Transcript Influential climate denial: A massive human rights violation?

Influential climate denial
A massive human rights violation?
Richard Parncutt
University of Graz, Austria
Most images in this file have been removed for
copyright reasons
Denialism and Human Rights
22 & 23 January 2015
Maastricht, NL
Influential climate denial: A massive human rights violation?
Richard Parncutt, Centre for Systematic Musicology*, University of Graz
Abstract submission, Denialism and Human Rights, Maastricht, 22-23 January 2015
Oreskes and Conway (2010) showed how distinguished scientists can be persuaded by a combination of
fame, political attitude (e.g. belief in self-regulation of global markets), and financial reward to actively
deny global scientific consensus on crucial issues such as the link between DDT and ecosystem damage,
tobacco and cancer, the ozone hole and CFCs, forest dieback and acid rain, or global warming and carbon
dioxide. All such topics involve human rights. Cigarettes cause five million deaths globally per year - more
than AIDS and malaria. Smokers are informed of the consequences, but tobacco corporations profit from
their addiction. The current death rate associated with poverty (hunger and preventable/curable disease not including tobacco-related) is about ten million per year. By 2100, global warming could double this
death rate, indirectly causing ten million additional deaths per year, by reducing food and fresh water
supplies (species extinction, desertification, ocean acidification) and causing wars over diminishing
resources and mass migration from areas rendered uninhabitable by rising seas.
If the size of a major human rights violation is proportional to the number of people who die as a
consequence, climate denial that significantly slows progress toward global solutions such as the Kyoto
accord may be the biggest human rights violation of our generation. Our legal systems (e.g. the
International Criminal Court) should be accepting the scientific consensus on climate change and
responding to this new category of crime, to defend the rights of future generations in developing
countries.
Cited literature: Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (2010). Mercants of doubt: How a handful of
scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury.
*Systematic Musicology includes the physics, neuroscience, computer science, psychology, sociology, politics, economics
and philosophy of music. This presentation will be similarly interdisciplinary, combining insights from several parent
disciplines of systematic musicology.
Apologies and disclaimers
I’m from physics, psychology, music
Cross-disciplinary insights?
I totally oppose the death penalty
Don’t believe what you read in the internet
Je n’accuse pas
I am defending the rights of the “bottom billion”:
people living in poverty in developing countries
Mea culpa
My emissions from countless international flights
may already have indirectly killed a future person
(Climate) Denial (or Trivialisation)
By that I mainly mean:
• Denial of global expert consensus
• Motivated mainly by financial self-interest
I also mean:
• Denial of responsibility toward less fortunate; empathy
This kind of denial is characterised by:
• Repeatedly demanding and rejecting “proof”
• Failure to understand scientific procedures (that only
international expert communities can evaluate evidence)
Climate
denial
by non-experts or
pseudo-experts
= denial of
the need to
reduce global
greenhouse
gas emissions
(GHG)
An example from
Forbes magazine,
27 Sep 2012:
What DARA really is
• Independent international organization
• Assesses the impact of humanitarian aid
• Recommends changes in policies and practices
• Home of Humanitarian Response Index, Climate
Vulnerability Monitor, Risk Reduction Initiative
• Reports to UN agencies, Red Cross, EC
• Funded by UNICEF, the World Food Programme,
United Nations Development Programme
The George C. Marshall Institute
An early example of climate denial
1984: Founded by prominent
physicists: Frederick
Seitz, Robert Jastrow,
William Nierenberg
1980s: Supported Reagan’s
“Star Wars”
1990s: Mainly attacked climate
science
Climate denial budget: $1bn/year?
“conservative billionaires, often working
through secretive funding networks”
“About 3/4 of the funds were routed
through trusts or other mechanisms that
assure anonymity to donors”
“They hire people to write books (and) go
on TV and say climate change is not real.”
Source: “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year
to fight action on climate change” (Guardian, 20 Dec
2013)
Influential climate denial
Definition
Publicly presented arguments
that significantly slow progress
toward sustainable global
reduction in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
Assumption
Guilt depends mainly on
foreseeable HR consequences
HR = human rights
Do climate deniers really slow
progress toward global reduction
of GHG emissions?
