AR5 Review Comments
AR5 Review Comments
Report by UK
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Figure 3.6 is v2.0 McKinsey cost curve, but we would advise using the latest published version which is v2.1. We would also advise using the 2030 curve rather than the 2015 one shown in Figure 3.6 as this is the year on which our analysis focuses. Please find the v2.1 2030 chart on page 8 in the publication "Impact of the financial crisis on carbon economics: Version 2.1 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve" found at the following link: http://www.mckinsey.com/c
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
The relationship between the discussion of prioritarianism in section 3.3.3 and that in section 3.4 (p.21) is not clear. One can distinguish between telic and deontic forms of prioritarianism. It is clear that in section 3.4 it is the telic form that is under discussion, since prioritarianism is there stated by way of a value function. But I am not sure which is intended in section 3.3.3. I guess that it may be a deontic form, since it appears in a section titled "justice/equ
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Fankhauser S, R.Tol, and D.Pearce, ‘The Aggregation of climate change damages: a welfare-theoretic approach,’ Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.10. 1997 pp.249-66
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
This table seems to exclude more recent examples which attempt to assess the social costs of catastrophic climate change e.g. Http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2011-40 by Ackerman and Stanton
View full comment by Andy Haines...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Considering the centrality of debates about economics and ethics I understand why the IPCC has chosen to include this in its 5th Assessment. These are crucial issues, and are likely to remain central in domestic and international policy discussions. In addition, as someone whose research is focused primarily on the relationships between economics and ethics in climate policy, I recognize that this is an extremely difficult area to integrate in a single chapter. I fully rec
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
The table 3.3 and accompanying discussion misses at least one new set of metrics in the literature: the Peak Commitment Temperature (PCT) and Sustained Emission Temperature (SET). See Smith S. M. et al. (2012) Equivalance of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits. Nature Climate Change.
View full comment by Stephen Smith...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
IPCC is so loaded with costing models and gurus that I will refrain from commenting on the specific model results, but I am a bit puzzled about the purpose of this section. One point that I think could usefully be made is that however “costs” are defined and models run, the costs of mitigation are set within both vastly larger determinants of economic growth – they are a difference in percentage growth rates of some small and highly uncertain fraction of a percent. Mor
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
It is good to see some discussion of alternative emissions metrics here, which are the subject of a fair amount of academic research and political discussion (see Plattner, G-K. et al. "IPCC Expert Meeting on the Science of Alternative Metrics", IPCC 2009) but have been underplayed in previous WG3 reports. But the discussion here contains much high-level theory and little relevant application. For instance, how do the metrics relate to the 2 degree limit (and 1.5 degree limit
View full comment by Stephen Smith...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Damages: Surely in a chapter on social, economic & ethical dimensions, the most important points to make are that the quantified estimates cited are rendered controversial by all the issues discussed previously in the chapter around aggregation, plus the discounting / intergernational debate, the missing values, etc. I also find it bizarre to discuss these issues without referring for example to the more qualitative risk studies, for example Downing’s risk matrix (Watkiss
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Some suggestions: (1) moral responsibility for CC - individual, collective, or both?; (2) criminal justice and CC; (3) ethics of geoengineering; (4) the role and nature of feasibility constraints in moral arguments about CC; (5) triage; (6) methods in ethics for assessing different post carbon futures.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
On line 37, it is claimed that both options of applying prioritarianism to emission rights are problematic. So is the conclusion of this section that prioratarianism about emissions is implausible? If so, is there a recommended alternative?
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
The discussion is 3.3.7.1 & 3.3..7.2 could be better structured. As it stands, there is considerable repetition and overlap between the different "components".
