Climate Change Simon Caney Analysis
Mark Twain famously quoted,
“The art of prophecy is very difficult- especially with respect to the future”.
Simon Caney describes how the earth’s climate is enduring profound changes which to a large extent are caused by human activity, resulting in undesirable effects on people’s standard of living especially the weak and vulnerable. (Caney, 2010) Scientists claim that climate change heralds unpredictable weather events like raised sea levels, that causes floods and in some cases greater risks of ‘storm-surges’, drought, diseases, flooding and in some cases death by heat stress. This essay broaches the ultimate question of who will pay and bear the burden of dealing with climate change based on the principles formulated by Caney and how the near future will evolve to deal with this crisis. At the onset of this 21st …show more content…
Simon suggests that the advantaged who established their wealth in a climate endangering way should be liable to devote resources to ameliorating climate change, paying for adaptation costs and mitigation to unravel the damage triggered by climate change than those whose wealth came in a clean manner.
Thirdly this purist approach is vulnerable to the objection that why should ‘clean developers’ pay anything, though morally as Peter Singer claims, it would be odd to refuse aid to a person sitting next to you who suddenly becomes ill and one is well placed to help them even if the harm was not caused by you. Ethically there is a duty to aid as cost of giving to them is greater than the benefit received. (Singer, 2002)
Lastly Simon questions why the price paid by the advantaged solely depend on the harm caused to climate change. In his opinion, considering historical genesis of wealth, ancestors of one could have obtained wealth by unfair means for instance slave trade or from Jews during the Second World
“The art of prophecy is very difficult- especially with respect to the future”.
Simon Caney describes how the earth’s climate is enduring profound changes which to a large extent are caused by human activity, resulting in undesirable effects on people’s standard of living especially the weak and vulnerable. (Caney, 2010) Scientists claim that climate change heralds unpredictable weather events like raised sea levels, that causes floods and in some cases greater risks of ‘storm-surges’, drought, diseases, flooding and in some cases death by heat stress. This essay broaches the ultimate question of who will pay and bear the burden of dealing with climate change based on the principles formulated by Caney and how the near future will evolve to deal with this crisis. At the onset of this 21st …show more content…
Simon suggests that the advantaged who established their wealth in a climate endangering way should be liable to devote resources to ameliorating climate change, paying for adaptation costs and mitigation to unravel the damage triggered by climate change than those whose wealth came in a clean manner.
Thirdly this purist approach is vulnerable to the objection that why should ‘clean developers’ pay anything, though morally as Peter Singer claims, it would be odd to refuse aid to a person sitting next to you who suddenly becomes ill and one is well placed to help them even if the harm was not caused by you. Ethically there is a duty to aid as cost of giving to them is greater than the benefit received. (Singer, 2002)
Lastly Simon questions why the price paid by the advantaged solely depend on the harm caused to climate change. In his opinion, considering historical genesis of wealth, ancestors of one could have obtained wealth by unfair means for instance slave trade or from Jews during the Second World