Example:
“ExxonMobil has a long history of funding climate denial,
and has given in total around $23m to organisations
aiming to undermine climate science. … In 1997 the
Global Climate Information Project ran an advertising
campaign in the USA against the Kyoto agreement,
reported by the Los Angeles Times to have cost $13m.”
Source: Campaign Against Climate Change: “The funders of climate
disinformation”. campaigncc.org, 21.1.2015
Restrictions on freedom of speech
• Libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to crime...
• A HR is limited if exercising it violates another HR
UDHR Article 29 (2): “In the exercise of his (sic.) rights
and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for the
purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.”
Should we limit freedom of
speech on climate issues?
Yes, if it seriously violates HRs for future
generations in developing countries:
The right to life
UDHR Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
The right to freedom from hunger, preventable
disease, curable disease, conflict…
UDHR Article 25 (1): Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of himself and of his (sic.) family, including
food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
(sic.) control.
Annual global death rate due to poverty
Hunger
AIDS
Tuberculosis
Pneumonia
Malaria
Diarrhea
NTDs**
Cholera
Childbirth
Measles
Meningitis
3 000 000*
1 500 000
1 300 000
1 100 000
600 000
800 000
500 000
300 000
250 000
100 000
100 000
*children under 5 years only!
**neglected tropic diseases
Multiple causes of death
• e.g. poor nutrition is linked
to diarrhea, malaria,
pneumonia, measles
 The numbers partially
overlap
 We cannot simply add
 But the list is incomplete!
Total deaths due to poverty:
≈ 10 million/year
Annual global death rate due to poverty
A result of the failure of rich countries to spend
0.7% of GDP on official development assistance
for the past 20 years,* even though:
• They promised to do so repeatedly
• It is reasonably possible
(S, N, DK, LU, UK have achieved it)
*Source: Jeffrey Sachs (2005). The End of Poverty.
Death rate attributable to global warming
A very rough first approximation
Additional deaths attributable to GW
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population increases in many developing countries
Reduced agricultural yields in warmer countries
due to drought and desertification, unpredictable
ecological interactions following species extinctions
Less fish (ocean acidification, pollution)
Mass migration due to rising sea levels in some
countries, e.g. Bangladesh
Migration of disease and limited ability to respond
Storms: More frequent and intense
Wars over limited resources
Poverty (inability to respond or adapt)
Example: In 1983-85, a minor drought in Ethiopia triggered a massive famine
How serious is it?
A journalist’s view
“This is terrifying. The decades ahead will witness
our planet become progressively uninhabitable
for hundreds of millions of people because of
either drought or floods. The weather will
become ever more volatile. Ocean currents will
be disturbed and dwindle. There will be mass
movements of people trying to escape the
consequences; no country will be untouched.”
Will Hutton, “Our planet needs us to fight for its survival”, Guardian
Weekly, 27.9.2013
Clive Hamilton
Requiem for a Species (2010)
• It’s already too late - even if global
emissions growth stopped by 2020
and emissions stopped by 2070
• Earth’s climate will enter a chaotic
period lasting thousands of years.
• There will be far fewer humans, if
we survive at all.
The probability of
existential risks to humanity
Informal poll among academic experts
“How likely will humans be extinct by 2100?”
 median result 19% (Sandberg & Bostrom 2008)
Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change
Assumed an extinction probability of 0.1%/year
 9.5% over 100 years (Stern, 2006)
A common logical fallacy:
“Risk is hard to quantify, therefore it is negligible”
Risk assessment theory
Size of threat
=
Anticipated damage
x
Probability of it happening
The probability of global warming killing one billion this century
is roughly 10%.
That is comparable with 100m really dying!
 The biggest catastrophe ever
 The biggest challenge ever
The death toll from global warming
A tentative semi-quantitative model – a first approximation
1000 tons carbon  one future death!
