My Engineering Ethics Final

The Global Warming Myth and Hedonic Calculus

Global warming is scary. In fact, of 1,150 children surveyed, between the ages of seven and eleven, half reported loosing sleep over the crises. [1] And why shouldn’t they be? According to Al Gore’s new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, in twenty five years global warming related deaths will double to 300,000. Weather patterns will become more intense. Hurricanes, draughts, and blizzards will kill more and more people every year. Further, diseases, like malaria, are already reaching and killing more and more people as the temperatures rise increasing the mosquito population. Animal travel patterns will alter closer to the poles, and polar bears will have no more ice to live on by 2050. Worse, over a million other species will be extinct by 2050 due to global warming. Glacier melting rates will continue to grow exponentially. This will cause the sea levels to rise by more then 20 feet. Coastal areas will be entirely destroyed. In short, countries and perhaps man himself will fall under Mother Nature’s vengeful fury of hurricanes, wildfires, disease, and draught. That is, unless we act. [2]

Manmade global warming is believed to be caused by carbon released into the atmosphere. Man can do this with byproducts from burning fuels like gasoline or coal. Even the livestock people raise also expel large amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. These carbon emissions are called greenhouse gases, because when they go into the atmosphere they trap heat like a greenhouse. Light waves originating from the sun are certain wavelengths that the earth’s atmosphere lets pass through. When those light waves bounce off the earth they change wavelength. These wavelengths cannot easily escape due to carbon content in the atmosphere. This continuing cycle gradually causes the earth’s temperature to increase.

But what can we do to combat the threat? Many suggest replacing old incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones. Others recommend switching to a programmable thermostat and changing the temperature settings by two degrees during the warm and cold seasons. Replacing filters on furnaces and air conditioners conserves energy. Conserving water and electricity in the home or workplace also helps. Walking, biking, and using public transportation saves gasoline and cuts carbon greenhouse emissions. For the really dedicated, there are communal car sharing options. Most important of all, global warming supporters say governments must force companies into alternative energy and carbon emission reductions. [2]

Is this an ethical demand on the human population? Utilitarian ethics would be an excellent method to verify whether change is morally obligatory. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) formed utilitarianism as a consequentialist form of ethics. All actions have consequences and it is the consequences that justify the act as either ethical or unethical. All living beings capable of feeling pleasure and pain seek the first while avoiding the later. Therefore, Bentham argued, the ethical choice in any situation is that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. To calculate this, he devised what he called hedonic calculus, meaning “pleasure calculus.” Hedonic calculus weighs an action based on seven considerations including intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. [3]

When applying hedonic calculus from a manmade global warming perspective, the intensity of global warming is so terrible it is beyond our full comprehension. Increased temperatures will cause the polar icecaps around the poles to melt. Not only will this wreak havoc with the local wild life like the polar bear, but this will cause the ocean levels to rise. It would be likely that islands and heavily populated coastal areas would become entirely submerged. The loss of human life and economic damage will be staggering. Increased temperatures and changes in ocean currents will make weather more violent. [2] Oceans rising, increased weather severity, planet wide extinction is a terribly intense pain that should be avoided.

The duration of global warming is permanent. Experts vary on the date, but many believe sometime in the next 10, 20, or 50 years global warming damages will be irreversible. With the third world developing, the thought of world wide carbon emissions decreasing anytime soon seems very unlikely. Some experts believe we have already past the fine line and global warming is inevitable regardless of what we attempt now or in the future.

The certainty of global warming’s affects leave little doubt. Human action is affecting global temperatures. It has even been called a “decided science.” During Al Gore’s congressional testimony on March 21, 2007, he quoted our future children’s response to global warming as “didn’t they [us] realize that 4 times in 15 years the entire scientific community of this world issued unanimous reports calling upon them [us] to act?” [4] In other words, 4 times in the last 15 years all scientists unanimously call for action to stop manmade global warming. This should weigh heavily in the hedonic calculations.

Propinquity, or empathetic proximity, is also an all encompassing concern. Global warming affects everyone everywhere from country to country and pole to pole. Regardless of your race, religion, or country of origin there will be no avoiding its side effects. Even if you were to find a remote location with no people you would still feel its effects and see its destruction.

