The Ethics of Climate Change - Tim Soutphommasane

I thought Tim's presentation was insightful, intelligent and provocative. He was terrific - made me ask questions I had not asked before. Don't necessarily agree with all his views but I greatly appreciated his articulate consideration of a very important facet of this critical issue.

Whilst I acknowledge the failings of cosmopolitanism to present real world solutions to climate change, I believe that Tim's argument could actually apply in the reverse. I disagree that the current UN system is essentially one of global governance as it relies at its very basis on the actions of nation states. In this sense Tim's call for a patriotic response to climate change could be what we see borne out right now - a return to unilateralism post-Copenhagen, where patriotism could be read in the overt statements of national self-interest. Although I find part of his argument compelling I don't see how a patriotic response, say within Australia, will lead to emission reductions at a level that will allow developing nations to both develop and survive (given they are most vulnerable to climatic impacts). This requires a level of reduction that I perceive would be highly unpalatable under a patriotic rationale but potentially possible under a moral one.

It is a key moral problem, in the sense that we must recognise the fraud of anthropogenic climate change. It is not a moral problem in the sense of "doing the right thing" by reducing consumption.

He says that developing countries must strike a bargain. He says also that developed countries must bear the cost. One can read this in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Times of India, the Times of London or the Washington Post. Tim is using the facade of "philosopher" to promote a dichotomy that is not relevant. It is simply the mainstream Copenhagen Conference line.

Putting aside the fact that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a fraud, Tim stops short of a few key distinctions.

A tribe is not a nation. Tim counterposes patriotism and tribalism as the alternative to cosmopolitanism. The concept of national sovereignty which is embedded in the Treaty of Westphalia is neither patriotic nor tribalistic.

If Tim is a philosopher, he would do well to read Plato and Leibniz who would point the way to the moral foundations of the nation state and the imperative for humankind of technological development. Humankind has a mandate for a technologically activist role in the universe as co-Creators with the very Creator of the universe.

We wonder at Tim's motives.

In any case, the purpose and nature of humanity is brought to the fore by this debate, and Tim is squarely on the side of the oligarchy that is promoting zero growth. This mindset is consistent with the (incorrect) conception that humanity is just another species of animal which may be corralled, culled and generally "managed".

By recognising or simply remembering the nature and purpose of humanity, we find the climate change fraud automatically dissolve into absurdity.

The video has been removed (as at 19 De 2010) so that people cannot see what I have commented on.

This is one of 3 videos which currently isn't working. We've migrated our 150ish videos to a new CDN to meet an increased demand and provide better functionality. This video will be re-uploaded Monday and we apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.