Peter Singer

One Atmosphere (2002)


1.      We now have bizarre new ways of killing people

         a.      Seemingly harmless and trivial human actions can do this

         b.      “By spraying deodorant at your armpit in your New York apartment, you could, if you use an aerosol spray propelled by CFCs, be contributing to the skin-cancer deaths, many years later, of people living in Punta Arenas, Chile.”

         c.      “By driving your car, you could be releasing carbon dioxide that is part of a causal chain leading to lethal floods in Bangladesh.”


2.      Sue for CC damages?

3.      Polluter pays suggests that poor countries affected by CC should be able to sue the rich for the harm they cause

         a.      Just as it seems proper for Norway to sue England for damages caused by a British nuclear power plants emitting radioactive wastes that harm shellfish on Norwegian coastline

         b.      So an island nation should be able to sue the U.S. for allowing huge amounts of CO2 to warm the planet and flood homes on their island

4.      U.N. sanctions for these countries

5.      More reason to sanction unfair GHG polluters than South Africa during apartheid

         a.      The case for sanctions against nations cause fatal harm to citizens of other countries is even stronger than case of sanctions against country like South Africa during apartheid

         b.      For its policies were not a threat to other countries



7.      Arguments:

         a.      One: Cheaper to adapt to climate change than mitigate

         b.      Two: Money that would have been spend on mitigation would be better spend directly in helping the poor

         c.      Two: Unlikely rich give this $ to poor

                   i.       Comparatively inefficient way of helping poor better than not helping at all

         d.      One: Costs of mitigation not significant

                   i.       Defer econ growth by a year; by 2051 would be as wealthy as would have been in 2050 (and people will be twice as wealthy as today)

8.      Might be financial benefits to mitigation (if developing nations get on board)

         a.      How?

9.      C/B can’t appropriately price costs of CC

         a.      Doing Cost/Benefit on climate change assumes we can price increased deaths due to tropical disease and flooding, can price of extinction of species and ecosystems

10.    Singer on discount rate (not for inflation, simply discounting the future)

         a.      With 5% discount rate, losing 100 today equivalent to losing 95 in a year’s time, 92.5 in 2 years

                   i.       Only worth spending 14.20 today to make sure don’t lose 100 in 40 years

                   ii.      Because if I invested $14.20 today at 5% it would be worth $100 in 40 years

                   iii.     So 14 people dying today is just as bad as 100 people dying in 40 years? (So that if choose between 14 today and 99 in hundred years, choose the 99)

         b.      So not worth much to prevent future harms due to CC

                   i.       “Losses that occur in a century or more dwindle to virtually nothing”

         c.      Though our investments will grow over time and we will be richer, the price we are prepared to pay to save human lives or save end species may go up just as much.

                   i.       So discounting these makes no sense




12.    Bush on Equitable distribution of GHG

         a.      Bush: Not even handed to make U.S. carry burden of cleaning up the world’s air and leave out China and Japan

13.    Historical versus “time-slice” principles

         a.      Is what happens in past relevant to distributive justice or just what the division is today?



15.    Atmosphere as a giant global sink into which we can pour our waste gases

16.    One: Okay to take more of that common resource than others because there is as much and as good left for others

17.    Wastes down a sink example

         a.      Village everyone puts wastes into giant sink and they don’t know what happens to them but don’t care as no adverse effects

         b.      Some consume a lot have lots of wastes while other are poorer and have hardly have any wastes

         c.      No one cares as seems limitless sink

         d.      Use as much as you want and fine to use more that others

18.    Believe leaving as much and as good for others so okay

19.    Locke’s justification of owning private property in what once was owned in common by all

         a.      Mix labor with it and it becomes yours as long as as much and as good in common for others to appropriate

20.    When sink gets full and capacity to carry our wastes used up,

         a.      Unpleasant seepage, warm weather it smells, algal blooms in nearby lakes kids swim in, respected leaders say village water supplies will be polluted unless stop

         b.      If continue to put wastes down sink not leaving as much and as good for others.

21.    Lose our right to unchecked waste disposal

         a.      Sink belongs to all in common

         b.      By using w/o restrictions, we deprive others of their right to use the sink in same way w/o bringing about results none of us wants


22.    Two: Okay to take more than our fair share of the common resource of the atmosphere because doing so makes everyone better off (than if we had only taken our fair share) – because we have used this extra so productively

         a.      False, world’s poor have not benefitted from increased productivity that has resulted from industrialized nations uses the global sink

                   i.       poor can’t afford to buy the products of industrial nations

                   ii.      CC will harm them severely


23.    Rich got rich by stealing common resources of humanity; rich’s current wealth unfairly gained

24.    Developed world uses up to 15 times as much as developing world of atmospheric sink and thus we deprive those living in developing world of opportunity to develop like we have

         a.      I f they behaved as we do not, there would be a CC change catastrophe

25.    Rich by appropriating much, much more than their fair share of a common resource deprive the poor of their ability to develop w/o leading to a catastrophe

26.    Since wealth of developed world linked to use of carbon fuels for 200 years (and ongoing), so present global distribution of wealth is result of wrongful expropriation by small fraction of world’s peoples of a resource belonging to all humanity.