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
D.o.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
D.o.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
Aggregation of costs and benefits
This section might usefully start with an important caveat along the lines in my general comments: aggregation approaches reside within and are constrained by a moral framework of norms and rights. To take a blunt and highly personal example: my father is very ill with Alzheimer’s disease. He needs constant care, adds nothing to the economy, consumes a lot of resources of the UK National Health Service, and is clearly no longer enjoying
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods:
UK
I don’t understand the purpose of the section on “The Paretian Approach” in this section. In some circumstances (e.g. many of those pertaining to 1st Domain processes) Pareto improvements are possible. The dilemmas of aggregation are then avoided because one set is Pareto superior to another. This is essentially the economic terminology for the broader principles of First Domain effects. Since this chapter is about clarifying ecnomic principles, it might be useful to
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
The apparent ignorance of the authors of some of the earliest and still most salient literature on ethics and climate change (Jamieson D (1992) ‘Ethics, public policy, and global warming’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(2), 139-53 - Also in Light A and Rolston III H (2003) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, London: Blackwell and reprinted in Jamieson D (2003) Morality’s Progress. Oxford: Oxford
University Press) and more recent literature (e.g. Garvey J (200
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
It is surprising that this chapter does not mention work such as that by Okereke (an author of Chapter 4) on justice and climate change.
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
The coverage of the literature that the authors choose to discuss is adequate, though limited by being framed by their assumptions being largely restricted to consequential and deontological ethics and predictive epistemology.
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
This chapter has an almost impossible task. Unlike most others, which are focused on topics specifically related to climate and energy, or the literature mostly of recent years (eg. Chapter 2), the chapter 3 outline appears in effect to be asking to interpret Millennia of thought on social, economic and ethical concepts, as they might pertain to climate change. This is an awesome task. The authors have my sympathies.
Unfortunately the chapter in its current form does not
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
This chapter doesn't seem to consider health co-benefits explicitly-- in fact health as a topic sems to be absent
View full comment by Andy Haines...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 0
UK
The title of the chapter is 'Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods'. However, only 10 or so pages of the 76 pages of content address ethical and moral issues, whereas economics gets around 46 pages. This imbalance does not reflect the many developments in the philosophical literature on CC of the last 10 years. Key debates that are not surveyed (or mentioned) relate to: the attribution of moral responsibility for CC to individual or collective agents (or both, or
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 10 , Line 18 To Page 10 , Line 19
UK
Awkward sentence.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 10 , Line 2 To Page 10 , Line 3
UK
Ungrammatical sentence.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 10 , Line 34 To Page 10 , Line 34
UK
The reference to Rawls here is, I think, misleading: it gives the impression that he explicitly addresses the question of a global cap on emissions.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 10 , Line 4 To Page 10 , Line 34
UK
insert 'relatively' before 'modest'
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 1 To Page 11 , Line 4
UK
A further response to a rights-based conception of intergenerational justice is to push a (Kantian) obligation based view: present people have duties to future people, but it need not follow that future people have rights against present people. In my view, Onora O'Neill offers the best defence of this approach in 'Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Pratical Reasoning' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 1 To Page 11 , Line 13
UK
This does a good job of summarizing some key issues quickly. One that it leaves out, however, is the claim of ‘will theorists’ that future people cannot have rights because they cannot exercise them. See, for example, Hillel Steiner (1983) ‘The Rights of Future Generations’, in Energy and the Future, ed. Douglas MacLean and Peter G. Brown. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 151-65.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 20 To Page 11 , Line 20
UK
Comma missing (after parantheses).
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 21 To Page 11
UK
Surely add a reference here to Rawls, as a prioritarian?
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 33 To Page 11 , Line 34
UK
Prioritarianism is 'the most common perspective on distributional justice' among contemporary analytic academic philosophers. That seems to me an adequate justification for focusing on it—but it is only fair to note that worldwide, egalitarianism is surely more widespread among the general public
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 34 To Page 11 , Line 35
UK
I am far from sure that the claim that prioritarianism is “the most common perspective on distributional justice” is correct. For example, the vast majority of economics literature using any social welfare function uses a straightforward utilitarian one. It is surprising that this section does not mention utilitarianism at all.
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 41 To Page 11 , Line 42
UK
The logic of why the worse off would benefit more from being able to sell an equal share of emissions (declining marginal utility?) needs to be specified, and an explanation needs to follow of why the first option is problematic.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 48 To Page 12 , Line 2
UK
A brief explanation of why this claim is true might be helpful.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 7 To Page 11 , Line 13
UK
I wonder if this discussion of the Non-Identity Problem is not too condensed to make sense to those unfamiliar with the Problem. I realize that space is very limited, but perhaps something can be done to explain the Problem more clearly. Alternatively, if there is no space for that, then perhaps the attempt to explain it should be given up. (However, given that the Problem crops up several times later in the chapter, perhaps the latter is actually not the way to go.)
