The potential harms associated with global climate change demand an urgent response. But at the same time, the nature and extent of both the problem and our proper response to it are continually contested, within the academic community and wider society. What should be the ethical import of this disagreement? In this paper I set out John Rawls’ theory of reasonable disagreement as a way of analysing such contestation. On Rawls’ account, reasonable disagreement is founded in diversity rather than straightforward error. I argue that many aspects of the scientific and ethical debate on climate change can be usefully viewed from within such a perspective. This raises, I suggest, serious problems for deciding what the human response to global warming must be. Lastly, I survey two responses which might be thought to cope with such pervasive disagreement. Neither, however, is clearly effective. In my conclusion I suggest that reasonable disagreement might be tackled best in a model of deliberative democracy. Such a model, however, does not generate easy answers to the problems of climate change.
AlleyR.. 2007. ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in ‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’ Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BarryB.1995. ‘A defence of political liberalism’. Ratio Juris8: 325–330.
7.
BarryB.1998. ‘Something in the disputation not unpleasant’, in KellyP. ed. Impartiality, Neutrality and Justice: re-reading Brian Barry's Justice as Impartiality (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) pp. 186–257.
8.
BellD.2002. ‘How can political liberals be environmentalists?’ Political Studies.50(4): 703–724.
Boehmer-ChristiansenS. and KellowA.2002. International Environmental Policy: Interests and the Failure of Kyoto. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13.
CallicottJ.1990. ‘The case against moral pluralism’ Environmental Ethics12: 9–24.
14.
CallicottJ.1996. ‘Do deconstructive ecology and sociobiology undermine Leopold's land ethic?’ Environmental Ethics18: 353–372.
15.
CaneyS.2005a. Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
CaneyS.2005b. ‘Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change’. Leiden Journal of International Law18: 747–775.
17.
ClineW.2004. ‘Climate change’ in LomborgB. ed. Global Crises, Global Solutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 13–43.
18.
CoglianeseC.1998. ‘Implications of liberal neutrality for environmental policy’ Environmental Ethics20: 41–59.
19.
CurryJ., WebsterP. and HollandG., 2006. ‘Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is causing a global increase in hurricane intensity’. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, August: 1025–1037.
20.
CurtinD.1999. Chinnagounder's Challenge: The Question of Ecological Citizenship. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
21.
De ShalitA.2000. The Environment: Between Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
DevallW. and SessionsG.. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living As if Nature Mattered.Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith.
23.
DiamondJ.2004. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Press.
24.
DobsonA., BellD. eds. 2006. Environmental Citizenship: Getting from Here to There. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
25.
DobsonA.2006 ‘Thick cosmopolitanism’. Political Studies54, 165–184.
26.
DryzekJ.2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HaywardT.1997. ‘Anthropocentrism: a misunderstood problem’ Environmental Values6: 49–63.
35.
HaywardT.2007. ‘Human rights versus emissions rights: climate justice and the equitable distribution of ecological space’. Ethics and international Affairs21(4): 431–450.
36.
HoughtonJ.2004. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
HulmeM.2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
IPCC, 2007 ‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’ Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [SolomonS., QinD., ManningM., ChenZ., MarquisM., AverytK.B., TignorM. and MillerH.L. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
39.
JasanoffS.1991. ‘Acceptable evidence in a pluralist society’, in MayoHollander (eds.) Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management (New York: Oxford University Press) pp. 29–47.
40.
JelinE.2000. ‘Towards a global environmental citizenship?’ Citizenship Studies4(1): 47–63.
41.
JordanA. and RiordanT., 1999. ‘The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics’, in RaffernsbergerC. and TicknerJ. (eds.) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Washington: Island Press).
42.
KaldorM.2003. Global Civil Society: an Answer to War?Cambridge: Polity Press.
43.
LanghelleO.2000. ‘Sustainable development and social justice: expanding the Rawlsian framework of global justice.’ Environmental Values9: 295–323.
44.
LahsenM.2005. ‘Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models’. Social Studies of Science, 35 (6), 895–922.
45.
LahsenM.2008. ‘Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist “trio” supporting the backlash against global warming’. Global Environmental Change18: 204–219.
46.
LarmoreC.1996. The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LomborgB. ed. 2004. Global Crises, Global Solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
LongG.2004. Relativism and the Foundations of Liberalism. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
49.
McShaneK.2007. ‘Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: why should we care?’ Environmental Values16(2): 169–186.
50.
McCrightA. and DunlapR.2003. ‘Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy’. Social Problems50(3): 348–373.
51.
NordhausW. and BoyerJ.2000. Warming the World.Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
52.
NortonB.1991. Toward Unity among Environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
OreskesN. and ConwayE.2010. Merchants of Doubt.New York: Bloomsbury Press.
54.
PielkeR.Sr., DaveyC., NiyogD., FallS., Steinweg-WoodsJ., HubbardK., LinX., CaiM., LimY., LiH., Nielsen-GammonJ., GalloK., HaleR., MahmoodR., FosterS., McNiderR. and BlankenP.2007. ‘Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends’. Journal of Geophysical Research112: D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
55.
PosnerR.2004. Catastrophe: Risk and Response.New York: Oxford University Press.
56.
RawlsJ.1999. The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999.
57.
RawlsJ.1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
58.
SchwartzS., CharlsonR.R., KahnR.R., OgrenJ. and RodheH.2010. ‘Why hasn't earth warmed as much as expected?’ Journal of Climate23: 2453–2464.
59.
ShueH.1996. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign PolicyPrinceton: Princeton University Press.
60.
ShueH.1999. ‘Global environment and international inequality’. International Affairs75(3): 531–545.
61.
StenmarkM.2002a. ‘The relevance of environmental ethical theories for policy making’. Environmental Ethics24: 135–148.
62.
StenmarkM.2002b. Environmental Ethics and Policy Making.Aldershot: Ashgate.
63.
StoneC.1987. Earth and Other Ethics. New York: Harper and Row.
64.
TolR.2008. ‘Why worry about climate change? A research agenda’ Environmental Values17: 437–470.
