By John Leschak
As I walk to class, I curse the cold air. This winter has been particularly frigid with temperatures below 10 degrees Farenheit and frequent snow storms. Yet, for all my dislike of the icy weather, I am not happy that milder winters may lie ahead as a result of global warming.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), between 1901 and 2000 the global average air temperature increased 0.72 degrees Farenheit. The IPCC also observed decreases in snow and in the frequency of cold days and nights, as well as the earlier timing of spring events. The IPCC concluded that this warming was being caused primarily by increased concentrations of green-house gases (GHGs) in earth’s atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric GHG levels has been caused by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels like gasoline and coal.
China is now the leading emitter of GHG, responsible for 21 percent of annual global emissions. However, the U.S. has long exceeded China in its use of fossil fuels. In fact, the U.S. is responsible for almost 30 percent of cumulative GHG emissions since 1850, whereas China is responsible for only 8 percent of emissions since then. Together, the U.S. and China are responsible for over 40 percent of current GHG emissions, but neither country has agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the reduction of GHG emission rates.
Some claim that the U.S. has no duty to reduce GHG emissions because doing so would harm our domestic interests since reduction would impose tremendous costs on the U.S. in return for trivial gains. In terms of costs, the U.S. would need to spend billions to build a new, non-fossil fuel, energy infrastructure, or it would need to pay billions either in the form of an international carbon tax or by purchasing emission quotas under a “cap-and-trade system.”
Furthermore, the U.S. will gain little by preventing global warming. While global warming is expected to cause increases in drought, the loss of fresh water due to rising seas, and widespread fatality from severe weather, these negative consequences are not equally distributed around the world. Scientists predict that poor countries in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia will be the hardest hit by global warming, with potentially hundreds of millions of people dying from floods, famine and disease. On the other hand, the U.S. may actually benefit. According to the IPCC, warming will probably increase agricultural productivity in North America. Because the U.S. has far less to lose from global warming than poor countries do, it consequently has less to gain from preventing it and less incentive to bear the costs of reduction.
However, although reducing GHG emissions may not be among the domestic interests of the U.S., the U.S. still has an ethical duty to reduce emissions. This duty could be based on several different theories, including corrective justice (because the U.S. “broke” the atmosphere by emitting so much GHG, it needs to “fix it” by reducing emissions) and distributive justice (because the U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world, it has a duty to help the “worst-off” nations that will be hurt the most by global warming). Yet, neither corrective nor distributive justice is a perfect rationale for the duty of the U.S.
I believe the strongest rationale for this duty is based on the theory of “atmospheric commons.” According to this theory, the atmosphere of planet earth belongs to no one. Instead, every person and living creature has a right to the atmosphere. In the words of philosopher Peter Singer, by using fossil fuels without restrictions, we are depriving others of the right to use the atmosphere in the same way without bringing about results none of us want. Right now, the average American emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. By contrast, in China, the average person emits only four tons of carbon dioxide per year. If the Chinese used fossil fuels the same way we do, it could spell the extinction of mankind.
To preserve the right of each person to the atmosphere, we need to limit the amount of GHG each person can emit. Setting an annual limit of five tons of carbon dioxide per person, for example, would require the U.S. to reduce their GHG emissions to be in line with the U.S. population’s per capita limits. Currently, the U.S. is responsible for 20 percent of global GHG emissions but it has only 5 percent of the world’s population.
As citizens of the world’s leading emitter of GHG, it is incumbent upon us to change our own lifestyles to use less energy. Turn your heater down and wear a sweater. Walk to class instead of driving. Doing these things may make you curse the cold, but a warming winter would be quite sinister for the world as a whole.
John Leschak is a second-year law student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].