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 11 , Line 9 To Page 11 , Line 13
UK
A different tack is to argue that we owe justice to future people not because of the particualr identities they will come to have (which generates the NI problem), but just in virtue of the fact that they will be people. Jeffery Reiman argues that this is a Rawlsian approach to the NI problem ('Being Fair to Future People', Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 35, 2007, 69-92). I think he interprets Rawls correctly, and that this approach is also generated by the Kantian visio
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 12 , Line 1 To Page 12
UK
Perhaps add a reference to Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit, 'Disadvantage' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) re. their pluralist account of disadvantage.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 12 , Line 20
UK
As far as I can see the clause “at today's level of prosperity” is unnecessary (and therefore confusing). Isn't the point that owing to the non-identity problem, the people who in fact live today would not have lived at all in the case in question?
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 12 , Line 21 To Page 12 , Line 22
UK
“and thus” - this follows only if the auxiliary premise that nobody can be better or worse off existing than not existing is used. That premise is controversial (IIRC e.g. Arrhenius, Holtug, Rabinowicz, Bykvist all deny it).
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 12 , Line 27 To Page 12 , Line 28
UK
I wasn't sure why taking emissions into account in this way is not (at least partly) open to the objections of the previous paragraph. Regarding the first objection, it might still be argued that at least until they reach adulthood, present people still cannot reasonably be expected to influence past people's action. And regarding the second objection, if past people are to be excused for ignorance of the consequences of their actions, then this seems to apply also to the *by
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 12
UK
I think this section could be cut without loss.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 13 , Line 31 To Page 13 , Line 31
UK
Aren't the rights to receive compensation also potentially relevant to *future* people?
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 13 , Line 33 To Page 13 , Line 35
UK
A reference to sec. 3.3.6., where this question is discussed in the legal context, might be useful.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 1 To Page 14 , Line 2
UK
I outline an approach to intergenerational corrective justice that overcomes the problem of dead duty bearers: Catriona McKinnon, 'Climate Change and Future Justice: Precaution, Compensation, and Triage' (London: Routledge, 2011), esp. chapter 4.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 16 To Page 14 , Line 18
UK
“Owing... section 3.2.4)”. I found this sentence confusing. Is the point that past emissions that e.g. raised the standard of living for predecessors but happened to have no knock-on effects (e.g. via technological progress) for present people are excluded? If so, I don't understand how the non-identity problem is relevant here.
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 16 To Page 14 , Line 20
UK
Passage is cumbersome.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 18 To Page 14 , Line 19
UK
BPP's implication that existing people should be responsible only for emissions from which they have benefited seems to me exactly right. While some disagree, it may be worth noting that this is not necessarily an objection to the principle.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 20 To Page 14 , Line 22
UK
Need benefiting from injustice be voluntary in order to create an obligation to disgorge the gains? (Note Butt's argument that it need not [2007, p. 134].)
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 21 To Page 14 , Line 21
UK
The word 'feasibly' does a lot of work here. It would be good to indicate that somehow.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 26 To Page 14 , Line 26
UK
Janna Thompson's communitarian approach to intergenerational justice should be referenced in connection with 'transgenerational community' (see Janna Thompson, 'Intergenerational Justice: Rights and Responsibilities in an Intergenerational Polity', London: Routledge, 2009).
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 3 To Page 14 , Line 4
UK
There is something confusing about this conclusion, with its focus on PPP. For example, the third problem identified in the previous paragraph does not seem to arise for PPP, as the question of whether or not the polluter *benefited* from the emissions is not obviously relevant to her compensatory duty under PPP.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 31 To Page 14 , Line 33
UK
Shouldn't the criterion be whether the past emitters could reasonably have anticipated whether their emissions would be harmful?
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 32 To Page 14 , Line 33
UK
In light of the last sentence, I take it that “can [now?] be shown” should read “were known at the time of emission”.
