The intergovernmental panel on climate change (or IPCC for short) released in 2018 a special report [1] on the importance of keeping global warming below 1.5 ºC to prevent irreversible change to the climate system. This report and countless other scientific evidence [2][3] point towards a disturbing truth: current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate at an unsustainable rate. Since the industrial revolution of the mid XVIII century, the average temperature of the planet has increased by roughly 1ºC, and if current trends continue, we will see an increase in temperature of at least 3ºC by the end of the century. But why should we care about global warming? Why is it an important issue for human kind? And is it significant beyond human interests?

So far in the course we have considered two types of moral frameworks: anthropocentrism (human-centered ethics) and biocentrism (life-centrism ethics). From an anthropocentric view, climate change will have (and indeed is already having) serious impacts on human societies. From rising sea levels to water shortages and food insecurity, people around the world are going to live with the detrimental ramifications of modern industry. However, nowadays most people seem to prefer to carry on with business as usual because facing global warming is both uncomfortable and demanding. Fossil-fuel-driven-economy provides immense value for human kind. From transportation and electricity to petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals, energy-dense fuels have allowed unprecedented growth and the advancement of a highly interconnected world economy. So if we only consider short-term human interests, tackling global warming doesn’t seem such a pressing issue.

However, if we take into consideration the wellbeing of other species, the urgency to address the climate emergency becomes increasingly evident. We have shared the planet with other living organisms for thousands of years, and our actions are rapidly changing their environment.  According to the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [4], “around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction […] more than ever before in human history.” Biocentrism rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics, and holds the position that all living creatures have an intrinsic good of their own. Intrinsic good refers to the value of a thing in itself, independent of external relationships. For instance, we might find a forest useful to extract timber, but if we consider its intrinsic value, its usefulness can’t be a reason to destroy it. A biocentric philosophy encompases a broader range of creatures that we should consider when thinking about climate change, and it reminds us that our actions have serious consequences beyond our own existence. A position put forward by Robin Attfield argues that what matters about animals is their capacity to be harmed or benefited. In his talk on Biocentrism [5], Attfield highlights the importance of protecting other species’ habitat as well as ours, and sees with worry global warming for driving species into extinction at ever increasing rates. Attfield is a utilitarian, which means his ultimate goal is to maximize happiness and minimize pain. In classical utilitarianism, actions are judged by their consequences on the satisfaction of human preferences, and these preferences are given the same weight by the principle of equal consideration. However, when this principle is extended to non-human beings, Attfield makes the remark that sentient or rational beings might have more interests than non-sentient, non-rational beings. This view might be problematic when dealing with climate change issues because it reaffirms, in a way, human superiority over other creatures.

The deontological philosopher Paul Taylor puts forward an alternative biocentric viewpoint [6]. According to Taylor, humans should assume an attitude of respect for nature, an attitude rooted in the good of all living beings and their inherent worth. Taylor wholeheartedly rejects the idea of human superiority over other animal and plant species, and calls for a change in mentality that allows us to see ourselves as co-inhabitants of the planet. This biocentric outlook on nature is based on an “understanding of earth’s natural ecosystems as a complex web of interconnected elements” (Taylor, 1981), which results in the knowledge that the wellbeing of the earth’s ecosystems is essential to both human and non-human species. 

In dealing with climate change, I consider the attitude of respect for nature an ideal limiting condition of every person’s freedom of action (just like Kant’s principle of respect for persons is a limiting condition in classical deontological philosophy). If we take into account the intrinsic value of every bird, elefant, and oak tree, human’s boundless exploitation of the natural environment comes out to be irrational. If we stop thinking about nature as useful to us, and start recognizing the value it embodies in itself, the acidification of the oceans, burning of the rainforests, and deterioration of wild environments comes out to be utterly immoral. But this does not mean humans are evil. It mostly means we are ignorant of the interconnectedness of the earth’s ecosystems, and the profound implications that nearly every aspect of our life has on the planet.

References:

1. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
2. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming.” NASA. January 21, 2020 https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.
3. “United in Science 2020.” World Meteorological Organization. September 11, 2020. https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science. 
4. “UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ – United Nations Sustainable Development.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/.
5. Robin Attfield. Biocentrism Talk. Cardiff University
6. Paul W. Taylor. The Ethics of Respect for Nature. 1981.