The document discusses the challenges of determining responsibility for addressing climate change. It notes that while industrialized nations have contributed most to increasing carbon emissions and warming the planet, the effects of climate change are being felt globally. This raises ethical questions around how responsibility should be allocated when impacts are collective yet emissions are unequal. The document explores options like industrialized countries providing economic support to address climate impacts, or resettling populations displaced by effects like rising sea levels.

1. Hi,
I’m
Caitlin
Calder-­‐Potts,
Project
Coordinator
for
Green
Cross
Australia.
Green
Cross
Australia
is
a
member
of
the
international
Green
Cross
network
funded
by
Mikhail
Gorbachev
in
the
early
90s
to
address
the
humanitarian
consequences
of
climate
change.
At
Green
Cross
Australia,
our
focus
is
on
helping
people
adapt
to
the
effects
of
our
changing
climate.
This
includes
empowering
communities
to
respond
to
severe
weather
events,
understanding
what
the
future
impacts
of
climate
change
will
be
and
environmental
education.
This
evenings
talk
will
be
on
the
philosophy
of
climate
change-­‐
and
more
specifically,
what
philosophy
can
contribute
to
the
current
debate.
I
think
the
major
contribution
of
philosophy
to
this
debate
can
be
around
clarifying
the
ethical
issues
we
face.
The
debate
around
climate
change
has
become
almost
depressingly
childish
with
mud
slinging
from
all
sides.
Like
asylum
seekers,
the
issue
of
climate
change
and
action
to
mitigate
climate
change
has
become
politically
charged.
I
believe
this
has
detracted
public
attention
from
the
very
real
and
challenging
issues
we
must
address
and
consider.
Obviously
there
are
no
simple
answers;
climate
change
is
a
complicated,
real
and
urgent
issue.
However,
we
cannot
hope
to
progress
from
the
current
national
and
international
stalemate
without
reasoned
and
considered
attention.
I
will
consider
a
broad
but
not
exhaustive
list
of
ethical
issues.
These
include,
the
question
of
how
we
should,
as
an
international
community,
address
the
impacts
of
climate
change-­‐
both
now
and
in
the
future.
The
extent
of
our
obligations
to
take
action
to
reduce
our
emissions
in
order
to
limit
global
warming
to
the
“allowable”
2
degree
rise.
How
best
to
understand
the
collective
action
necessary
to
address
climate
change.
And
finally,
the
argument
from
skepticism
and
some
thoughts
on
why
after
nearly
3
decades
of
warnings
from
science
we
still
face
significant
skepticism
as
to
the
causes
of
climate
change.
WHO
SHOULD
BEAR
RESPONSIBILITY
If
we
accept
that
global
warming
is
causing
climate
change
and
it
is
human
activities
that
are
causing
it,
we
must
find
ways
of
dealing
with
its
implications.
The
traditional
allocation
of
responsibility
in
similar
situations
is
to
allocate
responsibility
according
to
the
party
that
has
caused
the
damage.
For
example,
if
I
were
to
break
a
window
whether
by
accident
of
on
purpose,
failing
any
other
mitigating
circumstances,
it
would
be
reasonable
to
expect
that
I
should
be
responsible
for
replacing
it.
Overwhelmingly,
we
must
acknowledge
that
climate
change
has
been
caused
by
industrialized
countries.
Since
industrialization
the
levels
of
carbon
in
the
atmosphere
have
increased.
CSIRO
reports
that,
“CO2
concentration
has
ranged
between
172
and
300
ppm
for
the
past
800
000
years.
In
2008,
CO2
concentration
has
risen
to
a
much
higher
383
ppm.
Global
CO2
concentration
has
risen
37
per
cent
since
the
Industrial
Revolution”.
This
37
degree
rise
has
caused
the
atmosphere
to
heat
contributing
to
global
sea
level
rise,
a
rise
in
temperature,
an
upset
in
climate
patterns
including
increase
in
severe
weather
events
like
cyclones,
floods
and
droughts.
It
would
seem
reasonable
that
because
industrialized
countries
have
contributed
most
significantly
to
climate
change,
they
should
be
responsible
for
its
effects.