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 39 To Page 14 , Line 42
UK
There does not seem to be a plausible rationale based on *distributive justice* for including the causal responsibility of past people as a factor in allocating the burdens of adaptation, as opposed to ability to pay.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 14 , Line 45 To Page 14 , Line 46
UK
A third and distinct reason for thinking that present people have IG duties of justice is that they have an obligation to (at least) put future people at risk of life in conditions in which the pursuit of justice is not possible.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 15 , Line 30 To Page 15 , Line 39
UK
Reference should be made here to Sinnott-Armstrong's rejection of the Harm Principle as generating liability for individuals for CC in virtue of their emissions: his arguments draw on (he claims) the absence of a causal link between individual emissions and CC. See Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, ‘It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations’ in Gardiner, Stephen M., Caney, S., Jamieson, D., and Shue, H. (eds), Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (Oxford:
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 15 , Line 40 To Page 15 , Line 46
UK
This paragraph could be cut without loss.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 15 , Line 17 To Page 15 , Line 18
UK
Add: Grossman, David A., Tort-Based Climate Litigation. 2009. In: William C.G. Burns and Hari M. Osofsky (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK, 193-229.
View full comment by Henry Shue...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 15 , Line 7 To Page 15 , Line 8
UK
Add: Burns, William C.G. and Hari M. Osofsky. 2009. Overview: The Exigencies That Drive Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change. In: Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. William C.G. Burns and Hari M. Osofsky (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1-27.
View full comment by Henry Shue...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 16 , Line 16 To Page 16 , Line 20
UK
The 'all affected' principle delivers a fully intergenerational vision of justice, such as that embodied in Rawls' Just Savings principle.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 16 , Line 6 To Page 16 , Line 8
UK
This makes it look like procedural and distributive justice are alternatives, whereas (for many) distributive justice is the outcome of procedural justice.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 17 , Line 11 To Page 17 , Line 14
UK
It seems to me that more of a transition is needed in shifting to 3.4, indicating that the account is moving from largely deontological accounts of distributive justice to consequentialism.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 17 , Line 40 To Page 17 , Line 40
UK
Why 'vehicles'? Why not 'who experience pleasure, pain, suffering …'?
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 17 , Line 1 To Page 17 , Line 10
UK
This section could be cut without loss - it adds very little.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 17 To Page 17
UK
A section on values is a good idea, but it would be very helpful to have a more balanced introduction. A clear paragraph identifying the limitations of what this section is and is NOT covering (including rights) would be helpful
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 17 , Line 11 To Page 17 , Line 28
UK
This section on values would benefit from a first few lines more clearly linking it to the previous discussion of ethics so that the reader can more easily make the jump from one section to the next (as they stand there is almost no connection made). It is also intriguing that the examples used to discuss value in the second paragraph are both largely monetary. Its also not clear that these examples have anything to do with VALUES (more freedom to devote to environmental re
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 18 , Line 20 To Page 18 , Line 23
UK
It may be worth noting that whether there are any goods that are not measured in terms of good for individuals (human or otherwise) is controversial (that there are not is assumed at the top of p. 20).
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 18
UK
The relevance of the material in this section to ethical debates about CC should be better signposted.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 19
UK
The quality of graphics is hard to read and I don't actually understand what this is trying to convey.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 19 , Line 1 To Page 19 , Line 3
UK
The reader may benefit from some brief sign-posting explaining the focus on *aggregation* of wellbeing.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 20 , Line 1 To Page 22 , Line 28
UK
It is strange that in a chapter on ethics and economics, the strategies for defining a social welfare function are covered in depth (line 1 on pg 20, to the end of page 22), while the ethical problems of these, and some of the ramifications they have on discussions about population are refered to only vaguely and in only 4 lines (lines 28-31 on page 22). It is this type of systemic lack of balance that is going to result in profound criticism of this chapter.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 21 , Line 33 To Page 21 , Line 34
UK
I can see that the alternative of *average* utilitarianism is not important here, as we are dealing with a fixed population; but still, this sentence might seem puzzling to those familiar with the alternative. So perhaps it could be noted as a view to be discussed in the next subsection.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 21 , Line 40 To Page 21 , Line 44
UK
This paragraph could be cut without loss.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 21 , Line 43 To Page 21 , Line 44
UK
“Is not consistent with Harsanyi's theorem” - it would be better to state which axiom(s) of Harsanyi's theorem is violated by the SWF under consideration (esp. since anyone who would otherwise advocate the maximin SWF is likely to bite the corresponding bullet(s)).
