Collective Action & Climate Change

"This argument is problematic given the current threat climate change poses for our lives, for it could lead to apathy and defeatism about the climate crisis. It raises the problem of collective impact, which concerns how the aggregation of individually inconsequential actions can produce a morally bad outcome overall. First, I shall formally set out the argument against us having a moral reason to reduce our individual emissions."

"The argument that we have no moral reason to reduce our emissions can be formally presented as: P1. Individual emissions have zero expected effects on climate change. P2. Zero expected effects on climate change cause no harm. C1. Individual emissions do not cause harm. P3. To have a moral reason to cut our emissions, individual emissions need to cause harm. C2. Therefor"

A common objection claims individual carbon dioxide emissions make no difference to climate harms and therefore provide no moral reason to reduce emissions. The objection is formalized via premises that individual emissions have zero expected effects and that zero expected effects cause no harm. The objection is rebutted by showing individual emissions have non-zero expected effects on a chaotic weather system and that those effects have an average negative value. Reframing with small non-zero expected effects undermines the claim that individuals bear no responsibility. Lack of a marginal effect does not absolve responsibility for the overall harmful outcome.

Read at Philosophynow