**7. Climate change solutions**

*Bioethics in Medicine and Society*

Four major ethical theories discussed in the literature may be summarized as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue, and relativism [44]. Utilitarianism attempts to maximize benefit and minimize harm to all stakeholders involved. In such a paradigm, decisions are made without consideration of the costs involved. Utilitarianism would advocate the same standard of living across the globe irrespective of the economic impact. Deontology focuses on rules that distinguish "right from wrong." Deontology tends to be rather rigid in that it focuses on adhering to rules without appreciating nuance [45]. Immanuel Kant promulgated this approach in which people are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules independent of the outcome [46]. Although many religious leaders are deontologists as they promulgate adherence to divine authority, belief in a deity is not required. One variant of deontology, Natural Law, opines that there is an order to human behavior that can be deduced independent of religious or secular authorities [47]. The contrast between deontology and utilitarianism would be apparent in a situation in which a homeowner is harboring 30 refugees illegally and is confronted by the police. Utilitarianism would dictate that the owner should lie as this would protect 30 people whereas a deontologist would insist that the owner should follow the law of the land and tell the truth even if this adversely affected the refugees. The other two major theories are virtue and relativism. Virtue is an ethical framework that evaluates a person's overall character as opposed to their actions. When questionable behavior is observed, the virtue theory requires that the person's past actions and temperament be taking into consideration when evaluating the act. For example, if a person is known as a mild mannered, temperate and a pillar of the community who embezzles money then the act needs to be evaluated in the context of prior behavior. Virtue based theory would recommend greater leniency for this person as opposed to someone who had a reputation as a scofflaw. Relativism opines that moral obligations and beliefs tend to be based on the environment and that acts need to be judged within that context. Thus, a relativist would not categorically

condemn cannibalism as this may be an accepted practice in some cultures.

ments of justice, namely equality and equity [50].

Beauchamp and Childress discuss a different framework in which they promulgate the four ethical pillars of autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice [48]. They opine that these must be taken into consideration when faced with a moral dilemma. Autonomy expresses the concept that an affected individual has the right to make decisions that directly impact them. For example, autonomy dictates that a person should be able to act in accordance with their religious beliefs and refuse a blood transfusion even if this decision could result in death. Beneficence implies that a decision should always be based on achieving a good outcome whereas non-malfeasance is a requirement to minimize harm as epitomized in the Latin expression *primum non nocere*. Justice implies that one is obligated to treat all stakeholders fairly. In health care ethics, this can be subdivided into three categories: fair distribution of scarce resources (distributive justice), respect for people's rights (rights-based justice) and respect for morally acceptable laws (legal justice) [49]. Alperovitch et al. described an alternative view in which there are two ele-

It should be evident from this brief discussion that each of these ethical theories have advantages and disadvantages such that no one theory is always superior when faced with a moral dilemma. While the four ethical pillars allow for autonomy, an apocryphal quote often attributed to United States Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes states, "Your right to swing a punch ends at the bridge of my nose." The earth is a closed system such that an individual cannot act in isolation as one individual's consumption of resources will have climate impacts. Moreover, the right to assert "climate denial" is untenable given the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change. Nonetheless, autonomy should not be excluded altogether. One such approach is a

**210**

Can humanity adapt its social norms and integrate science into a solution? The late cosmologist, Professor Stephen Hawking opined that, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works" [52]. However, religion and a belief in supernatural phenomena predates recorded human history. It is unlikely that humans would reject millions of years of belief in supernatural phenomena and suddenly embrace science. Moreover, even humans who possess a high degree of scientific literacy do not make decisions solely on scientific principles as political and religious backgrounds factor into these decisions such that those persons with more hierarchical and individualistic worldviews rated climate risk significantly lower [53]. Therefore, it is important for scientists to align with religious and political leaders in order to meet the challenge of climate change. The challenge is to convince humans of diverse political backgrounds, cultures, and religions to overcome tribalism, accept that climate change is a crisis and act in accordance with scientific principles to address its most deleterious effects. From a scientific perspective the options are GG removal from the system, decreased production, and sequestration.