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 22 , Line 2 To Page 22 , Line 3
UK
This is the sort of sign-posting I had in mind in comment 16 above.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 23 , Line 2 To Page 23 , Line 3
UK
The concept of separability is first introduced in 3.4. Also, doesn't 'weak separability' need to be defined?
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 23 , Line 30 To Page 25 , Line 44
UK
It is a problem that an entire section discussing the - very difficult and ethically problematic - use of monetization to represent value, and WTP/WTA does, at no point, refer to any of the literature that addresses the limitations of WTP/WTA as a methodology. I honestly cannot imagine another section of the IPCC leaving out a debate of equal importance and pretending it does not exist. It would require little extra space to acknowledge the limitations of this methodology wh
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 24 , Line 39 To Page 25 , Line 28
UK
Box 3.1 “Value of Life”.
This box (and the associated text) needs to show far more sensitivity to the issues and the history of the IPCC Second Assessment. In the first place, the SAR did clarify that the concept is entirely about the “Value of Statistical Life (VOSL)” – not the general Value of Life. I would strongly urge this chapter to use the precise term.
Second, the writing seems to miss entirely the fundamental point that led to the blow-up in the SAR
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 24 , Line 42 To Page 24 , Line 43
UK
Note that consequentialist theories do not have to accord the same weight to benefits and harms.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 26 , Line 30 To Page 26 , Line 43
UK
This material could be cut without loss: the subsequent para is sufficient.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 27 , Line 6 To Page 27 , Line 19
UK
The last line is confusing in light of the previous paragraph. The first paragraph in this extract says 'the discount rate tells us how much one * should * do for the future' (emphasis added). The second paragraph then asserts that there are normative and positive perspectives on the discount rate, and that 'both approaches can be relevant, depending on the application'. This is naturally read as implying that there is a purely positive approach to the question of what one sh
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 27 , Line 6 To Page 27 , Line 13
UK
The word should is used repeatedly in this paragraph. The inference is that the result of CBA tell us what we SHOULD do. This blatantly disregards any other ways of making decisions and leads the reader to imply that CBA results are the only form of evidence required for making what are necessarily incredibly complex decisions. I realize this seems like a ridiculously petty comment but I am drawing attention to it because of the much broader assumptions it makes that are r
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 27 To Page 27
UK
I have mentioned several detailed comments for this section - and as I have suggested elsewhere - an entire reorganization of the text would be best solution. However, at the very least a better introductory paragraph that says something along the lines of; "Aggregation is required for a variety of economic analysis techniques and is covered in this section. It should be noted however, that assumotions about aggregation can be problematic from an ethics perspective. For in
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 28 , Line 17 To Page 28 , Line 17
UK
The reader needs to be introduced to the concept of pure time discounting before δ is introduced and defined.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 28 , Line 23 To Page 28 , Line 23
UK
Is there an implicit assumption here that individual well-being is determined by preference-satisfaction? If so, is the assumption necesssary?
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 28 , Line 34 To Page 28 , Line 34
UK
The description of the arguments referred to as 'largely intuitive' is seriously misleading. These argument are moral/ethical. Also, Rawls' rejection of a positive discount rate should be referenced here, as should Gardiner's discussion in Stephen Gardiner, 'A perfect moral storm' (Oxford: OUP, 2011), chapter 8.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 29 , Line 9
UK
The 'delta'-value of 0.1% for Stern 2007 is not strictly speaking correct, given the way the author has defined delta on p.28. (Delta is defined here as the rate of pure time preference. Of course Stern's 0.1% is discounting for risk, not pure time preference.)
View full comment by Hilary Greaves...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 30 , Line 31 To Page 30 , Line 35
UK
"Conceptually, climate change mitigation among countries translates to determining emissions entitlements according to chosen equity principles, and then trading in entitlements in markets". Really? Statements like this that do not recognize valid debate about what climate change mitigation SHOULD include (many would argue that trading should not be included for ethical reasons; many other would argue that trading has serious limitations for mitigation) are profoundly probl
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 30 , Line 6 To Page 30 , Line 7
UK
How is this statement of what prudence requires 'in line with' sustainable development?
