PHIL 2233 Environmental Ethics -- Coffee Talk #1

Janelle Laing Jessica Rodgers Jordan Skipper Reece Berg

2. Our group has reached a consensus on these questions. Global warming has costs which have already revealed themselves in the present. We find even at present that various ecosystems are being devastated and destroyed. Many species are finding themselves under increasing extinction pressure and as a result of human activity, many species are now extinct. Can human beings attempt to mitigate global warming? We certainly cannot undo all of the changes global warming has already brought on however we are still at a point in time where it is not too late to significantly affect the course global warming takes. By not driving a car, taking a bike, or using public transportation, we can start each day by doing something which makes a difference. Were the government(s) to further fund alternative energies (such as hydrogen), this trend could perhaps be further accelerated. Why aren't busses running on hydrogen? Why aren't trains running on hydrogen? Government subsidies would help and we've seen this implemented already in the automotive industry to encourage the development of more fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrid technologies do bring their own set of concerns to the table. How much is the environment hurt and how much carbon is used in the process of producing hybrid vehicles or other products of hybrid technology? What about carpooling? Having a fuel efficient vehicle does not provide it's owner with an excuse to avoid carpooling or other measures that environment conscious consumers would have taken in the past. Who are you supporting with your consumer dollars? Some ways of tackling global warming are better than others. To not look at yourself when assessing the (global warming) situation and to blindly accept what the government and the media tell you to do is the very worst way to solve global warming. Finger-pointing is unhelpful since neither redirecting blame nor responsibility shall provide us with a solution to the problem of global warming. The environment is not something that can be fully tackled in one term as prime minister. Switzerland has terms of one year and many European nations have terms of shorter duration than we find here in Canada. With terms being but one year in duration, it is much more difficult for corporations and special interest groups to significantly affect the direction of public policy. Another perspective on this was that perhaps the solution is not to have shorter but to have longer terms so that there is more time to deal with problems such as global warming

and less of an ability to divert blame onto others for inaction. Adaptation to global warming shall come (naturally) with time. People will make changes to their way of life and the net effect will compound over time.

Eating food that was grown locally provides one avenue to reduce carbon footprint, as does eating less meat. What we really need, however, are informed consumers who realize that the answer to the global warming problem is complex and that they will need to spend some time acquainting themselves with the global warming science should they wish to have as great an influence on the global warming situation as they can. The best way to change your lifestyle is to ask yourself what you do and if it is environmentally efficient. We need to change our lifestyle to one of less energy consumption. By living simply you can be more environmentally efficient.

4. The burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for climate change. Fossil fuels have greatly simplified our lives however is the environmental cost worth paying? Gardiner's article has important insights and problems for critical moral deliberation and ethical praxis which we've addressed below and related to the concept of intergenerational justice. Intergenerational justice means not merely thinking about the short term since the interests of future generations must be protected by the present generation if the future generation is to have any interests at all. We must protect what we can for future generations. Taking responsibility for the output of carbon you personally emit into the atmosphere is one way to hold yourself accountable to both present and future generations. We need to ask ourselves whether our consumption is excessive, not whether our consumption is excessive relative to industrial output. Future generations shall be faced with the same question of whether their self-interest or the interests of future generations are to be given priority and to what extent the interests of each group shall be heard. Future generations will need to find different ways to produce and process food, different means for public transportation, et cetera should fossil fuel reserves become exhausted. We must consider implementing solutions that have a long-term effect. We can no longer think in the short term. Governments are unwilling to allocate funds to long-term solutions because the effects of these types of solutions will not be seen in our lifetime and present governments will therefore not be credited with the success of such programs. If a solution will not improve the situation in the short term it will probably be considered unhelpful. Strife. Struggle. Suffering due to a lack of technology in the past and unfortunately it seems that so too shall future generations struggle This struggle is, however, a direct consequence of the decisions generations such as ours ultimately arrived at. Climate change is everyone's problem. It is everyone's responsibility. Climate change simply

cannot be left to a single country. It is our moral obligation to act now and act together. Time is not on our side.