Fecundity is the fruitfulness of the sacrifice mankind will need to combat global warming. Currently there are many technologies available to combat the threat. There are alternative energies such as solar power, wind power, water power, and geothermal power. There are environmentally friendly ethanol and biomass fuels. Hybrid gas-electric cars, public transportation, and alternative transportation are all developing or time tested ways of cutting down on fuel consumption and green house gas emissions. If green house gases are causing warming, it is reasonable to assume cutting them will ease or reverse the warming trend.

The purity of global warming action is not a very high selling point. Simple economics shows that mandatory government regulations, taxes, and fines impede economic growth and success. Forcing American automotive companies to adhere to tighter emission restrictions will not help them compete on global markets. In fact, American automobile sales are already very poor. Forcing airlines to change to more expensive environmental fuels will also hurt their business. Airlines are only now starting to show profits after the September 11th terrorist attacks. And for anyone proposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies, oil companies make around $0.09 in profit for every gallon of gas. The government already taxes around $0.50 per gallon at the local, state, and federal levels. [5] There is not a single tax that can be leveled in any industry that will not be felt directly by the consumer. Taxes leveled against the oil industry will be past on to the consumer in the gas price. This will hurt the economy. However, there are some potentially beneficial side effects. Moving the country’s energy demands from foreign oil will mean we will not be funding terror supporting regimes worldwide. Also, energy conservation can save money. Energy efficient bulbs and a fuel efficient car will save their consumer’s money. Purity is a difficult aspect of the hedonic calculus to overcome, but it is hardly cause for abandoning action against global warming.

Measuring extent for the hedonic calculus is a multiple of several previously made points. How does global warming affect the greatest number of people? Global warming affects everyone. Weather conditions can change the lives of more people than those that were immediately affected. Intense storms can cause billions of dollars in damage. This can cause energy and production shortages world wide. Government aid costs money paid for by tax payers. Food production can be hurt. Long term species extinction due to global warming is also bad. Wildlife diversity can be intrinsically good. Denying future generations the pleasure of seeing certain wildlife should be avoided. In addition, many such plants and animals could hold the next cure. The extent of this problem knows no bounds.

It would therefore appear that the global warming problem is an ethical no-brainer, from a utilitarian point of view. The affects are very intense over a long duration. The causes seem certain among the scientific community. Global warming is full of propinquity and countermeasures seem high in fecundity. There is cause to worry about the purity of the solution but those are highly mixed results. The extent of global warming is all encompassing. Obviously, the dangers of global warming justify almost any and all measures to fulfill the continued happiness of every living creature on earth. This should be accomplished for minimal economic pain. In these terms, almost anything is justified for the continued survival of our planet.

But what if the global warming scare mongers are wrong? Global warming scientists use different ways of tracking carbon in the atmosphere. By using carbon content in layers of ice at the poles or analyzing carbon content in sediment of the ocean floor, experts account for greenhouse gas levels over thousands of years. These methods are not very accurate for exact dates but can be used to reasonably show trends. Scientists can show that as global temperatures increased around the same periods using leftover organic matter found. This does not prove a cause and effect but merely shows that the two trends have occurred during the same time.

Trying to prove something causes something else because they happen at similar times is ridiculous when applied in other ways. If that were the case, there should be more study into man’s affect on the rising and falling of the sun. Throughout man’s history, human populations have been active during the day and asleep during the night. Evidence of this can be found on all continents. If the same logic were applied to this as global warming, people could increase growing yields by collectively staying awake for longer periods of time. This would increase “manmade daylight” contribution and would help crop growth. This outrageous theory would have been proven incorrect well before satellite technologies showed light changing on the earth due to the planet’s rotation. There is no experiment at the current time that shows a cause and effect relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming. What the scientific evidence does show is that in the past, before man could affect global temperatures, the earth has cycled through many warm periods and ice ages.