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 30 , Line 25 To Page 33 , Line 26
UK
The title of this section is "Economics, rights and duties". At no point does the section discuss rights. None of the ethical frameworks covered discuss rights. Teh discussion of economic theory does not disucss rights. The challenges of rights and compensation (and non-compensatory rights) are ignored. Nor does this section actually tackle the relationship of economics to different frameworks of justice despite the first sentence which states that this is the goal of the
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 31 , Line 34 To Page 31 , Line 35
UK
These transfers could be intergenerational in scope.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 32 , Line 1 To Page 32 , Line 2
UK
Reference Keith Hyams, 'A Just Response to Climate Change: Personal Carbon Allowances and the Normal Functioning Approach', Journal of Social Philosophy, 40/2, 2009, 237-56.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 32 , Line 22 To Page 32 , Line 23
UK
Why is grandfathering termed 'the sovereignty principle'?
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 39
UK
There is a potential here to address some of the challenges of this chapter. I realize that the actual order of sections may not be changeable at this point, however, this type of broader discussion - in which multiple criteria area recognised - would have been valuable before the single-minded dicsussions of CBA etc. By placing this section after the previous it seems as thought the strictly economic criteria should take precedence over all others. If moving entire sectio
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 4
UK
I defer to the comments of my professional colleague Sonia Klinksy, on most dimensions of this topic, but offer one fundamental point. Almost all streams of considered analysis recognise that modern economic systems reside within some higher-level framework of rules based upon moral codes. Dr Klinsky has touched on some dimensions of this. Within institutional economics, it is generally referred to as the “institutional environment” that defines for example property ri
View full comment by Michael Grubb...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 40 , Line 1 To Page 41 , Line 4
UK
This section starts out promisingly, with a very nice clear recognition that there are multiple criteria to consider when evaluating mitigation options. Line 8 states this section is going to address 4 critiera. All of this is good so far. And then, on line 12, all of this framing is stopped and suddenly the reader is presented with the economic frame for policy analysis (and figure 3.4). This movement is illogical and leaves the reader with the impression that the other
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 43
UK
Similar to an earlier comment (about 3.9.1), the order of these sections does not make sense to me. Placing a discussion about the breadth of approaches of policy evaluation before all the discussions of economics would help address the enormous problems the chapter has in automatically giving econmics preference as a worldview through which to see the challenge of climate change policy. If this type of reordering is at all possible I would strongly recommend it.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 45 To Page 51
UK
This discussion about metrics could be usefully integrated with the limited section on values earlier. This would have helped place some of the other dsicussions (such as of CBA) in a more appropriate context. I realize that reorganization at this late stage of development is usually not possible in the IPCC framework. However, based on the profound, possibly unsolvable, problems in this chapter I am strongly recommending that some reorganization is considered it at all po
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 10 To Page 5 , Line 10
UK
Insert 'part of' before 'subject matter of ethics'.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 12 To Page 5 , Line 31
UK
The order of topics in the executive summary seems unusual. For instance placing the discussion of distributive vs procedural justice after the slightly random list of justice related questions? I think a careful reworking of the entire executive summary to ensure that the ideas are as integrated as possible, and that they flow in some sort of reasonable order would be an immensely valuable use of presumably short writing time.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 29 To Page 5 , Line 31
UK
This paragraph sits oddly in the text: why introduce the distinction here?