However,
the
effects
of
climate
change
do
not
adhere
to
this
logic
and
are
being
felt
around
the
world.
In
a

2. cruel
twist,
the
actions
of
the
global
North
are
being
felt
most
deeply
in
the
South.
Low
lying
coastal
areas
are
experiencing
severe
flooding
due
to
increased
ocean
water
levels
and
sub
Sahara
Africa
is,
and
will
continue
to,
suffer
from
prolonged
droughts.
Of
course
effects
are
also
being
felt
in
the
developed
world
as
well.
The
ethical
challenge
inherent
in
this
is
how
to
allocate
responsibility
when
effects
are
being
felt
collectively.
One
way
to
address
this
is
for
countries
with
the
highest
emissions
record
to
be
obligated
to
cover
the
economic
cost
of
climate
change.
For
example,
governments
in
Australia
and
New
Zealand
have
discussed
the
feasibility
of
accepting
populations
from
Tuvalu
into
their
own
countries
in
the
coming
decades
when
sea
level
rise
will
make
Tuvalu
uninhabitable.
Unlike
the
broken
window
example
I
cited
before,
understanding
the
effects
of
climate
change
is
not
as
simple
as
identifying
who
threw
the
ball
that
broke
the
window.
Emissions
are
not
released
with
‘names’
on
them.
However,
we
are
able
to
determine
where
the
emissions
have
come
from.
Countries
that
have
contributed
the
most,
should
be
obligated
to
take
greater
responsibility
in
responding
to
climate
change.
I
think
that
this
is
a
relatively
simple
ethical
argument-­‐
of
course,
some
developed
countries
may
argue
that
they
were
unaware
of
the
extent
of
the
effects
of
releasing
emissions.
They
might
also
argue
that
the
economic
benefits
of
their
own
development
have
flowed
on
to
other
countries
contributing
to
the
overall
good.
I
find
these
arguments
overwhelmingly
unpersuasive.
The
risks
of
climate
change
have
been
asserted
by
scientists
for
decades-­‐
and
largely
ignored.
I’m
sure
most
of
you
here
tonight
are
familiar
with
the
precautionary
principle.
This
principle
argues
that
if
an
action
or
policy
has
a
suspected
risk
of
causing
harm
to
the
public
or
to
the
environment,
in
the
absence
of
scientific
consensus
that
the
action
or
policy
is
harmful,
the
burden
of
proof
that
it
is
not
harmful
falls
on
those
taking
the
action.
The
precautionary
principle
has
been
overwhelmingly
ignored
in
favour
for
unlimited
emissions
by
the
richest
countries
in
the
world.
I
think
this
is
the
first
of
many
examples
where
philosophy
can
play
a
role
in
clarifying
the
debate
around
climate
change.
There
is
a
strong
argument
that
can
be
made
by
ethics
that
the
developed
world
is
both
subject
to
the
‘you
break
it
you
buy
it
rule’
and
also
guilty
of
deliberately
sacrificing
the
well
being
of
developing
nations
and
future
generations
in
the
name
of
progress.
However,
there
is
little
national
or
international
discourse
around
this
argument.
Economic
sacrifices
and
the
impacts
of
reducing
emissions
are
discussed
with
little
energy
devoted
to
understanding
and
responding
to
our
moral
obligations.
I
realize
that
this
argument
may
sound
naïve.
But
it
is
important.
Aboloishing
slavery
had
significant
economic
consequences.
As
too,
did
raising
minimum
working
standards
for
the
developing
world.
But
as
a
global
community,
we
considered
the
moral
arguments
and
decided
that
economic
sacrifices
or
adjustments
were
necessary.
The
same
should
apply
to
climate
change.

3. Of
course
dealing
with
the
effects
of
climate
change
is
only
one
side
of
the
coin,
we
must
also
take
action
to
reduce
future
implications
by
limiting
our
emissions
today.
The
question
of
how
best
to
do
this
is
also
an
ethical
one.
Peter
Singer
compares
the
allowable
world
emissions
that
would
limit
global
warming
to
a
2
degree
rise
to
a
pie
that
must
be
divided
equally
globally.