Example: Australian coal
Example: Long jet flights
Modern jumbo carries 200 000 liters jet fuel
2.5 kg CO2 per litre  500 tons of CO2 per long flight
= 130 tons carbon per flight
Multiply by 3 to get total equivalent GW effect*
 400 tons effective of carbon per long flight
 3 long flights kill one future person
*IPCC (1999). Aviation and the global atmosphere
If you notice an error in this or any
other calculation, please contact
[email protected]
130m tons/year exported from Newcastle NSW?
≈ 100m tons pure carbon burned/year
≈ 100 000 future deaths caused/year
Global warming and the Holocaust
Holocaust comparisons: distasteful, not taboo
• “Never again!” includes not forgetting the Holocaust
Comparison with future, not past/present
• “Never again!” is about preventing such events
Similarities
• Those causing it are well informed but indifferent
• Enormous death toll
The Holocaust comparison problem is dicussed in:
Maier, C. S. (2009). The unmasterable past: History, Holocaust, and German
national identity. Harvard University Press.
Laws against denial
Laws against denial/trivialisation of genocide
• Stakeholders: genocide survivors and their families
• Consequences: insult, racism
Future laws against influential climate denial?
• Stakeholders: current and future poor in developing
countries (low political power; role of altruism)
• Consequences: hundreds of millions of deaths
Why criminalise Holocaust denial
but not climate denial?
Pro: The Holocaust certainly happened.
Global warming is only probable.
But: dangerous global warming causing at least tens of
millions of deaths is now virtually certain
Contra: Prevention is better than cure
Future deaths can be prevented. The dead cannot be
brought back to life.
The duty to rescue
Person A can be liable for not
rescuing person B in peril if:
• Person A contributed to the hazardous situation
• The rescue attempt is not very dangerous
Application to global warming:
•
•
•
•
Global poor are currently “in peril”
Rich countries are (kind of) trying to rescue them
Climate deniers are impeding rescue efforts
Deniers are well informed of the consequences
The trolley problem in ethics
Scenario 1. A rail trolley is heading
toward 5 people. They are tied to the
track and will die unless you switch
the trolley to another track, where 1
person is tied.
Scenario 2. You can stop the train by pushing a fat
man in front of it, killing him.
Scenario 3. Like 2, but the fat man is the one who
tied the 5 to the track.
Scenario 4. One healthy person has organs that are
needed by 5 others. Without them they will die.
The trolley problem: Summary
Should we kill 1 to save 5? It depends:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes, if the death of the 1 is unintended.
No, if there is intention to harm the 1.
Yes, if the 1 had risked the lives of the 5.
No, if the 5 were already at risk of dying.
Human rights implications
Genocide of 6m
≈ allowing 30m to die
if they could reasonably
have been saved
Psychic numbing
reduced sensitivity to the value of human life
as the number of deaths increases
In HR, the value of a human life is absolute
• but we perceive it relatively!
• and the ratios we perceive are too small!
Example: 100 versus 1000 deaths
• Objectively, 1000 deaths are 900 more than 100
• Subjectively, 1000 deaths are 2…3 times worse than 100*
*David Featherstone et al. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of
psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283-300.
The two cultures
• Scientists are in denial about
the role of humanities
• Humanities scholars are in
denial about the role of science
Legal research is dominated by humanities
 Legal researchers should consider scientific
approaches!
E.g. approximate quantification of legal concepts
in crime and punishment?
Criminalise influential climate denial?
If likely outcome is millions of future deaths
• A big, controversial, interdisciplinary research project
• Many experts must participate
• Judges must recognize expertise
A “show trial” would:
• Improve public & political awareness
• Slow or stop climate denial
Is criminal law the right legal tool?
International Criminal Court
Prosecutes individuals for international crimes
• genocide
• crimes against humanity
• war crimes
Add: failure to rescue millions?
Does the ICC need clearer prioritisation?
Start with the biggest crimes! Depends on:
(i) Approx. number of deaths caused
(ii) Whether or not active, deliberate, informed…
The case against
influential climate deniers
A complex chain of causality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Climate denial literature
Opinions of politicians, the public
Failure of global climate talks
Failure to reduce emissions
Global warming
Increase in preventable death rate
Is the legal difficulty counterbalanced by the enormous consequences?