MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FEBRUARY 2018
Woods Hole Research Center The moral crisis of climate change Dr. Philip B. Duffy President & Executive Director
It is often said that the impacts of climate change are greatest on the poor and disadvantaged, who contribute relatively little to the problem. Perhaps the most extreme examples of this are low-lying island states, whose greenhouse gas emissions are negligibly small, yet whose existences are threatened by rising sea level caused by other nations’ emissions. These island states also have very limited resources to cope with this problem, which in many cases will ultimately mean fleeing. Cases like this are why a long-standing theme of the UN climate negotiations has been claims by developing countries that they should be compensated by more developed countries for “loss and damage.” Disproportionate harms to the poor also occur within (as well as among) countries. Impacts on human health, air quality, food and water scarcity, and so on, all affect the poor more than the wealthy, and as always the poor have fewer coping resources.
The moral dimension of climate change also has an intergenerational component. The decisions we are making now—whether actively or by default—will impose possibly horrific consequences on future generations, who of course have no voice in those decisions. If and when they are forced to undertake the abandonment of major coastal cities, our descendants will be justified in wondering what we could have been thinking when we set in motion the process to necessitate that. As the science of climate change has become more and more clear, our deficient climate policies become less and less justifiable. As former NASA scientist James Hansen points
out, our parents’ generation did not know the consequences of deforestation and burning fossil fuels, but “we can only pretend that we don’t know.” At this point, after decades of increasingly frightful warnings from the scientific community, it is simply inexcusable that all of us (and our descendants) are knowingly placed at risk by a small minority who benefit economically from the status quo and who wield disproportionate political power.
The importance of these moral aspects of climate change is one reason why I have long sought to join forces with faith leaders to address the problem. Earlier this month WHRC took a big step on that direction by convening a gathering of faith leaders and climate scientists to discuss forming a coalition to work together. (There’s more about this gathering inside.) I am excited about this venture because the added value of this partnership is powerfully simple: for these two groups, which don’t agree on many issues, to work together on climate change speaks volumes about the importance and urgency they attach to the problem. Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina and a good friend of WHRC, says that climate change is not just a head issue, it’s also a heart issue. By working with faith leaders, we have the moral and intellectual authority to address both elements.
WHRC is an independent research institute where scientists investigate the causes and effects of climate change to identify and implement opportunities for conservation, restoration and economic development around the globe. In June 2016, WHRC was ranked as the top independent climate change think tank in the world for the third year in a row. Learn more at www.whrc.org.