Environmental Ethics

418 400

419 401

420 402

421 403

422 404

423 405

424 406

425 407

426 408

427 409

428 410

429 411

430 412

431 413

432 414

433 415

434 416

435 417

436 418

437 419

438 420

439 421

440 422

441 423

442 424

443 425

444 426

445 427

446 428

447 429

448 430

449 431

450 432

451 433

452 434

453 435

454 436

455 437

456 438

457 439

458 440

459 441

460 442

461 443

462 444

463 445

464 446

465 447

466 448

467 449

468 450

469 451

470 452

471 453

472 454

473 455

474 456

475 457

476 458

477 459

478 460

479 461

480 462

481 463

482 464

483 465

484 466

485 467

486 468

487 469

488 470

489 471

490 472

491 473

492 474

493 475

494 476

495 477

496 478

497 479

498 480

499 481

500 482

501 483

502 484

503 485

504 486

505 487

506 488

507 489

508 490

509 491

510 492

511 493

512 494

513 495

514 496

Wilfred Beckermanformerly of University College London, London, UK (deceased)

Frederick BirdUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Murray Bookchinformerly of Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, USA(deceased)

Michael BoylanMarymount University, Arlington, USA

Randall CurrenUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, USA

Herman E. DalyUniversity of Maryland, College Park, USA

Geert DemuijnckEDHEC Business School, Roubaix, France

Stephen GardinerUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA

Alan Gewirthformerly of the University of Chicago, Chicago, USA (deceased)

Michael GoldsbyWashington State University, Pullman, USA

Ben HaleUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, USA

Garrett Hardinformerly of the University of California, Santa Barbara, USA (deceased)

Ruth IrwinUniversity of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Dale JamiesonNew York University, New York, USA

Carl KockIE University, Madrid, Spain

Avery KolersUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, USA

Aldo Leopoldformerly of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, USA (deceased)

David E. McCleanRutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

Carolyn Merchantformerly of the University of California, Berkeley, USA

Seumas Millercurrently holding positions at Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia; University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Arne Naessformerly University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (deceased)

Bryan NortonGeorgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Atlanta, USA

Onora O’Neillformerly of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Tom Reganformerly of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA (deceased)

Holmes Rolston IIIformerly of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

Mark SeabrightWestern Ontario University, London, Canada

Peter SingerPrinceton University, Princeton, USA; and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

James P. SterbaUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dam, USA

Brian K. SteversonGonzaga University, Spokane, USA

Paul W. Taylorformerly of Brooklyn College, City University of New York, New York, USA (deceased)

Wanda TeaysMount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, USA

Janna Thompsonformerly of La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Steve VanderheidenUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, USA

Karen J. WarrenMacalester College, St Paul, USA

Mary Anne Warrenformerly of San Francisco State University, San Francisco, USA (deceased)

Barbara WienAmerican University, Washington, DC, USA

In 2007 when I was a senior research fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank in Washington, DC., I spent some time on the Environmental Policy Team. This team had as it goal the creation of various papers that would be listed on the Center’s website and be distributed to appropriate committees in Congress to influence public policy.

At the time it did seem like the country and the world was on the way to combatting the causes of global warming: CO 2and other chemical emissions that were creating a “greenhouse” effect that was moving us to climate disaster. In 2009 there was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in which plans were laid for creating a cooperative international structure for implementing some of the policy recommendations of the Kyoto Protocol (1997). 1Progress was made to identify options for various countries to play their part in this project (the details to be negotiated later) and a goal was set to respond to climate change in the short and long term. To this end, a “red line” was established to avoid allowing the average global temperature to rise 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Procedurally, developed countries like the United States (US) promised certain levels of funding so that the goals might be achievable for poorer countries. Methods of measurement were agreed upon and finally there were new agencies created under the auspices of the United Nations to help administer and monitor these goals.

At the Center for American Progress there was general hope that we were finally on the road that would lead us to our goal of halting global warming and thus averting the climate disaster that we all saw as imminent.

Not everything worked out as planned, so in 2015 a new gathering of nations in Paris tried to address means of getting to the goals of the Copenhagen Conference more effectively. Each nation was to work on a 5-year plan that would be evaluated in 2020 and be legally binding (though voluntary). Benchmarks were to be set out at first provisionally and then in a more binding format.

The Paris Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical, and capacity building support to those countries who need it. I was no longer at the Center for American Progress, but from those former colleagues there was even more general hope that we had fixed the difficulties involved with Copenhagen and that this time things would be different. The new short-term targets were “zero-net-emissions.” 2This mindset could be achieved by each unit of national organization: individuals, communities, businesses, and the nation. Everyone could get on board to avoid the 2° Celsius red line.

Then came the 2016 US presidential election of Donald J. Trump. Trump believed that the climate crisis was all a hoax. It would cost the US (one of the leading polluters in the world) lots of money and be bad for business by creating onerous regulations. (Little regard was given to how catastrophic climate disaster would affect US business—but if the whole thing is a hoax, then there will never be a disaster.) Such assertions were not backed up by science. Indeed, science has been behind the international summits that have been regularly occurring since 1972 in Stockholm.