In
this
example,
Singer
advocates
an
approach
that
would
see
‘the
pie’
equally
divided
amongst
the
nations
of
the
world
based
on
a
per
capita
division.
This
would
allow
countries
with
smaller
populations
to
sell
their
emissions
to
countries
with
higher
populations
and
ensure
that
no
one
is
allowed
to
emit
more
than
their
share.
This
approach
relies
on
the
interests
of
nation
states
being
set
aside
for
the
interests
of
the
international
community
as
a
whole.
Certainly,
as
we
have
seen
over
the
past
decades,
a
hard
pill
to
swallow.
So
what
can
philosophy
or
ethics
contribute
to
this
discussion?
COSMOPOLITANISM
I
think
what
is
at
the
core
of
this
response
is
whether
we
should
adopt
a
cosmopolitan
approach
to
dealing
with
the
challenges
of
climate
change
or
should
maintain
a
nationalistic
approach-­‐
or,
as
I
believe,
some
combination
of
the
two.
Cosmopolitanism
asserts
that
all
humanity
belongs
to
a
single
community
based
on
shared
morality.
While
there
are
traces
of
this
approach
in
the
ancient
Greek
philosophers,
it
emerged
with
force
post
enlightenment.
I
will
quote
Kleingeld
and
Brown
in
the
Stanford
Encyclopedia
of
Philosophy
at
length:
“The
historical
context
of
the
philosophical
resurgence
of
cosmopolitanism
during
the
Enlightenment
is
made
up
of
many
factors:
The
increasing
rise
of
capitalism
and
world-­‐wide
trade
and
its
theoretical
reflections;
the
reality
of
ever
expanding
empires
whose
reach
extended
across
the
globe;
the
voyages
around
the
world
and
the
anthropological
so-­‐called
‘discoveries’
facilitated
through
these;
the
renewed
interest
in
Hellenistic
philosophy;
and
the
emergence
of
a
notion
of
human
rights
and
a
philosophical
focus
on
human
reason.
Many
intellectuals
of
the
time
regarded
their
membership
in
the
transnational
‘republic
of
letters’
as
more
significant
than
their
membership
in
the
particular
political
states
they
found
themselves
in,
all
the
more
so
because
their
relationship
with
their
government
was
often
strained
because
of
censorship
issues.
This
prepared
them
to
think
in
terms
other
than
those
of
states
and
peoples
and
adopt
a
cosmopolitan
perspective.
Under
the
influence
of
the
American
Revolution,
and
especially
during
the
first
years
of
the
French
Revolution,
cosmopolitanism
received
its
strongest
impulse.
The
1789
declaration
of
‘human’
rights
had
grown
out
of
cosmopolitan
modes
of
thinking
and
reinforced
them
in
turn.”
This
approach
has
been
enshrined
in
numerous
United
Nations
charters
including:
• The
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights
(UDHR),
1948,
along
with
related
covenants;
• The
United
Nations
Framework
Convention
on
Climate
Change,
1992;
• The
United
Nations
Convention
on
Biological
Diversity,
1992;
• The
Rio
Declaration
on
the
Environment
and
Development,
1992;
• The
UNESCO
Declaration
on
the
Responsibili-­‐
ties
of
the
Present
Generations
Towards
Future
Generations,
1997;
• The
Kyoto
Protocol,
1997;
• The
Earth
Charter,
2000,
as
recognized
by
the
UNESCO
General
Conference;
• The
Johannesburg
Declaration
on
Sustainable
Development,
2002;
• The
Universal
Declaration
on
Bioethics
and
Human
Rights
(UDBHR),
2005.

4.
Cosmopolitanism
has
been
seen
as
necessary
when
addressing
issues
such
a
trade,
human
rights,
slavery,
the
rights
of
women
and
minorities
and
environmental
issues.
Cosmopolitanism
asks
us
to
put
aside
differences
in
culture,
religion,
race
and
proximity,
in
order
to
promote
the
global
good.
I’m
sure
most
of
you
are
familiar
with
Peter
Singer’s
‘the
life
you
can
save’
argument.