Using this twisted logic has been done before. In the 1970’s the earth was going through a cooling trend. Scientists raced to find the manmade cause of this phenomenon. The worldwide scientific consensus proposed that man’s carbon dioxide and aerosol waste was causing changes in the atmosphere resulting in global cooling. [7] Alarmist claims similar to those attributed to global warming were presented as certainty. Scientific journals rushed to publish these findings, and the media echoed their concerns. These conclusions of cooling were drawn from much of the same evidence that is now being used to support global warming. The only major difference is that now the same evidence has to be twisted to match the earth’s current warming trend.

This does not mean that global warming should not be taken seriously, but the emotional and reactionary alarmism needs to be held in check. Science is constantly evolving, and just because one theory is thrown out for another does not mean that there are no legitimate concerns. However, the past should put claims such as “universal scientific consensus” into check. Consensus does not mean correct, and any movement claiming to have the entire scientific community’s support is probably lying. Theories with much more substantial evidence than global warming continue to be debated. Man as the cause of global warming is far from certain.

The link connecting man with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not even firmly established. Trends found during the great depression of the last century show this. In 1929, the total amount of carbon dioxide produced by coal, oil, and natural gas burning man was 1.17 gigatons. By 1932, the world had fallen into an economic depression across the globe. This caused the manmade carbon dioxide output to fall to 0.88 gigatons. This is an almost instant reduction of 30% carbon dioxide output by humans. The recovery of world economies and its resultant increase of carbon dioxide byproducts had not recovered until the beginnings of World War II. However, these reductions did not even cause carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere to even blip. The atmospheric carbon content continued its steady increase undeterred. [8] In other words, 30% reductions in carbon dioxide output by humans worldwide did not decrease the atmospheres carbon dioxide content by 1 ppm (part per million). This should call human involvement into greenhouse gases and global warming into questions.

Some of the more reasonable global warming believers will concede that the theory is not proven, but the connection of warming and greenhouse gases merits precautionary action. After all, while the science is still being debated the threat could become irreparable. Don’t we owe it to the future generations on this planet to combat this potentially devastating problem? No. The intensity of the charge does not, in itself, merit unchecked action. Wild claims do not deserve diverting precious resources, painful economic redevelopment, and potentially environmentally disastrous side effects without further analysis.

Famous statistician, Bjørn Lomborg, tried to apply statistical cost benefit analysis to the environmental movement with his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. His claims should weigh heavily on any utilitarian approaching the global warming debate. For his analysis, he accepts the underlying premise that global warming is being caused by manmade greenhouse gases. He then devotes his energy to weighing the pain of global warming with the pain of its solutions. The Koyoto Protocol, which the United States has still yet to sign, is one of the central demands of the environmentalist movement. The Koyoto Protocol requires signed first world countries to cut greenhouse gas production among its citizens. The most obvious flaw with the Protocol is that it exempts the developing world from the same standards as the first world. With the majority of the world’s population industrializing over the next century in Asia, South America, and Africa, modern carbon hogs like the U.S. and Europe will make up only a tiny fraction of the problem. Ignoring that, Lomborg shows that 100 years of adherence to the Koyoto Protocol will only slow the affects of global warming by six years. That tiny benefit seems entirely trivial to the $150 to $350 billion annual price tag. Scientists like Stephen Schneider and others argue that the Koyoto Protocol does not go far enough. [9] Unlimited funding and economically restrictive government regulations are clearly not an acceptable demand to combat global warming.

What about the devastating loss of mass species extinction? Extravagant claims of planetary manmade extinction have been made in the past. Thomas Lovejoy said that between the years of 1980 to 2000 we should expect to see 20% species extinction due to global warming. This obviously did not happen. With the modern prediction of an estimated extinction rate 1,500 times the natural rate there would only be a loss of 0.7 percent of all species world wide. These results seem trivial. The overall health of the planet seems to have a bright future. As the third world industrializes, its populations will grow in wealth and their standards of living will rise. Wealthy populations with better education, more leisure time, and higher standards are environmentally cleaner than the third world of today. In fact, the United Nations predicts that there will be more forests in the next 100 years. This is a reasonable claim when looking at the U.S. [9] Even with global warming the ecological health of our planet does not look as dim as the global warming alarmists would have anyone believe.

