I have not written about ethics as a determinant in a blog … but as of now, in a blog comment.

In my Michigan class, I deliberately introduce a discussion of ethics early in the course. That was to stand in contrast to what seemed to be the normal run of events, that after it was over there was a statement “and, of course, there are ethical issues.” My primary introduction to the subject has been Maria Carmen Lemos. So why did I make the original statement?

One path of ethical arguments focuses on winners and losers, and winners and losers usually comes down to money, rich part of the world versus poor part of the world. There are issues such as adaptive capacity, which is the ability to build resilience to climate change - a matter of money. There are issues of liability, something that again often collapses to a discussion of money. There are questions of social justice, and these questions often become one of populations that are poorer are made more vulnerable, by policy, to environmental hazards, including potentially climate change. So at one level, in many issues of justice, those who are right and those who are wronged, money becomes the common language, an interface across issues, a medium of exchange, that is, currency.

Another path of ethical discussions follows on how do near-term actions impact the long term, the future, those far away from us in time?

And yet nother path of ethical discussions focuses on what is right and wrong, but that is based on belief systems. Belief systems are anchored in all sorts of things, facts, emotions, religion, “what my parents taught me.” Thinking of this path of ethics as an organizing axis in the spirit of the original entry, simply falls apart.

In the end wealth, rich and poor, organizes the way we think about climate change and what we want to protect (wealth and climate), what we are able to do to prepare for climate change, and when we have to act. I don’t know if solutions for climate change will come from wealth, but many of the ways that we initially approach the solutions will come from those with wealth.

Ethical arguments are entwined with wealth, rich and poor, and with near-term and long-term. Ethics represent a large, amorphous aspect of human thought, which might be thought of as a connective tissue that we each apply, individually, across a range of subjects. Plus, there are factors other than climate change contributing to ethical foundations. While each of us might think it rational that ethics could form an organizing axis for the climate change problem, the implementation of such a organizing principle falls apart - individually and collectively. (You might decide what you are going to do, but what about everybody else?)

In class students have started a number of projects with either an implicit or explicit ethical stance. I think it safe to say that none of these projects ended up at the place where the students thought it would at the beginning. And in some places, the ethical issues all but disappeared as the project evolved.

I’m not an expert on ethics or rhetoric - so vulnerably yours,

r

I am an older student at UNC Asheville, I am studying Ethics and the Environment…I am curious to know why the following:

“Sometimes, we have drawn the “wealth” axis as “ethics,” but, bluntly, “wealth” is more of a determinant in addressing the climate-change problem than ethics. The ethical aspects to addressing climate change are complex and sit in a different type of relationship”

Is there somewhere on your blog that discusses this further.

Thank!