Returning to the diabetes analogy, excess blood sugar can be addressed by excreting it from the body, decreasing glucose production (e.g. consume fewer calories) and sequestration in which it is stored in an unusable form in the body. Indeed, a comprehensive treatment for Type II diabetes usually involves weight loss from decreased calorie consumption, medications to store glucose within the body and, in some cases, medicines designed to facilitate glucose excretion. In this analogy, the earth's disease is a rising average temperature due to excess GG production, predominantly CO2. As an overview, the main solutions are removal of atmospheric CO2, (e.g. send it into outer space), sequestration, and reduced production of GG.

Removal involves sending greenhouses gases out of earth's orbit never to return whereas sequestration involves converting atmospheric GG into a different form, (e.g. pumping underground or storing in a liquid or solid form). While theoretically possible, pumping GG out of the atmosphere would require building a pipe in the form of a space elevator up to 53,000 km, (circa 33,550 miles), an altitude wherein these GG would be at escape velocity [54]. Using rockets to remove GG is impractical given the economic costs and relatively limited payloads in addition to the possibility that rocket launches might actually result in a net addition of GG to the environment [55]. Thus, removal is not practical as it is cost prohibitive, technologically challenging and may be counterproductive.

CO2 sequestration involves capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide of which there are two main methods: geologic and biologic [56]. This government source states that, "Geologic carbon sequestration is the process of storing CO2 in underground geologic formations. The CO2 is usually pressurized until it becomes a liquid, and then it is injected into porous rock formations in geologic basins. This method of carbon storage is also sometimes a part of enhanced oil recovery, otherwise known as tertiary recovery, because it is typically used later in the life of a producing oil well. In enhanced oil recovery, the liquid CO2 is injected into the oil-bearing formation in order to reduce the viscosity of the oil and allow it to flow more easily to the oil well" [57]. The United States Geological Survey estimated

that 2,400 to 3,700 metric gigatons of CO2 could be stored by this method [58]. Nonetheless, this method has its limitations in that during calendar year 2017, the United States produced 5.1 metric giga tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 metric gigatons [59]. Using the lower estimate, the United States could store approximately 74 years of global CO2 emissions at 2017 production levels. Objections to this method include the possibility of inducing seismic activity and contaminating drinking water although the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has proposed mitigation strategies [60]. There are other geologic CO2 sequestration methods that may be used to sequester CO2, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion. Nonetheless, such a strategy would only be temporary such that longer term strategies are required.

Biological carbon sequestration is the storage of CO2 in vegetation such as grasslands or forests, as well as in soils and oceans [61]. Animals, including insects, also contribute to the planetary biomass. The oceans absorb 30% of annual CO2 emissions, which has mitigated the full effect of GG emissions at the expense of acidifying the oceans from an historic pH of 8.2 to a current pH of 8.1 [62]. This increased ocean acidity impairs the ability of shell-forming marine life to survive including some of the microscopic plankton that forms the base of the marine food chain. Coral reefs comprise less than 1% of the ocean floor yet support over 25% of all known marine species and provide food to over one billion people [63]. Increasing ocean temperatures and acidification portends an increasing probability of this fragile ecosystem's collapse [64]. Biological sequestration is also problematic as a recent publication indicated a greater number of biological consumers than producers [65]. These processes could eventually lead to the collapse of the food chain and mass starvation. Therefore, increasing biomass will likely be only a small part of any climate change solution.

Of these, the most effective approach is to reduce the production of GG as part of an integrated strategy as proposed by Project Drawdown. Project Drawdown's mission statement is to help the world reach "Drawdown"-"the the point in the future when levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere stop climbing and start to steadily decline, thereby stopping catastrophic climate change — as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible" [66]. While an integrated approach using all modalities available is logical, any viable solution must minimize the impact of future climate change by a significant reduction in the production of GG. Notably, the wealthiest 10% of the planet produces nearly half of GG emissions whereas the people in the lowest half of global income produce only 10% of these gases [67]. In 2014, the top CO2 emitters comprising 70% of all emissions were China (30% of total), the United States (15% of total), the European Union (9% of total), India (7% of total), the Russian Federation (5% of total), and Japan (4% of total) [68]. Thus, the United States and China were responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions. While the entire earth is vulnerable to climate change, the greatest impacts are likely to occur in countries that were not major contributors to GG production. The countries most vulnerable to climate change often have the greatest degree of population growth and relatively lower educational levels in their populace. These socioeconomic disadvantages are risk factors for extremism that increases the probability of violence and reduces the probability of collaboration [69].

