Rawlsian Political Analysis: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Social Science

Chapter Six: The Ethics and the Politics of Climate Change

   149 c h a p t e r s i x The Ethics and the Politics of Climate Change Approaches to Analyzing Climate Change To explain the causes for a region’s poverty, as chapter 5 attempts for Bihar, Rawlsian analysis inevitably turns to political history. To address the ethics of an emerging social problem not contained within national borders, by contrast, Rawlsian analysis returns to the original position. In both cases, Rawlsian analysis offers an orientation grounded in the perspective of justice. To act in the world, we need a conception of our world; initially, such conceptions are likely to be grounded in our own interests and/or those of groups of which we are a part. Each person’s cognition of social relations consists in part of an orientation to fairness, and this is the seat of the orientation to justice as well. To speak of social justice, however, implies a social analysis with competing factors appropriately balanced. Otherwise, views of fairness are likely to be narrow and stilted. The original position serves as a device of representation for achieving this kind of balance; by working through a problem such as climate change from this perspective, one fairly juxtaposes competing interests in order to reach a well-grounded general perspective. Neoclassical economics is presently the dominant form of social analysis in the Anglo-American world, so it is not surprising that the most prominent analyses of responses to climate change arise from this perspective. At this writing, the most influential analysis is The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the 150 Rawlsian Political Analysis British Government Economic Service and formerly chief economist for the World Bank.1 Another influential analysis, one that adheres more rigorously to neoclassical economic theory and on which the Stern Review builds, is by Yale University’s William Nordhaus; in its most recent (2008) iteration Nordhaus critiques the Stern Review.2 To clarify the distinguishing features of a Rawlsian analysis, and to indicate its significance , I contrast it with these analyses. Before the industrial revolution, there were about 280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere. By 2009 this had risen to over 380 ppm,3 mainly due to CO2 releases associated with industrialization. The scientific consensus holds that, along with rising levels of other greenhouse gasses, this has been the main cause of the observed rise in average global temperatures of about 0.74 degrees Celsius.4 Rising temperatures are changing global weather patterns, increasing droughts and floods, and raising water levels in the oceans. In the last few million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have cycled between 180 ppm and 280 ppm in rhythm with the sequence of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods; the last time they stood at 400 ppm was about fourteen million years ago.5 Based on current trends, atmospheric concentrations will reach about 700 ppm by 2100,6 but the science of the effects of such a rise is in its infancy. The evidence increasingly indicates, however, that the effects would likely be quite drastic. In economic terms, the effects of CO2 emissions (and other drivers of climate change) are understood as externalities. Those who benefit from activities that lead to CO2 emissions impose costs on those who suffer harms from climate change.7 Analysis based on rational utility maximization, and hence on the satisfaction of interests, takes efficiency as its primary criterion. The analysis of externalities is well developed in economic (as well as rational choice) theory: efforts should be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to the point where the marginal cost is equal to the marginal benefit, with benefits understood in this case as reductions in damages.8 Stern and Nordhaus agree on this model but disagree on how to apply it—among other points, on how to account for costs and benefits that occur in future years (that is, on the discount rate), what damages to include, and how to assign values to damages. The Ethics and the Politics of Climate Change 151 Industrialized nations have contributed most to causing climate change, but poor people in less developed countries are harmed the most by it. The poor are more vulnerable and less able to adapt, and most poor countries, given that they lie closer to the equator, are already hotter than most rich countries. In fact, it appears...