Some further food for though from Casaubon’s Book (this time rightly spellt).

That is, we say things like “I have to go do this thing or that thing - I have to commute long distances, because that’s where my job is, or I have to go bring my kids to visit their grandkids, or I have to go get a dress for the wedding.” And all of these facts are absolutely true as far as it goes - that is, often our society doesn’t give us a lot of choices.

But what we never say is “I have to commute to my job, so those people in Haiti have to eat dirt” or “I have to make sure my kids spend time with their grandparents, so some Bangladeshi farmers have to drown.” That is, we leave out the second clause in our sentences. And that’s because we couldn’t live with ourselves if we articulated the whole of our statements.

Casaubon’s Sharon forcefully appeals to a morality that most probably we all recognize. You driving a car causes a Haitian to eat dirt. You as an individual are causing the suffering of another for something that is rather superfluous anyway. That can’t be right, so stop bloody driving already!

If only the connection between the car and the Haitian would be as simple, the environmentalists would have an easy case in showing the superiority of their ways. The workings of the climate, however, don’t really fit the standard moral paradigm expressed above. The number of perpetrators is huge, outnumbered only by their victims. The causal chains travel not only from the northern motorways to the Caribbeans, but essentially everywhere on the globe and through a long period of time. The links and interplays between different factors are, despite of a large consensus between the general connection between temperatures and emissions, largely unknown.

A truthful depiction of the climate crime of our motorist is hence not that he or she is causing a Haitian to eat dirt. It is that the driver of the car, together with a large number of unacquainted people, take part in unknown events that will cause some nameless people far away and in the future to eat dirt. Is driving still wrong? Umm, I guess so. But I have to get to work after all.

A justification for cutting down carbon will ultimately have to be expressed in terms that incorporate the plight of the other, as opposed to sole considerations of self-interest. If the nature of the phenomenon is represented in realistic terms, including collective action problems and uncertainties, it forms a moral argument that, while probably in accordance with many widely held principles, doesn’t make a case as convincing as the above simplifications.

(based on Dale Jamieson 2007)