#### **8. Ethical solutions for climate change**

It should be clear that climate change is underway and that failure to act will have catastrophic consequences. While each ethical approach has inherent advantages and

**213**

*Climate Change: A Forced Choice Ethical Paradigm DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95486*

genders but disproportionately affects females [74].

**9. Climate change conflict resolution**

individual choices that minimize our impact on climate change.

As stated in the introduction, autonomy is of less importance than the other ethical principles when global solutions are involved yet autonomy remains important. The author CS Lewis remarked that "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching" [75]. We are all empowered to make choices everyday including decisions regarding recycling, public versus private transportation, resource consumption and family planning. Minding the science underlying climate change and the other three ethical principles should guide us in making proper

As previously stated, conflict resolution can be achieved by five different methods; avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, and compromise.

disadvantages, utilitarianism and deontology are not viable ethical constructs for this issue. Economic realities are such that it is highly unlikely that a universal standard of living acceptable to all humanity can be achieved in the current political climate. Deontology is unlikely to be a successful strategy as humanity does not subscribe to one religion much less one set of "divinely" or "naturally" inspired moral principles. Given the general lack of scientific literacy and current anti-science movements, it is unlikely that humanity will embrace science over belief systems that predate recorded history. Humanity must accept acknowledge its history, recognize that there is an ongoing disease, reject maladaptive behaviors and embrace a new paradigm that will enhance our survival as a species. As the late Japanese athlete Morihei Ueshiba stated, "Each and every master, regardless of the era or the place, heard the call and attained harmony with heaven and earth. There are many paths leading to the top of Mount Fuji, but there is only one summit – love" [70]. Humanity must embrace one concept of relativism that that there are many belief systems but only one summit, which is that of mitigating climate change. Humanity needs to focus on this common goal for failure to act may endanger our future survival. We can opt to exercise individual autonomy and elect political leaders who are committed to embracing science and addressing the current climate crisis. These political leaders should partner with religious authorities to encourage all their constituencies to act in a manner congruent with mitigating climate change for the betterment of all. Humanity must also reduce its per capita resource consumption so that our use of the earth's resources does not exceed its regenerative capacity. This can be realized either by reducing the amount of resources consumed per person or population reduction with the same average rate of resource consumption. While the concepts of beneficence and justice would assess these approaches as equivalent, non-malfeasance would favor a voluntary population reduction as this would not require lessening the standard of living for some to achieve global economic parity. Population reduction can be achieved through education and gender equality as educated women tend to have fewer children [71]. This article also cited Project Drawdown, which listed potential solutions to mitigating climate change, including an estimate that educating girls and securing women's voluntary right to high-quality family planning together could reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by 85 gigatons, making this one of the most powerful solutions to climate change [72]. Thus, to be concordant with Beauchamp's and Childress' four ethical pillars, gender equality must be achieved. At the present time, no country has achieved gender equality although the top 10 counties include those in Northwestern Europe, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Nicaragua [73]. Implicit in women's rights and gender equality is the worldwide elimination of child labor and slavery, which adversely affects both

#### *Climate Change: A Forced Choice Ethical Paradigm DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95486*

*Bioethics in Medicine and Society*

gies are required.

part of any climate change solution.

and reduces the probability of collaboration [69].

**8. Ethical solutions for climate change**

that 2,400 to 3,700 metric gigatons of CO2 could be stored by this method [58]. Nonetheless, this method has its limitations in that during calendar year 2017, the United States produced 5.1 metric giga tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 32.5 metric gigatons [59]. Using the lower estimate, the United States could store approximately 74 years of global CO2 emissions at 2017 production levels. Objections to this method include the possibility of inducing seismic activity and contaminating drinking water although the United States' Environmental Protection Agency has proposed mitigation strategies [60]. There are other geologic CO2 sequestration methods that may be used to sequester CO2, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion. Nonetheless, such a strategy would only be temporary such that longer term strate-

Biological carbon sequestration is the storage of CO2 in vegetation such as grasslands or forests, as well as in soils and oceans [61]. Animals, including insects, also contribute to the planetary biomass. The oceans absorb 30% of annual CO2 emissions, which has mitigated the full effect of GG emissions at the expense of acidifying the oceans from an historic pH of 8.2 to a current pH of 8.1 [62]. This increased ocean acidity impairs the ability of shell-forming marine life to survive including some of the microscopic plankton that forms the base of the marine food chain. Coral reefs comprise less than 1% of the ocean floor yet support over 25% of all known marine species and provide food to over one billion people [63]. Increasing ocean temperatures and acidification portends an increasing probability of this fragile ecosystem's collapse [64]. Biological sequestration is also problematic as a recent publication indicated a greater number of biological consumers than producers [65]. These processes could eventually lead to the collapse of the food chain and mass starvation. Therefore, increasing biomass will likely be only a small

