspective.

- To be expected with this kind of book, there are a lot of questions and not enough solutions.

Quotes:
‘Science can give us a grip on the facts, but we need more than that if we want to act on the basis of those facts. The something more which is needed involves values.’

‘Some argue for biocentrism, the view that every living thing has a good of its own, and that the attainment of such goods is of intrinsic value.’

‘Part of the disagreement has to do with whether economics is the right sort of tool, employing the right set of values, for deciding some of the meatier questions arising from the fact of climate change.’

‘We know there are dangers ahead, but we don’t know exactly what to do or exactly when to do it. Is this sort of uncertainty grounds for doing little or nothing?’

‘Would you forgive someone for avoiding a moral obligation because he thought that it might cost him too much?’

‘How might one begin to put a dollar value on the loss of whole species or ecosystems or people?’

‘If large parts of the developed world won’t agree to action on climate change unless historical emissions are largely ignored, is it right to ignore them?’

‘You can die for your own principles, if you like, but can you really insist that others die for them, too?’

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although it is well written and fairly convincing, I’m not sure Garvey needed to bother with writing The Ethics of Climate change. If you are interested in reading it, you are probably curious about what the most ethical actions would be, in the face of climate change. Unfortunately, the answer is mostly vague or full of suggestions that it’s less about your action and more about the action of countries and corporations (the length of your shower affects the climate, but not as much as the coal industry does, and it’s not really in everyone’s power to switch to a non-coal-powered system). Generally, he treats the question as a foregone conclusion and gives such shallow analysis that I didn’t feel like I was hearing all of the argument. Things like, (and I paraphrase) “that’s an economic problem and this is an ethics book, so this isn’t the place for that discussion” really water down this argument.
What’s more, all of Garvey’s solutions hinges on 4 goals that I don’t totally agree with.
Anyhow, I’d like to hear more about solutions that take into account the future impacts of our decisions. For example, should I be allowed to pollute more now if I never have kids (because my kids and their kids will pollute more than I ever could on my own). He hardly brushed population dynamics and the ethics of reproduction in the face of climate change and I think that’s the most interesting question.

[Graham Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

The good in this book is leading through a moral argument in favour of climate change action (multiple arguments, in fact). The bad is that the framework used to frame the argument is at best lightly sketched, and at worst deliberately ignored. For example, the first chapter is on the fact that scientific consensus at time of writing supported an anthropogenic basis for climate change. The evidence in support of this is given, and clear. What isn’t given is a discussion of the philosophy of science, and how a Popperian outlook leads scientists to sound like they’re hedging on points where they’re highly confident.

So good book, not a long read, lays out its argument well, doesn’t support the argument enough or provide beneficial context in my view.

[Paulina Wiatr · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helped me more than any other I read while doing research for my dissertation, to reframe the debate on climate change from “what should be done” to “who should bear a responsibility for it to make the new climate deal more just and equitable”. It might seem to be quite technical at first but it’s a great introduction to the issue of ethics in climate change discourse

[Zach Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good introduction to climate ethics. At this point the science is probably dated, but the idea behind the moral issues climate change raises is still foundational. To supplement the book’s age, the Oxford University Press’s “A Very Short Introduction” series on climate change might be an accessible, apt read to stay more current on the science.

[Kyle van Oosterum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid introduction to a fascinating subject. A bit repetitive in parts, but the message is certainly driven home with the aid of well-written, philosophically rigorous arguments and questions. A quick and insightful read on one of the more cognitively difficult things to reflect upon.

[Copywriterina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trochu rozvláčný styl, který mě místy štval a připomínal vysokoškolská skripta, ale jinak osvěžující kniha. Morální rovinu klimatické změny představuje lidsky a naléhavě. I v tom pozvolném tempu. Doporučuju.

[Ad Astra · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book for my Environmental Philosophy. This is getting a low rating because although it was an informative book, it built a lot of its arguments relying on names and points based on the fact that people were scientists. I would have liked a little more exploration on the theory and functioning of global climate change, which I believe is a fact. But then again, I should have been paying attention to the title. This is an ethical debate about the function of industrialization, globalization, and the increasing discrepancy between those who can pay to build shelters and technology to avoid our damaged habitat, and those who cannot. It was a really eye opening book, and a lot of down to earth (no pun intended) action and ideas of what we can do as a species, nations, and people was discussed.

As always, please recycle.

[Simon Bale · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very lucid and accessible book covering what it sets out to cover: the ethica basis for the various decisions required when we confront climate change.

It is an honest and realistic book. Garvey doesn't try to reduce the topic to the lowest common denominator, but also does not overwhelm with data. I find this valuable. Too many climate changes texts can become rather stuffed full of the detail and fail to do what Garvey does: provide good arguments for actually doing something.

Read it and then act. This book doesn't shout about it from the titel page, but it is an activists' tool. It guides us through the arguments, but then steps back and offers the encouragement..."your turn?"

[Christina Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book clearly goes through morality to action, personal and collective, in terms of global warming. Gives a good overview of the science that, as we have learned, can no longer be dismissed, and discusses our personal and societal reasonings for not doing anything substantive to address the problem. It is a deep, troubled reading, and he warns that it will be necessary to take breaks. In other words, the truth is not sugar coated for easy or pleasant consumption. Garvey is trying to make a point: We need to do something now - right now (so go turn out that light and suffer the heat a little before turning on the A/C!) - and it is morally right to take action.

[Rajani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Garvey asks many good ethical questions about addressing climate change and our somewhat inadequate actions at present. He questions many ethical stance taken in climate change. However, his ethics of climate change I feel is still building. This book only gives the foundation on which he wants to base his ethic of climate change on. Nevertheless, he stresses us to think of our own climate change and somehow gives the blueprint on how to do so. The read is not always smooth but you won't feel like you wasted your time reading this book. I definitely recommend this book.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is a very clear and well-written book. the basic argument is pretty predictable: on pretty much any way of looking at ethics, we owe it to each other not to do things that put others under high risk of damage, pain, death. all of the climate science says that that's precisely what we are doing by polluting at the current levels. qed. i feel like that's stuff most of us know, but it was helpful to have it put in such a straightforward way.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just read first two or three chapters. I really liked his clear style and approach to moral philosophy. However I was looking for something else - not so much a consideration of why action on climate change is an important moral issue, but rather, a more detailed examination of the moral choices to be made in handling climate change, especially in dealing with trade-offs between developed and developing world.

[David Peters · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book opens your eyes to the collective issues we will have to deal with in a warming world. At the same time Mr. Garvey presents ethical and moral reasoning for why certain actions should be taken in order to address these issues. He makes you think beyond the present and into the future, if our actions lack now then the results will only be worse down the road.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little dry but really gave me a lot to think about. Good book that helped me teach my class relating the topic of climate change and interweaving philosophy.

[Tw Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very goos story.

[Mills College Library]

179.1 G2446 2008