Oppropet lyder som følger:
Ethical Expertise for AR5
It is widely acknowledged…
…that ethical questions play a central role in climate science and policy. Most recently, this is evidenced in the key messages resulting from the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen of March 2009.1 IPCC reports are full of explicit and implicit references to ethical issues, particularly in the context of discussions on sustainability. Important examples include:
- global distributive justice in mitigation and adaptation2
- intergenerational justice, in particular the issue of discounting3
- usefulness of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating climate change4
- the relation of humans to nature and questions regarding the value of biodiversity and natural services5
- value judgements that determine what is to count as a "key" vulnerability and what level of anthropogenic interference with the climate system is to count as "dangerous"6
…that in the IPCC assessment reports, ethical questions are not addressed with the same rigour as other questions. The analysis of issues with strong ethical components is not conducted on a comparable level of scientific quality as is the analysis of other issues. It is indicative of this general observation that, for the references given for the examples above, there is an almost complete lack of professional ethicists among the coordinating, lead, and contributing authors.
…that by now there is a large and growing literature on climate change written by ethics specialists. The first survey article on climate ethics appeared in the most prominent ethics journal five years ago,7 and bibliographies with relevant literature take up many pages.8
We therefore suggest…
…that a chapter with a general overview of the ethical issues in climate change be included in AR5. Such a chapter should not arrive at specific conclusions regarding the morally "correct" climate policy, but should rather provide an analysis that can support political decision-making and facilitate structured discussion. It should enumerate the approaches available in the state of the art literature as well as portray the most relevant arguments concerning all sides of the debate. Above all, authorities in the field of ethics rather than social or natural scientists should prepare such a chapter. In case a chapter on ethical issues should not become a reality, we urge that, at the very least, in those chapters where ethical issues are expressly addressed, the expertise of professionals in the field of ethics is sought and that such professionals be included in the list of authors.
1 See in particular key message 4 at http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/
2 For example: AR4, WG III, chap. 13, especially 13.1.2; AR4, WG III, chap. 2.6 (for an earlier example, see: TAR, WG III, chap. 10.4.5)
3 For example: AR4, WG III, chap. 188.8.131.52. (for an earlier example, see: SAR, WG III, chap. 4)
4 For example: AR4, WG III, chap. 2.2 – 2.4 (for an earlier example, see: TAR, WG II, chap. 2.7).
5 For example: AR4, WG III, chap. 2.6.3; AR4, WG II, 19.3.2.
6 For example: AR4, WG II, chap. 184.108.40.206; AR4, WG III, chap. 1.2.2
7 Gardiner, S. (2004). “Ethics and Global Climate Change,” Ethics 114: 555 – 600.
8 An impression can be gained from http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/education/bibliography.shtml. Among the many contributions by specialists in the field of normative science, salient examples of state of the art treatments include:
- Caney, S., Gardiner, S., Jamieson, D. & Shue, S. (eds.) (2009). Climate Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press).
- Page, E. (2006). Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
- Vanderheiden, S. (2008). Atmospheric Justice. A Political Theory of Climate Justice (New York: Oxford