Looking at Dale Jamieson’s “Ethics And Intentional Climate Change” provides an interesting perspective on climate change and Intentional Climate Change (ICC). I also think that it is particularly interesting that Jamieson mentioned the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ in relation to this discussion. Jamieson suggests that there are instances where we are responsible for what we do even if we did not intend to do them. I agree with this point but I think that there is a moral difference between purposefully doing harm and doing so accidentally.

The doctrine of double effect engages specifically with the idea that within war is it unacceptable to target civilians specifically, but, if civilians happen to be caught in the crossfire, that is morally permissible. This is the distinction between terror bombings and strategic bombings. This distinction comes from the idea that the desire was not to hurt the civilians and, if given the opportunity, a strategic bomb would prefer to remove all civilians from the area of effect. This is counter to the idea of terror bombings which need the civilians to be present in order to be successful. This is why, within the doctrine of double effect, terror bombings are immoral and strategic bombings, even if they hit civilians, are more morally permissible. 

Jamieson presents that the doctrine of double effect excuses unintentional consequences of your actions, however, this is not necessarily the case. The doctrine of double effect doesn’t seek to absolve individuals of their moral blameworthiness in the case of an unintentional negative outcome, instead, it suggests that the act itself isn’t wrong. The doctrine does not suggest that the negative outcomes aren’t tragic but only says that the intentions of the act are justifiable. 

It is easy to make the assumptions that there is no moral blameworthiness when presented with a case as black and as with the example terror bombings but in reality, there are a lot more nuanced details and more options. With the example of terror bombings, there are only two options, to bomb or not to bomb but in cases in the real world, there are many more options. This is the case with ICC. Jaimeson suggests that moving forward with ICC would be similar to the case of strategic bombings in that it may have unintentional consequences that we have yet to foresee. This point, I would agree with. However, it is our approach from here that differs. Jaimeson suggests that because of this, it would be similar to strategic bombings in that we may hit our target but have unintentional negative outcomes. For this reason, Jaimeson suggests that the act is not morally permissible as we are gambling with the wellbeing of individuals in a way that is unjust. Instead, I would suggest that while the socioeconomic outcomes may be terrible and tragic and fully agree with many of the other conclusions drawn in Jaimeson’s perspective. I think the alternative is much worse.

In the case of climate change, we’ve arrived at a point where climate scientists believe that we are teetering on the edge of no return. The climate death of our planet (or at very least the majority of life on the planet). Assuming that climate scientists are correct and we ignore any mass conspiracy theories, I would suggest that preventing the extinction of the global population is worth whatever economic and political conflict it may cause. Assuming climate change is real and something that heralds the mass destruction, it seems almost certain to be  created by humans. It seems almost just as certain that the effects of climate change will have just as devastating of effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems all across the world. And it is with that assumption that I believe that humanity has the moral responsibility to do whatever it takes to correct the mistakes we’ve made and accept any negative consequences onto ourselves, such as those associated with ICC. 

I believe that Jaimeson presented the doctrine of double effect in a way that misrepresented the ideals. The doctrine explains that we are responsible for negative outcomes but those outcomes do not necessarily make an act morally unacceptable. With this understanding of the doctrine, I believe that it is clear that despite the negative outcomes of ICC, the act itself is still permissible.

 

Jamieson, D. (1996). “Ethics And Intentional Climate Change.” Climate Change: University of Colorado, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142580