**6. Ethical constructs**

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines ethics as "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" [42]. Thus, ethics may be viewed as behavioral guidelines designed to enhance the survival of the individual and the group to which that person belongs. Implicit in this definition is that there are those within the group and those that are external to the group. Thus, the size of the "group" may range from one individual to all life forms on the planet. It is how those external to the group are treated that sets the stage for conflict. While conflict is inherent in any instance of resource scarcity, it is how conflict is resolved that determines the outcome. Many leaders invoke morality to bolster their position in such conflicts. Nonetheless, conflict resolution can be achieved by five different methods: avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, and compromise [43]. These potential solutions to climate change are discussed in the penultimate section of this chapter.

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.

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

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

**211**

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

**7. Climate change solutions**

production, and sequestration.

cally challenging and may be counterproductive.

carbon tax in which a person or a corporation can use more than their fair share of fossil fuels but would pay a premium to do so [51]. A person would be able to make

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

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, technologi-

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

choices although some of these choices would be economically prohibitive.

carbon tax in which a person or a corporation can use more than their fair share of fossil fuels but would pay a premium to do so [51]. A person would be able to make choices although some of these choices would be economically prohibitive.