This
argument
asserts
that
failing
to
act
when
you
are
able
to
do
so
with
relatively
minimal
consequences
to
prevent
the
suffering
of
others
is
wrong
whether
or
not
the
suffering
occurs
next
to
you
or
thousands
of
kilometers
away.
I
believe
that
this
argument,
while
in
theory
morally
justifiable,
fails
to
take
into
account
factors
that
motivate
us
to
act
morally.
Indeed
if
a
child
was
drowning
beside
me
and
I
could
save
their
life
with
minimal
harm
to
myself,
it
would
be
morally
wrong
for
me
not
to
do
so.
Singer
argues
that
the
same
logic
is
at
play
when
considering
the
suffering
of
many
far
away
from
me.
That
is,
where
I
can
stop
or
minimize
the
suffering
of
those
who
are
far
away
from
me
with
minimal
consequences
to
myself,
I
should.
The
problem
with
this
line
of
argument
is
that
we
are
motivated
to
act
not
solely
by
abstract
moral
arguments,
but
by
what
we
see
in
front
of
us.
In
addition,
we
are
not
simply
international
brothers
and
sisters;
we
are
living
within
cultures,
societies
and
families
with
connections
and
relationships
that
motivate
us
to
act.
Whether
or
not
it
is
morally
justifiable,
we
are
more
motivated
to
act
to
help
those
close
to
us
who
we
are
connected
to
rather
than
those
who
are
far
away.
Governments
adopt
this
approach
and
indeed
we
expect
them
to.
We
expect
the
Australian
government
to
put
the
interests
of
Australians
above
the
interests
of
Indonesians
or
Banglasdeshis
or
Americans.
This
expectation
is
at
the
very
centre
of
democracy-­‐
we
elect
people
to
represent
our
interests.
However,
national
interests
will
certainly
be
trumped
by
the
effects
of
climate
change.
As
often
stated,
Australia’s
economy
will
be
worth
very
little
if
we
are
living
in
a
country
devastated
by
severe
weather
events,
with
sea
level
rise
threatening
our
homes
and
droughts
destroying
our
ability
to
feed
ourselves.
Therefore,
our
approach
must
be
both
cosmopolitan
and
nationalistic.
While
we
are
a
land
‘girt
by
sea’
we
do
not
exist
in
a
bubble.
It
is
in
Australia’s,
and
indeed
every
nations,
interest
to
act
globally
on
climate
change
for
national
interests-­‐
as
well
as
out
of
a
moral
responsibility.
Philosophy
can
make
this
point
and
indeed
should.
Action
on
climate
change
is
not
about
sacrificing
national
interests
now,
but
promoting
them
for
the
future.
I
I
think
it
useful
from
here
to
examine
another
common
explanation
of
why
the
global
community
has
failed
to
act
on
climate
change.
The
philosophical
chestnut
of
the
Prisoners
Dilemma
or
Game
Theory.
This
argument
is
often
employed
when
dealing
with
situations
that
require
the
behavior
change
of
many
individuals
that
will
have
mass
implications.
At
its
core,
game
theory
illuminates
the
challenges
inherent
in
motivating
the
actions
of
many
individuals
in
order
to
promote
the
greatest
good.

5. For
example,
we
all
want
clean
air
and
to
achieve
that
we
need
less
cars
on
the
road.
Equally,
we
all
want
to
travel
comfortably
which
for
many
involves
driving
a
car
to
work.
Game
Theory
illuminates
the
conflict
of
our
2
competing
interests
(to
have
clean
air
and
also
to
drive
in
our
own
cars
to
work).
In
order
to
motivate
us
to
take
individual
actions
that
would
have
benefits
for
the
collective,
our
motivations
and
interests
must
be
influenced.
For
example,
public
transport
can
be
made
more
appealing
with
more
bus
lanes,
cheaper
fares
or
more
comfortable
and
reliable
buses.
Or
driving
our
car
can
be
made
more
difficult
with
limited
parking
or
more
expensive
tolls
or
fuel.
To
put
this
into
the
context
of
climate
change-­‐
we
all
want
a
stable
climate
with
no
global
warming
and
the
associated
effects.
