JOURNAL TITLES: Two problems of climate ethics: Can we lose the

planet but save ourselves

AUTHOR NAME: Alexander Lee and Jordan Kincaid
PUBLISH DATE
IMPACT FACTOR: rising sea levels, increased drought, warming
temperatures and other impacts of climate change
1. abstract
Climate change presents unprecedented challenges for the ethical
community and society at large. Rising sea levels, increased drought,
warming temperatures and other impacts of climate change will devastate
vulnerable communities, the global economy, and the natural world unless
difficult choices, behavioral changes, and major policy shifts are made.
Climate change also presents a multifaceted problem of moral wrongdoing,
which is both an issue of harmful impacts and a question of wrongdoing.
Philosophy offers solutions to moral problems that are not contingent on
successful mitigation or adaptation. Thom Brooks' criticism that
philosophers have 'misunderstood the climate change problem as a
problem that is solvable' arises from a conflation of the two climate change
problems and not from a shortcoming of philosophy in the climate
conversation.
2. Introduction (why the research was done)
Brooks demonstrates the shortcomings of conservation and adaptation as
responses to climate change by describing the hurdles and inefficacy of
their application. He argues that philosophers have misunderstood the
problem of climate change by suggesting that there is some viable
resolution. He also criticizes the idea that certain world states can be
brought about through policies supported by environmental philosophers,
but argues that the success or value of climate ethics is not ultimately
vulnerable to Brook's critique.
3. Literature review (what is already known)
The problem of climate impacts consists of engineering hurdles, scientific
uncertainty, as policy challenges. While ethics is a key component to
orienting such problems, these problems are not primarily ethical or
philosophical.
4. Method & Data (how the research was conducted )
The problem of harm may not be solvable, because as Brooks argues
certain outcomes are unavoidable and a sustainable future may be
unattainable. We can, however, distinguish certain wrongdoings that
coalesced to cause climate change as separate moral issues from our
assessment of harms.
 5. Analysis & result (what happened)
Many moral philosophers agree that it is reasonable to demand reparations
even before the vase hits the ground. However, the moral question is a
justificatory one: why are communities vulnerable to and impacted by
climate change due remediation? What action-guiding reasons justify
climate remedia-tron? We think that victims of climate change are due
remediation not only because of climate harms incurred, but also because
of climate wrongs done. If it is the case that climate harms cannot be
avoided or undone, then outcome-oriented harms-based justification
cannot be action-guid-ing.

6. Discussion (`)
Climate harms cannot be avoided or undone, then outcome-oriented
harms-based justification cannot be action-guid-ing. But obligations to right
moral wrongdoing are not contingent upon the outcome of harms.

7. Conclusion (what was learned)

What harms actually manifest as climate change unfolds will be important
factors in determining the specific content of remediation- e.g. mitigation
burdens, adaptation finance, insurance, technology transters, capacity-
building, etc.- but justifying remediative obligation does not itself hinge on
whether harms can be avoided or undone. Rather, it rests on the
wrongdoing of agents responsible for causing climate change.
8. Bibliography (what research was conducted)
Brooks. Thom. How to not save the planet. Ethics, Polisy, and
Enviroment19 (2). Caney, Simon (2005). Cosmopolitan justice,
responsibility, and global climate change. Lei journai of international law,
18, 747-775.
Gadiner, 5 (2006). A core precautionary principle. Journal of political
philosophy, 14, 33-60.
Hele, Benjamin (2012). The world that would have been: Moral hazard
arguments against geoengineering.
Reflecting sunlight: The ethics of solar radiation management. Rowman
and Littelefield, Lanham.
Hale, Benjamin, & Grundy, W.P.(2009). Remediation and respect. Do
remediation