Who Bears Responsiblity for the Environment?

Written by Administrator

A New Installment of the Ethics Center's "Ethical Inquiry" series

This installment of "Ethical Inquiry" explores the opportunities and obligations of individuals and institutions to positively impact the environment.  It is authored by Prof. Kate Moran (PHIL) and Chris Howard, a student in the Master of Arts in Philosophy program.   Addtionally, the Ethics Center is partaking in a variety of activities this semester to raise awareness about climate change. 

To read the full Ethical Inquiry, click here.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Uncertainty for the future of emissions regulation:

Written by Jaime Batista

What Scott Brown means for climate change legislation.

As Republican confetti finally comes back to earth after Scott Brown’s dramatic special election victory, Democrats continue to mourn the death of the short lived super-majority.  The formidable power of the filibuster gained from the one-seat-swing represents a potentially crippling blow to a number of Democratic agenda items; the most salient in the nation’s collective mind being the health care system over-haul.   There are, however, a number of other hotly contested pieces of legislation that could also fall to empowered Republican obstructionism.  The Boxer-Kerry bill in the Senate is among those to face a hostile political climate this year; and while its passage was never assured even with the help of sixty Democratic seats, the newest Republican senator will only create more friction for the bill in its current state.

It is clear from Brown’s campaign commitments that he is decidedly against health care reform, but his position on domestic climate change legislation is less obvious.  The Senator-elect has voiced his doubts over man’s role in climate change, but does support the development of various alternative energy sources.  The potential for legislation that addresses the country’s reliance on hydrocarbon intensive fuels does not die when Brown is sworn into his new office, but the integrity of any carbon pricing system, in the short term, will.

Brown opposes the cap and trade system at the heart of the Boxer-Kerry bill, and would undoubtedly oppose any other program of a similar nature (where a higher price for carbon is passed on to the greater public).  This does not rule out the possibility of implementing a green house gas regulation scheme.  It does, however, make organizing a binding program to limit emissions far more difficult in the short term. For those attempting to tackle climate change legislation in the House and the Senate, cap and trade is the foundation on which they have built their collapsing house of cards. A new approach will require significantly restructured forms of legislation from both bodies, or risk becoming just another fragmented and ineffective government program. 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Read more: Uncertainty for the future of emissions regulation:

Vauban: An Innovative Green Community

Written by Jonathan Jecker

Going green is often harder than it sounds.  Reducing the massive amount of pollution we produce every day is a job that’s easier said than done and it usually goes directly against the conveniences we consider to be essential today. Consider the automobile: a convenience which causes 12 percent of GHG emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some areas of the US.” Within the United States, no major step has been made to wane us off of our “need” for individual car use. However, one German city has made an unprecedented leap and has become almost entirely car independent, offering us a new green example.

Vauban, a new suburb community of Freiburg, has been constructed to be almost entirely car-free. Once a Nazi Army base in the Second World War, the city consists of one rectangular, square mile: never big enough to accommodate cars. This limitation allowed for an incredible concept. Residents of Vauban have the option of buying a $40,000 parking space for their cars in one of the large parking garages in the outskirts of the city when they initially buy their home, but most have decided opt out of this option Instead, the 5,500 residents of Vauban rely on their bicycles and a tram that runs into Freiburg for their daily transportation needs. All inhabitants live within walking distance of the restaurants, schools, banks, and other stores in the city and are able to join car sharing clubs for those rare journeys outside of routine which require a personal vehicle.

This German town has become a model for more eco-friendly living around the world and living proof that communities can live entirely without personal cars. Projects from the UK to California have been started as an attempt to imitate the success of Vauban to growing success. Going green is not a process that can happen over night but communities such Vauban are leading the way to a cleaner future.

For more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?pagewanted=print

Jonathan Jecker is a first-year student at Brandeis University.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Copenhagen a failure on strict emission Limits

Written by Eric Olsen

....but funding is put on the table

There is a growing consensus that the Copenhagen Accord is dismally short on targets and detail, but was certainly better than total failure.  You can read the full text in just a few minutes, see the link below.   The Accord was cobbled together at the 11th hour by five nations:   India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and the US, "noted" by most all the other nations present, and then everyone flew off home dead tired.   

The list of Accord drafters reflects the rise in power of the world's great emerging economies, especially India and China.   These nations came to Copenhagen determined to be allowed to continue on their rapidly growing trajectories fueled by fossil energy for some time longer, without constraint by strict limits on emissions.   And by standing firm, I guess they won.   For a good discussion of the unprecedented role being played by nations great in numbers -- and emissions -- but poor in per capita wealth, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/weekinreview/20anand.html.  

So the notion of a global accord emissions limits, modeled along the lines of that shining example of international cooperation the Montreal Protocol that saved the ozone shield, seems less likely than ever right now.   Yet I stick by the essence of my last entry.   This is not just positive spin on events, its recognizing value in forest preservation that perhaps many focused solely on matters like cap and trade don't see.  Because the good news remains:   it is still the case that some serious money was committed to forest preservation.  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Read more: Copenhagen a failure on strict emission Limits