We
also
all
want
to
be
able
to
consume
energy
and
live
at
the
standard
to
which
we
have
become
accustomed.
At
the
same
time,
we
all
accept
that
we
need
the
earth
and
a
hospitable
climate
in
order
to
live.
Alone,
our
individual
actions
may
not
have
significant
consequences,
but
when
all
7
billion
of
us
act
in
our
own
interests
we
see
significant
impact.
By
using
Game
Theory,
the
challenge
is
to
alter
conditions
so
that
our
behavior
contributes
to
both
the
common
good
as
well
as
our
own.
In
Australia,
we
have
seen
a
tax-­‐
or
price,
employed
to
motivate
us
to
use
less
energy
by
increasing
its
cost.
We
have
also
used
education
to
make
saving
energy
an
individual
preference
and
value
that
we
are
inclined
to
take
for
the
sake
of
our
own
ethical
beliefs.
However,
as
critics
of
the
carbon
tax
often
point
out,
it
is
not
just
Australia
that
faces
a
prisoners
dilemma
but
the
international
community
as
a
whole.
It
is
in
every
nations
long
term
interest
to
reduce
emissions,
but
without
the
actions
of
the
rest
of
the
international
community
their
individual
interests
may
suffer.
There
are
also
competing
priorities
and
values
at
play.
Developing
countries
do
not
only
value
the
environment
or
preventing
or
minimizing
climate
change.
They
also
value
industrialization
that
will
lift
their
people
out
of
poverty.
They
value
the
instrumental
economic
worth
of
their
land
and
resources.
The
challenge
at
a
global
level,
is
to
direct
motivations
in
order
to
promote
reduced
emissions.
This
in
essence,
is
what
the
numerous
treaties
and
conventions
since
Rio
in
1990s
have
been
trying
to
achieve.
A
framework
where
all
nations
can
be
motivated
to
act
for
the
good
of
the
global
community,
while
not
sacrificing
their
own
national
interests.
However,
unfortunately,
while
there
is
some
hope
that
the
international
community
will
rally
around
this
cause
and
implement
an
effective
framework.
I
think
it
is
worth
examining
why
so
far
we
have
failed.
This
brings
me
back
to
my
comments
previously
on
cosmopolitanism
and
I
would
like
to
play
a
brief
video
from
Tim
Soutphommasane.
From
4.55-­‐
6.00
http://www.themonthly.com.au/ethics-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐peter-­‐singer-­‐tim-­‐soutphommasane-­‐
p2-­‐2586
Tim
goes
on
to
emphasise
the
great
potential
of
sustainable,
green
industries
and
also
the
benefits
of
being
an
early
market
leader
in
sustainable
technologies.
What
is
so
effective
about
Tim’s
argument
is
that
he
is
able
to
apply
a
philosophical
concept
practically
and
to

6. use
the
knowledge
we
have
gained
from
philosophy
to
the
practical
concerns
of
global
warming
and
climate
change.
It
is
this
practical
approach
that
helped
women
get
the
vote-­‐
not
just
because
equality
was
a
moral
issues,
but
also
because
of
the
economic
benefit
of
women
in
the
workforce
and
their
role
during
WW1.
It
is
arguments
like
Tim’s
that
highlight
to
me
the
every
day
practicality
and
applicability
of
a
discipline
such
as
philosophy
as
reframing
an
argument
and
illuminating
corners
of
reason
that
were
previously
unexamined.
I
would
now
like
to
discuss
another
important
ethical
aspect
of
the
climate
change
debate.
Skepticism
as
to
whether
or
not
climate
change
is
caused
by
human
action.
Research
conducted
by
CSIRO
in
2011
on
attitudes
to
climate
change
within
Australia
revealed
some
interesting
findings.
This
included
that
roughly
half
of
Australians
accept
that
the
climate
is
changing
but
attribute
this
change
to
natural
variations-­‐
as
opposed
to
human
action.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
this
research
reveals
is
that
climate
science
is
inherently
complicated
and
we
cannot
expect
those
without
training
in
the
field
to
understand
the
intricacies
of
climate
projection
models
and
the
relationship
between
these
and
natural
variations.