Alarmism does not help in this debate for a utilitarian. Extravagant unsubstantiated claims of worldwide extinction and killer storms will rush people into adopting policies that hurt economies and people. But what about smaller more reasonable solutions? Changing light bulbs to the longer lasting energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs seems like a great idea for everyone. Those who believe in manmade global warming can sleep easier at night knowing they are saving energy. People who do not believe in man made global warming can smile at the thought of saving all that money on their energy bills. However, at what cost? Energy efficient CFL bulbs contain mercury. Environmentalists should be warned of a future where millions of broken CFL mercury filled bulbs are broken in landfills. The mercury is pollutant that can run off into the very environment they are trying to save. Penny pinchers likewise should be concerned. If a bulb were to break on their carpeting, there are dangerous levels of mercury in that bulb. Hiring a clean up crew can cost thousands of dollars. [10] Those that are trying to protect the environment can hurt it if they rush to solutions without weighing the implications.

What about the ultimate beacon of future energy conservation, they hybrid car. Recent EPA studies have shown the Toyota Prius to not be as fuel efficient as originally claimed. Still, 45 mpg is nothing to shy away from. However, the manufacturing process of the Toyota Prius is environmentally destructive. The nickel battery needed for the electric motor has its raw materials mined and smelted in Sudbury, Ontario. The sulfur output of the plant and mining side effects are so damaging that NASA uses the surrounding land for lunar rover testing. As if that were not bad enough, the nickel has to be transported to Europe, China, Japan, and the United States. All of these additional traveling and refining processes makes the Prius twice as bad for the environment over its life than a Hummer [11].

In conclusion, the global warming issue is very complex. Utilitarian hedonic calculus shows this. The intensity of global warming is in debate. Outrageous claims of deadly weather conditions and planet wide extinction are countered with images of more trees and minimal species loss over the next 100 years. The certainty of global warming is also in doubt. Science has only shown trends of greenhouse gases and global temperatures rising together. There is no cause and effect relationship. In fact, even the link of human carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide levels rising in the atmosphere has been called into question. The fecundity of the proposed solutions such as the Koyoto Protocol, the CFL bulbs, and even hybrid cars have shown the potential for economic and even environmental harm. Do the charges of manmade global warming merit unprecedented sacrifice or reductions in lifestyle? To the utilitarian, the answer should be clear. No. And to anyone else still not convinced there is just one question left. If global warming is manmade, why are similar warming trends being observed on Mars? [12]

Works Cited
1 Jones, Alan. "Children Losing Sleep Over Global Warming." News.Scottsman.Com. 23 Feb. 2007. 4 May 2007 .

2 Gore, Albert A. "An Inconvenient Truth." An Inconvenient Truth. Paramount Classics. 4 May 2007 .

3 Marvin, Bill. "Utilitarianism." Engineering Ethics. University of Dayton, Dayton. 26 Jan. 2007.

4 Algore.Com. 4 May 2007 .

5 Baker, Brent. "ABC & NBC Focus on Exxon Profits, Skip How Government Gets More in Taxes." News Busters. 4 May 2007 .

6 "Arctic Coring Expedition Continues to Yield New Clues About Climate Change." Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. 4 May 2007. IODP. 4 May 2007 .

7 Rasool, S I., and S H. Schneider. "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate." Advancing Science, Serving Society. 9 July 1971. AAAS. 4 May 2007 .

8 Cockburn, Alexander. "Is Global Warming a Sin?" The Nation. 26 Apr. 2006. 4 May 2007 .

9 Lomborg, Bjørn. "The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies." ScientificAmerican.Com. May 2002. 4 May 2007 .

10 Milloy, Steven. "The CFL Mercury Nightmare." Financial Post. 28 Apr. 2007. 4 May 2007 .

11 Demorro, Chris. "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage." The Recorder Online. 7 Mar. 2007. 4 May 2007 .

12 Ravilious, Kate. "Mars Melt Hints At Solar, Hot Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says." National Geographic News. 28 Feb. 2007. 4 May 2007 .