Of these, the most effective approach is to reduce the production of GG as part of an integrated strategy as proposed by Project Drawdown. Project Drawdown's mission statement is to help the world reach "Drawdown"-"the the point in the future when levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere stop climbing and start to steadily decline, thereby stopping catastrophic climate change — as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible" [66]. While an integrated approach using all modalities available is logical, any viable solution must minimize the impact of future climate change by a significant reduction in the production of GG. Notably, the wealthiest 10% of the planet produces nearly half of GG emissions whereas the people in the lowest half of global income produce only 10% of these gases [67]. In 2014, the top CO2 emitters comprising 70% of all emissions were China (30% of total), the United States (15% of total), the European Union (9% of total), India (7% of total), the Russian Federation (5% of total), and Japan (4% of total) [68]. Thus, the United States and China were responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions. While the entire earth is vulnerable to climate change, the greatest impacts are likely to occur in countries that were not major contributors to GG production. The countries most vulnerable to climate change often have the greatest degree of population growth and relatively lower educational levels in their populace. These socioeconomic disadvantages are risk factors for extremism that increases the probability of violence

It should be clear that climate change is underway and that failure to act will have catastrophic consequences. While each ethical approach has inherent advantages and

**212**

disadvantages, utilitarianism and deontology are not viable ethical constructs for this issue. Economic realities are such that it is highly unlikely that a universal standard of living acceptable to all humanity can be achieved in the current political climate. Deontology is unlikely to be a successful strategy as humanity does not subscribe to one religion much less one set of "divinely" or "naturally" inspired moral principles. Given the general lack of scientific literacy and current anti-science movements, it is unlikely that humanity will embrace science over belief systems that predate recorded history. Humanity must accept acknowledge its history, recognize that there is an ongoing disease, reject maladaptive behaviors and embrace a new paradigm that will enhance our survival as a species. As the late Japanese athlete Morihei Ueshiba stated, "Each and every master, regardless of the era or the place, heard the call and attained harmony with heaven and earth. There are many paths leading to the top of Mount Fuji, but there is only one summit – love" [70]. Humanity must embrace one concept of relativism that that there are many belief systems but only one summit, which is that of mitigating climate change. Humanity needs to focus on this common goal for failure to act may endanger our future survival. We can opt to exercise individual autonomy and elect political leaders who are committed to embracing science and addressing the current climate crisis. These political leaders should partner with religious authorities to encourage all their constituencies to act in a manner congruent with mitigating climate change for the betterment of all.

Humanity must also reduce its per capita resource consumption so that our use of the earth's resources does not exceed its regenerative capacity. This can be realized either by reducing the amount of resources consumed per person or population reduction with the same average rate of resource consumption. While the concepts of beneficence and justice would assess these approaches as equivalent, non-malfeasance would favor a voluntary population reduction as this would not require lessening the standard of living for some to achieve global economic parity. Population reduction can be achieved through education and gender equality as educated women tend to have fewer children [71]. This article also cited Project Drawdown, which listed potential solutions to mitigating climate change, including an estimate that educating girls and securing women's voluntary right to high-quality family planning together could reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by 85 gigatons, making this one of the most powerful solutions to climate change [72]. Thus, to be concordant with Beauchamp's and Childress' four ethical pillars, gender equality must be achieved. At the present time, no country has achieved gender equality although the top 10 counties include those in Northwestern Europe, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Nicaragua [73]. Implicit in women's rights and gender equality is the worldwide elimination of child labor and slavery, which adversely affects both genders but disproportionately affects females [74].

As stated in the introduction, autonomy is of less importance than the other ethical principles when global solutions are involved yet autonomy remains important. The author CS Lewis remarked that "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching" [75]. We are all empowered to make choices everyday including decisions regarding recycling, public versus private transportation, resource consumption and family planning. Minding the science underlying climate change and the other three ethical principles should guide us in making proper individual choices that minimize our impact on climate change.
