Addressing the issue of global climate change (GCC) requires the cooperation of all nations of the world. Although the industrial nations of the north have the financial and technological resources to begin addressing the problem, they ultimately remain vulnerable to the actions of the developing nations of the south. The negotiation process—now a decade old—has, thus far, failed to produce a universal agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. This failure is attributed to the lack of a unifying principle capable of overcoming the short-term differences in interest among the two groups of countries. Science and politics, the two forces driving the GCC debate, have inherent weaknesses that prevent them from providing the leadership necessary to secure universal cooperation in combating this major threat to the global environment. Ethics, specifically the principles of equity and justice, is proposed as a possible unifying principle. An analysis of the four main issues that must be resolved before a universal agreement to combat GCC can be negotiated—the appropriate level for GHGs, the proper distribution of GHG emission rights, the best actions for attaining the appropriate GHG level, and the form of the institutional arrangements that will be necessary to carry out these actions—indicates that ethical considerations can and must inform and delineate appropriate bounds for science, economics, and politics. Guaranteeing the equitable and just distribution of rights and responsibilities in a global climate change regime offers the best prospect for such a regime to be made possible.
Bodansky, D. (1991). Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment, 33(7), 4-43.
2.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1993). Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice, Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 3, 140-159.
3.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994). Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice, Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4, 185-200.
4.
Byrne, J., Hadjilambrinos, C., & Wagle W. (1994). Distributing costs of global climate change. IEEE Technology and Society, 13(1), 17-32.
5.
Byrne, J., Wang, Y. D., Lee, H., & Kim, J. (1998). An equity- and sustainability-based policy response to global climate change. Energy Policy, 26, 335-343.
6.
Callendar, G. S. (1938). The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64, 223-240.
7.
Cline, W. R. (1992). The economics of global warming. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
8.
d’Arge, R. (1989). Ethical and economic systems for managing the global commons. In D. B. Botkin (Ed.), Changing the global environment: Perspectives on human involvement. Boston: Academic Press.
9.
Fermann, G. (Ed.). (1997). International politics of climate change: Key issues and critical actors. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
10.
Fiorino, D. J. (1995). Making environmental policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Fleagle, R. G. (1994). Global environmental change: Interactions of science, policy, and politics in the United States. Westport, CN: Praeger.
12.
Fleming, J. R. (1998). Historical perspectives on climate change. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Friedheim, R. L. (1993). Negotiating the new ocean regime. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
14.
Global warming has begun, expert tells Senate. (1988, June 24). The New York Times.
15.
Grubb, M. (1989). The greenhouse effect: Negotiating targets. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
16.
Grubler, A., & Nakicenovic, N. (1992). International burden sharing in greenhouse gas reduction environment (Working Paper No. 55). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
17.
Haas, P. M., Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. A. (Eds.). (1993). Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Hayes, P. (1993). North-South transfer. In P. Hayes & K. Smith (Eds.), The global greenhouse regime: Who pays?Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
19.
Hayes, P., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (1993). The global greenhouse regime: Who pays?Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
20.
Hoeller, P., Dean, A., & Nicholaisen, J. (1990). A survey of studies of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (OECD Working Papers, No. 89). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
21.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1995). IPCC second assessment: Climate change 1995. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
22.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996a). Climate change 1995: The science of climate change. In J. T. Houghton (Ed.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996b). Climate change 1995: Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change. In R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera, & R. H. Moss (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996c). Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change. J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, & E. F. Haites (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Keeling, C. D. (1978). The influence of Mauna Loa Observatory on the development of atmospheric CO2 research. In J. Miller (Ed.), Mauna Loa Observatory: A 20th anniversary report. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
26.
Kurian, P. A., Bartlett, R. V., & Malik, M. (1995). International environmental policy: Redesigning the agenda for theory and practice? In R. V. Bartlett, P. A. Kurian, & M. Malik (Eds.), International organizations and environmental policy (pp. 1-18). Westport, CN: Greenwood.
27.
Mudge, F. B. (1997). The development of the ‘greenhouse’ theory of global climate change from Victorian times. Weather, 52, 13-17.
28.
Nordhaus, W. D. (1991a). The cost of slowing climate change: A survey. Energy Journal, 12, 37-65.
29.
Nordhaus, W. D. (1991b). To slow or not to slow: The economics of the greenhouse effect. Economic Journal, 101, 290-337.
30.
Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Expert opinion on climatic change. American Scientist, 82, 45-51.
31.
Osborne, D., & Bigg, T. (1998). Earth Summit II: Outcomes and analysis. London: Earthscan.
32.
Plass, G. N. (1956). Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics, 24, 387-387.
33.
Revelle, R., & Suess, H. E. (1957). Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase in atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus, 9, 18-27.
34.
Ridgley, M. A. (1993). Equity and the determination of accountability for greenhouse-gas reduction. Central European Journal for Operations Research and Economics, 2, 223-242.
35.
Ridgley, M. A. (1996). Fair sharing of greenhouse gas burdens. Energy Policy, 24, 517-529.
36.
Rose, A. (1990). Reducing conflict in global warming policy: The potential of equity as a unifying principle. Energy Policy, 18, 927-935.
37.
Rose, A. (1998). Global warming policy: Who decides what is fair?Energy Policy, 26, 1-3.
38.
Rose, A., & Stevens, B. (1998). Will a global warming agreement be fair to developing countries?International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 9, 157-178.
39.
Smith, K. (1993). The basics of greenhouse gas indices. In P. Hayes & K. Smith (Eds.), The global greenhouse regime: Who pays? (pp. 20-50). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
40.
Smith, K., Swisher, J., Kanter, R., & Ahuja, D. (1991). Indices for a greenhouse gas control regime that incorporates both efficiency and equity goals (World Bank Environment Departmental Divisional Working Paper). Washington, DC: World Bank.
41.
Solomon, B., & Ahuja, D. (1991). International reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions: An equitable and efficient approach. Global Environmental Change, 1, 343-350.
42.
Subak, S. (1993). Assessing emissions: Five approaches compared. In P. Hayes & K. Smith (Eds.), The global greenhouse regime: Who pays? (pp. 51-69). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
43.
Toman, M. A., & Burtraw, T. (1991). Resolving equity issues in greenhouse gas negotiations. Resources, 103, 10-13.
44.
U.S. National Academy of Science. (1983). Changing climate, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. Washington, DC: Climate Research Board, U.S. National Academy of Science.
45.
Van der Sluijs, J., Van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Anchoring devices in science for policy: The case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science, 28, 291-323.
46.
Ward, H. (1996). Game theory and the politics of global warming: The state of play and beyond. Political Studies, 44, 850-871.
47.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
Young, O. (1989). International cooperation: Building regimes for natural resources and the environment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
49.
Young, O. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
