Search Results

This chapter argues that particular versions of the mitigation approach may also incorporate ‘quasi-egalitarian principles’ — principles which hold that certain kinds or degrees of inequality are objectionable. It is also maintained here that a defensible version of the mitigation approach might incorporate more than one kind of principle — it need not consist entirely of quasi-egalitarian principles, nor need it be exhausted by a prioritarian or sufficiency principle — and, furthermore, that different kinds of principles might be appropriate for different goods or different aspects of people's circumstances.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of equality of opportunity. It then considers the relationship between equality of opportunity and egalitarian principles. An overview of the chapters included in this volume is presented.

This chapter discusses the egalitarian principle in American society. It presents three outlooks on equality: equality as given, equality as process, and equality in the breach. It then considers the ‘racial problem’ involving Black Americans, the feminist challenge to equality, and barriers to complete social equality.

Chapter 1 begins by stressing the severity of climate change (CC) and showing how, contrary to popular belief, atomic energy is not a viable solution to CC. Many scientists and most market proponents agree that renewable energy and energy efficiencies are better options. The chapter also shows that government subsidies for oil and nuclear power are the result of flawed science, poor ethics, short-term thinking, and special-interest influence. The chapter has 7 sections, the first of which surveys four major components of the energy crisis. These are oil addiction, non-CC-related deaths from fossil-fuel pollution, nuclear-weapons proliferation, and catastrophic CC. The second section summarizes some of the powerful evidence for global CC. The third section uses historical, ahistorical, Rawlsian, and utilitarian ethical principles to show how developed nations, especially the US, are most responsible for human-caused CC. The fourth section shows why climate-change skeptics, such as “deniers” who doubt CC is real, and “delayers” who say that it should not yet be addressed, have no valid objections. Instead, they all err scientifically and ethically. The fifth section illustrates that all modern scientific methods—and scientific consensus since at least 1995—confirm the reality of global CC. Essentially all expert-scientific analyses published in refereed, scientific-professional journals confirm the reality of global CC. The sixth section of the chapter shows how fossil-fuel special interests have contributed to the continued CC debate largely by paying non-experts to deny or challenge CC. The seventh section of the chapter provides an outline of each chapter in the book, noting that this book makes use of both scientific and ethical analyses to show why nuclear proponents’ arguments err, why CC deniers are wrong, and how scientific-methodological understanding can advance sound energy policy—including conservation, renewable energy, and energy efficiencies.

There can be no clearer illustration of the need for human beings to act globally than the issues raised by the impact of human activity on our atmosphere. That we all share the same planet came to our attention in a particularly pressing way in the 1970s when scientists discovered that the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) threatens the ozone layer shielding the surface of our planet from the full force of the sun's ultraviolet radiation. Damage to that protective shield would cause cancer rates to rise sharply and could have other effects, for example, on the growth of algae. The threat was especially acute to the world's southernmost cities, since a large hole in the ozone was found to be opening up each year over Antarctica, but in the long term, the entire ozone shield was imperiled. Once the science was accepted, concerted international action followed relatively rapidly with the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1985. The developed countries phased out virtually all use of CFCs by 1999, and the developing countries, given a 10-year period of grace, are now moving toward the same goal. Getting rid of CFCs has turned out to be just the curtain raiser: the main event is climate change, or global warming. Without belittling the pioneering achievement of those who brought about the Montreal Protocol, the problem was not so difficult, for CFCs can be replaced in all their uses at relatively little cost, and the solution to the problem is simply to stop producing them. Climate change is a very different matter. The scientific evidence that human activities are changing the climate of our planet has been studied by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body intended to provide policy makers with an authoritative view of climate change and its causes. The group released its Third Assessment Report in 2001, building on earlier reports and incorporating new evidence accumulated over the previous five years. The report is the work of 122 lead authors and 515 contributing authors, and the research on which it was based was reviewed by 337 experts.