The countries of the present world which are more developed than other countries with respect to economic factors are greater contributors to the emission of harmful particles into the climate. In the same manner, the economically developed countries also holds higher power of addressing the issue of reducing global warming when it comes to inculcating cost towards utilization of various innovative equipments that can significantly reduce global warming. Stephen Gardiner, in his article addressing issues of climate change, argued that the nations which are economically developed or the rich nations should take charge of bearing the most amount of costs required for the purpose of addressing consequences of global warming or eradication of the entire issue of global warming. Stephen Gardiner argued this way principally on the grounds of strong perspectives of economics and liability. In terms of economical aspect, Stephen Gardiner presented reasoning behind his argument on the basis of an Integrated Assessment (IA) model. The model unites important aspects of the systems of economy and biophysics with the aim of realizing the alternative effects of both the climate as well as policies related to economic perspectives on each other. The model primarily aims at determining a perfect policy for the climatic factors that can exploit in maximum the activities related to the welfare of society. This model along with various other Integrated Assessment models provided an astonishing result that quite less counteractive effects towards global warming would appear in the next coming years due to the fact that costs associated with reduction of global warming is more than the amount of benefits that can be acquired. Thus, the supporters of this model such as Stephen Gardiner cited the argument that on the basis of economic costs, the countries which are economically developed should strive towards adapting consequences of global warming rather than reducing. However, with several considerations of arguably true facts, it was put forward by Stephen Gardiner that the developed or the rich nations should undertake steps which would benefit the countries economically. Considering the liability perspectives, Stephen Gardiner considers the developed or rich nations to be more responsible towards contributing to the worse conditions of the climate in recent times. Taking an approach of “backward-looking”, Gardiner held that these nations should bear the most amounts of costs considering their past impacts upon the climatic conditions. The industrialized countries are held to be more responsible towards carrying the costs that have been imposed due to emissions during the past years. Moreover, on scientific grounds, the developed economies of the world have largely contributed towards generating emissions during the past years due to massive industrialization. Thus, Stephen Gardiner argued with the logic that it should be the responsibility of the developed nations to compensate higher proportion towards addressing issues of global warming for overusing. Persuasive Factors of Stephen Gardiner’s Belief Considering various issues related to the strategies for reducing adverse impacts of global warming, Stephen
Ethics and Global Climate Change Reasons for Stephen Gardiner’s Belief One of the most typical problems of the human race related to environment is that of global warming which is caused by anthropogenic emanation. This problem has a global reach due to the reason that humidity of the climate cannot be ascertained as a result of any single factor but is caused due to destructive emissions that can be from any part of the world…
During the industrial revolution which began in the early part of 19th century, there had been massive burning of fossil fuels which resulted in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The developed nations of this world are the leaders in industrial revolution.
From Gardiner’s (2004) arguments, readers are presented with apparent justifications for believing that richer nations should pay most of the costs for addressing global warming. Among the strongest reasons include: (1) backward-looking or historical considerations which emphasized that since “developed countries are responsible for a very large percentage of historical emissions… (thus) historical principles of justice… require that one “clean up one’s own mess.” This suggests that the industrialized countries should bear the costs imposed by their past emissions” (Gardiner, 2004, p.
Evidences of climate change increase include the ozone depletion and its effects as acute clean water shortages (Brown, Hammill & McLeman 2007, p.1141). Following the little attention offered to climate change issues by policy makers in the 1990s, its effects spread to a substantial extent.
Climate scientists agree that the principle cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect which is essential an anthropogenic phenomenon i.e. caused by human activities. However, this grave issue has so far been neglected on a large scale by politicians.
Following the little attention offered to climate change issues by policy makers in the 1990s, its effects spread to a substantial extent. How can the international society continue to maintain sustainable development of
Besides, most countries would prefer to continue with their developmental activities that lead to global warming. Such countries play the tragedy of the commons in the sense that they support climate change mitigation yet they are the major
whatever happens in future should not be a problem for current human beings since humans are part of the larger universal system, which has a way of balancing itself. Thus, we agree that the non-identity problem is a major problem for thinking about the ethics of climate