27.    Requires compensation

28.    Who should pay the bill for plumber: Divide it up proportionally

29.    People should pay in proportion to contribution to problem

         a.      U.S. 5% of pop, 30% emissions, India 17%, 2% emissions


30.    Tree planting counter argument U.S. tree planting in recent decades soaked up more carbon than releasing

         a.      U.S. has growing forests, only because cut them earlier (and released C02)

         b.      Depends on when date set

         c.      If date begins when U.S. cut all its trees, we come out worse off

         d.      If date begins after cutting and before reforestation, we come out good

         e.      Forest growth not long term solution

                   i.       Forests soaking up carbon only temporarily while trees growing

                   ii.      When old tree dies for every new one grows, forest no longer soaks up much carbon

         f.       Also the issue about we are lucky to be able to grow trees and other nations are not (not enough rain); Perhaps this is something we have a right to disproportionately benefit from


31.    At presents rates of emissions developing world won’t reach develop worlds built up contribution of CO2 until 2038

         a.      If do it per capita, will take at least century


32.    Developed nations broke the atmosphere and should fix it

         a.      Developed nations owe the rest of the world to fix the problem with the atmosphere



34.    Ignorance argument: Since most of developed nations contributions to GHG done when they could not have known of its limits

         a.      Fairer to look to future, not past–start fresh

35.    Reply 1:

         a.      Ignorance no excuse; strict liability for those who can pay (e.g., corporations)

         b.      especially when they have benefitted from the harm caused

36.    Reply 2:

         a.      Should only wipe slate clean to 1990 when for IPCC report made and not also with pollution since

37.    Poor nations generously overlook the past


38.    One: Equal share for everyone

         a.      Find out what level of CO2 is acceptable and divide by everyone in the world

         b.      If want to stabilize GHG at present level, everyone gets 1 metric ton per year

                   i.       U.S. 5; Japan, Europe, Australia 4.2, most below 3

                   ii.      Developing world average 0.6 and china at .76, India .29

         c.      U.S. must reduce emissions by 1/5

                   i.       India can increase 3x, China .up 33%

         d.      Objection: No incentive to respond to population growth (growing pop would force everyone else in world to have less per person)

                   i.       Reply: Use fixed population # (would encourage people lower pop as then each in a country would get more per person)

                   ii.      Use fixed populations projection of future, since if use current number puts unfair burden on countries with many more young people


39.    Two: Aiding the worst off

                   i.       This discussion moves between equality of GHG emissions and equality of wealth overall

         b.      Rawls difference principle: Only depart from equality if it is to the benefit of the worst off

                   i.       Give more to some if so doing provides incentive to do things that benefit the worst off.

         c.      Only accept distribution of GHG that improves situation of those who through no fault of their own are at the bottom of the heap (poor, developing countries)

                   i.       Reject any distribution that reduced living standard of poor as long as rich are clearly better off

                   ii.      E.g, can’t set limits on U.S. that only force us to drive more fuel efficient cars, if this means Chinese can’t drive at all

         d.      Only reason rich shouldn’t bear all the costs of reducing emissions is that this would make the poor nations worse off than they would be if rich did not bear all the costs


         e.      Letting nations emit in proportion to their economic activity (GDP) encourages efficiency (lowest level of emissions for amount produced)

         f.       Might offer rationale that U.S. can keep emitting way more than equal share as this not just makes world better off as a whole, but makes poor nations better off than otherwise be

                   i.       Flaw is that U.S. produces 89% for itself and others in world can’t afford goods produced in U.S. so not clear how they could benefit from it

         g.      Also, we are less efficient than average in emissions per capita in proportion to per capita GDP

40.    Conclusion: principle require distribution of resources to improve level of worst off–given huge gap rich and poor, makes rich nations bear all costs of changes.


41.    Greatest Happiness Principle

         a.      Might support distribution to worst off because of decreasing marginal utility

         b.      Would consider extra hardship of those (like Canadians) who live in regions need to use greater energy to achieve given level of comfort

         c.      Thinks utilitarian would argue rich countries should bear much more of burden, perhaps all



43.    Simple, suitable for political compromise, and increase global welfare

44.    Support equal per capita future entitlements to share of atmosphere tied to projections of population in 2050

45.    Too harsh on developed world?

         a.      Reply: Less harsh than historically based polluter pays, you broke it you fix it principle

                   i.       Which would insist that developing world produce much less that equal per capita share

46.    Emissions trading can make transition of developed world to equal per capita emissions much easier

         a.      Emissions trading like trade: If you can buy something from someone else more cheaply than you can produce it, you are better off buying it than making it

         b.      Countries that were below their allowable share would have no motive to keep it below if not allowed to emissions trade (e.g., Russia)

         c.      Some believe emissions trading allows U.S. to avoid its burdens too easily

         d.      Lomborg says that with emissions trading Kyoto produces net econ benefit

         e.      Give the poorest nations something rich nations want and something they can trad in exchange for resources they desperately need.

         f.       Just, utilitarian and gets developing world in the GHG control game, but requiring they agree to binding quotas


47.    Objection to emission trading: Poor countries get benefits that would go to dictators and not people in those countries who need it

         a.      Singer suggests U.N. Trust fund hold money until country can prove it will use it to benefit its people


48.    Pure fantasy recommendation?

         a.      Given political reality that we spurned Kyoto when it would allow us to pollute at 4 times our per capita share

         b.      Ethical discussion shows how flagrantly self-serving position of those developing countries who refuse to cut GHG is

         c.      Knowing what is a fair solution will help citizens change these policies



50.    Rio Summit and Kyoto protocol did not set emissions -reductions targets for developing countries

         a.      Appropriate or not?

         b.      Singer argues that like with Montreal Ozone protocol, poor countries will join in once see developed nations serious about tackling their emissions.

51.    Only rational choice about what to believe concerning CC is to rely on climate scientists

         a.      Those of us who have no expertise in the scientific aspects of assessing climate change and its causes can scarcely disregard the views held by the overwhelming majority of those who do possess that expertise. They could be wrong-the great majority of scientists sometimes are-but in view of what is at stake, to rely on that possibility would be a risky strategy.


52.    Rich nations may be able to afford the costs to cope with CC, but poor nations will not