However,
what
we
can
expect
people
to
understand
is
the
reality
of
climate
change.
We
can
all
relate
to
higher
water
levels
and
the
impacts
to
our
coasts,
severe
weather
events,
droughts,
floods,
cyclones.
And
this
is
an
argument
that
has
largely
connected.
There
is
broad
consensus
within
the
Australian
public
that
the
climate
is
changing
–
the
divergence
appears
when
respondents
are
asked
whether
or
not
that
change
is
caused
by
human
activity
or
natural
variations.
However,
if
half
the
population
does
not
accept
that
humans
are
causing
climate
change,
there
is
little
chance
of
effective
action
being
taken
to
address
it.
Two
of
the
major
complications
in
understanding
climate
science
are
the
30
year
lag
within
the
system
and
the
fact
that
climate
change
plays
out
against
a
backdrop
of
natural
climatic
variations.
These
2
points
–
neither
easy
to
explain-­‐
have
formed
the
basis
for
the
argument
from
climate
change
skeptics.
I
think
what
is
at
the
core
of
both
these
arguments,
is
that
science,
and
in
particular
climate
science,
is
inherently
complex
and
complicated.
Indeed
such
is
the
growth
of
fields
of
scientific
study
that
even
scientists
in
neighboring
fields
may
struggle
to
understand
each
other.
George
Monbiot
quoted
Arthur
C
Clarke
in
a
2010
piece
for
the
Guardian
with
the
claim
that
“any
sufficiently
advanced
technology
is
indistinguishable
from
magic”.
Monbiot
continues
“the
detail
of
modern
science
is
incomprehensible
to
almost
everyone,
which
means
that
we
have
to
take
what
scientists
say
on
trust.
Yet
science
tells
us
to
trust
nothing,
to
believe
only
what
can
be
demonstrated.
This
contradiction
is
fatal
to
public
confidence.”
But
medical
science
is
also
a
mystery
to
most
people.
The
notion
of
poisoning
ones
body
in
order
to
treat
an
illness
such
as
cancer
seems
completely
irrational
yet
most
cancer
patients
are
relatively
comfortable
in
accepting
doctors
advice.
In
preparing
for
this
evening
I
have
tried
to
understand
what
the
differences
are
between
trusting
medical
science
and
trusting
climate
science
and
can
only
come
up
with
time.
Has

7. the
ubiquity
of
medical
science
and
its
history
within
human
society
assured
it
the
status
of
trust
worthy?
I
think
one
part
of
the
problem
is
that
some
scientists
have
tarnished
the
reputation
of
many
by
making
claims
that
were
later
shown
to
be
false.
These
include
the
infamous
tales
of
Tabaco
company
employed
scientists
in
the
late
60s
asserting
there
was
no
link
between
smoking
and
cancer
the
Climategate
“controversy”
of
2009-­‐
fuelled
by
right
wing
media
and
politics.
Robert
Mann’s
recent
essay
in
The
Monthly,
enriched
by
the
earlier
work
of
Naomi
Oreskes
and
Erik
Conway’s
Merchants
of
Doubt
chronicles
the
rise
of
skepticism
with
regard
to
human
induced
climate
change.
Mann
references
the
famous
leaked
memo
from
tobacco
company
Brown
&
Williamson
stating
that
Doubt
is
our
product,
since
it
is
the
best
means
of
competing
with
the
'body
of
fact'
[linking
smoking
with
disease]
that
exists
in
the
mind
of
the
general
public.
Mann
asserts
that
there
has
been
a
similarly
economically
motivated
effort
from
the
fossil
fuel
industry
to
convince
the
public
that
doubt
existed
amongst
climate
scientists
regarding
the
causes
of
climate
change.
In
his
excellent
essay,
he
goes
so
far
as
to
chronicle
the
testimonial
of
some
prominent
anthropogenic
climate
change
deniers
and
their
personal
interests
in
giving
such
testimonial.
I
think
we
must
also
consider
why
climate
scepticism
has
become
the
domain
of
right
wing
politics.
