To complete your seventh and final essay , please write a three- to five-page (900- 1,500 words) response to the following question:
In "Ethics and Global Climate Change" (pp. 362-386), Stephen Gardiner argues that the richer nations should pay most of the costs for addressing global warming. What are Gardiner's strongest reasons for believing this? Do you find his rationales singly or collectively persuasive? If so, please explain exactly why. If not, please explain exactly why not.
Please ensure that your essay addresses each component of the assigned question you select and that your answer is well- organized, uses excellent, college-level prose, and makes judicious use of textual evidence.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com December 15, 2020, 10:35 pm ad1c9bdddf
Thank you for using BrainMass!
In "Ethics and Global Climate Change," Stephen Gardiner argues that the richer nations should pay most of the costs for addressing global warming. What are Gardiner's strongest reasons for believing this? Do you find his rationales singly or collectively persuasive? If so, please explain exactly why. If not, please explain exactly why not.
It is fairly clear that Gardnier claims that technology has caused climate change. Since most of this is within the "rich" nations of the world. It stands to reason that these same nations should pay the cost of prevention (365). He argues that the economic impact of this will be minor (370-371). Prime facie, this is a very good argument. Almost airtight. Yet there is one problem: the word "rich nation" is imprecise and tells us nothing about who is going to actually pay the cost.
The question then becomes if the middle class of these countries, drowning in debt and just forced to bailout the billionaire bankers who invest in these polluting firms, are going to be gouged again to pay off yet another set of errors by the elite. No one denies that economic policy in these states is made by a tiny elite. It is also not politicians who make the investment decisions. To hold that the economy is doing well because of "Clinton" or "Bush" is an absurdity. Presidents have little power over the economy. He even asks the question, concerning action taken against climate change, on page 379: "What has the world done?" First of all, there is no such entity as "the world" that can do anything. Second, who speaks for the world? Third, if anyone does, it's not the blue ...
The ethics and global climate changes are provided.