CSIRO
research
found
that
those
who
voted
for
Labor
or
the
Green
were
more
likely
to
agree
with
the
statement
that
climate
change
was
caused
by
human
action
than
those
who
voted
Liberal
or
National.
One
explanation
of
this
is
of
course
that
the
right
wing
of
politics
traditionally
values
economic
growth
above
most
else.
Another
value
held
dear,
is
individual
freedom
and
minimal
government
intervention.
Both
values
that
have
been
framed
as
at
odds
with
climate
change
action.
However,
I
do
not
agree
that
economic
growth,
individual
freedom
and
minimal
government
intervention
is
at
odds
with
mitigating
climate
change.
Indeed
there
is
great
potential
for
economic
growth
from
actions
to
address
climate
change.
The
World
Bank
reports
that
developing
countries
such
as
Brazil
and
China
have
made
significant
economic
gains
from
the
development
of
sustainable
energy
solutions.
However,
the
World
Bank
cautions
that
investment
in
these
industries
must
be
tempered
with
policy
incentives.
Following
the
impacts
of
the
global
financial
crisis
and
world
wide
bailouts,
I
think
we
must
accept
that
some
government
intervention
is
required
in
markets.
More
so,
when
considering
the
environment
which
has
and
will
have
global
implications
in
our
generations
and
the
next.
The
factors
I
have
just
mentioned,
an
inability
to
understand
the
complex
science
around
human
induced
climate
change,
as
well
as
the
significant
vested
interests
from
the
fossil
fuel
industries
and
their
efforts
to
establish
widespread
public
doubt
have
caused
the
state
of
affairs
we
now
face
today.

8. Interestingly,
CSIRO
research
revealed
that
most
Australians
predicted
that
a
higher
than
accurate
number
of
people
believed
that
their
views
were
wide
spread.
That
is,
anthropogenic
climate
change
believers
felt
that
a
majority
of
people
agreed
with
them
with
similar
results
from
those
who
accepted
that
climate
change
was
human
induced.
The
role
of
media
in
this
debate
is
certainly
considerable
but
I
will
leave
that
discussion
for
another
time.
A
pertinent
question
is
what
to
do
in
the
future.
We
need
both
widespread
acceptance
that
human
activities
are
causing
climate
change
and
also
an
approach
to
deal
with
it
that
is
both
global
and
national.
It
is
certainly
not
the
role
of
philosophy
to
determine
this
approach,
but
what
philosophy
certainly
can
contribute
is
an
opportunity
to
clarify
what
the
scope
of
this
argument
is.
In
Australia
and
to
a
greater
extent
in
America,
the
debate
around
climate
change
has
been
dominated
by
fear
mongering
and
political
trade
offs.
This
has
contributed
to
the
state
of
affairs
we
see
today
where
the
basic
facts
of
climate
change
are
contested
and
any
effort
to
address
or
mitigate
climate
change
is
seen
as
an
economic
death
nail.
Following
the
Rio
summit
this
part
June
Elizabeth
Kolbert
wrote
in
the
New
Yorker
that
“it
may
seem
impossible
to
imagine
that
an
advanced
society
could
choose,
in
essence,
to
destroy
itself,
but
that
is
what
we
are
now
in
the
process
of
doing”.
I
hope
that
while
we
adapt
to
the
effects
of
climate
change
in
the
21st
century,
we
will
also
see
a
turn
in
the
national,
international
and
general
public
consensus
around
climate
change
action.
Philosophy
can
and
should
lift
the
tone
of
this
discussion.
Just
as
in
the
Enlightenment
philosophy
helped
frame
a
new
world
order-­‐
so
I
hope
that
it
can
address
the
challenge
of
climate
change.
The
issue
is
complex
and
I
hope
that
I
have
covered
some
of
the
major
tenants.
We
must
explore
the
obligations
of
the
west
to
address
damage
that
has
already
occurred,
and
we
must
understand
the
shape
of
our
global
responsibilities
in
limiting
emissions
in
the
future.
We
must
also
understand
what
motivates
climate
scepticism
if
we
are
to-­‐
and
we
must-­‐
address
the
doubts
of
sceptics
within
Australia’s
society
and
around
the
world.
Thank
you.