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 32 To Page 5 , Line 39
UK
As mentioned in my general comments, the crux of the problem I see with this chapter is the lack of integration throughout. At no point is the connection between the legal systems and the previous discussion of justice addressed, leading readers to get the impression that all of these components have been thrown together, and making it more difficult for them to see why legal arguments may be important in this debate.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 40 To Page 6 , Line 6
UK
The jump from the first sentence that accurately recognizes the limited ability of any form of economic representation of values, in particularly non-monetary values related to non-human nature, somewhat befuddlingly turns almost immediately into a detailed discussion of social welfare functions which then morphs directly into a detailed discussion of cost-benefit analysis. Any genuine consideration of the difficulties of assigning value to non-human nature, or any considera
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 5 , Line 5 To Page 5 , Line 11
UK
I think that one of the areas in which changes could have the most impact would be in the executive summary. This is arguably the most important part of the document as it is most likely to be read by the largest number of people. I have marked these particular lines because I think they illustrate one of the ongong tendencies through the chapter - to take economics as "self-evident" and then cover the importance of ethics in vague terms. If language like "self-evident" is
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 51 , Line 11 To Page 51 , Line 11
UK
Text refers to Figure 3.6 using "US$ per ton of CO2e", but the Figure uses € per [metric] tonne CO2e
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 51 , Line 12 To Page 51 , Line 12
UK
Text refers to the 2030 curve though the 2015 version is shown
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 51 , Line 20 To Page 51 , Line 20
UK
Text referring to 2015 should be changed to 2030
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 51 , Line 8 To Page 51 , Line 8
UK
The text uses the phrase "highly controversial" with regard to the McKinsey cost curve analysis. We acknowledge there is debate around our approach, and indeed have engaged in discussion with numerous partners in academia, NGOs and international institutions on how to continue to improve it. The cost curve has been well received and proven a useful tool (one of many tools) for various constituencies. We would also welcome further debate with you and benefit from your expertis
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 52 , Line 1 To Page 52 , Line 1
UK
The text uses the phrase "highly controversial" with regard to the McKinsey cost curve analysis. We acknowledge there is debate around our approach, and indeed have engaged in discussion with numerous partners in academia, NGOs and international institutions on how to continue to improve it. The cost curve has been well received and proven a useful tool (one of many tools) for various constituencies. We would also welcome further debate with you and benefit from your expertis
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 52 , Line 6 To Page 52 , Line 14
UK
The text mentions that McKinsey's analysis of negative cost abatement opportunity "may be flawed" and that it ignores the distribution of costs and benefits that accrue to parties involved in implementing such abatement measures. We would like to clarify that the curves show technical potential and we acknowledge that regulatory and financial support are needed to actually capture this potential. We acknowledge the barriers 'in the field' to the implementation of technical ab
View full comment by Ian Banks...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 55 , Line 5 To Page 57 , Line 19
UK
This is a better discussion of WTP although it still glosses over the limitations of it. I would argue that the previous section be deleted (why have it discussed in two places in the same chapter), or at the very least, clearly pointing to this stronger coverage of the same ideas.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 6 , Line 1 To Page 6 , Line 26
UK
At no point is this fairly detailed discussion of CBA framed within the substantive literature on the limitations of CBA for complex decisions like climate change and the ethical challenges of doing this! Considering that this chapter is supposedly an integration of discussions of ethics and economics this is a profound problem. By simply jumping into CBA discussions without any caveats, the IPCC is essentially imposing a framework in which CBA is the default option for ass
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 6 , Line 12 To Page 6 , Line 13
UK
This implies that discounting is *necessary* for comparison. But comparison is possible with a zero D.R.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 6 , Line 33 To Page 6 , Line 43
UK
I am very confused by the discussion on policy evaluation. Is this trying to say that tehse are the criteria countries SHOULD use? That they are using? That they are 'allowed' to use?
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 6 , Line 44 To Page 6 , Line 48
UK
This paragraph is confusing. The first lines seem to discuss behavioural changes. The rest of it discusses WTP without any recognition of the severe limitations of these techniques for valuation. Again, this paragraph illustates the ongoing tendency of this chapter to jump into hihgly contentious economic metrics (from the perspective of many discussions of ethics and from the perspective of the practical and methodological challenges of using these metrics of value) witho
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 61 To Page 63
UK
This is a better discussion than some of the previous ones. It could be helpful to tie it to some of the earlier sections (ie. pointing out the gaps between theoretical ideals of how neoclassical economcs should work in terms of providing advice, and how people actually behave). Clearer road marking to this section would help authors develop text that more appropriately establishes the boundaries of economics knowledge about climate policy.
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 64 , Line 6 To Page 67 , Line 44
UK
A better integration of this section - and moving it to earlier in the chapter - would be helpful in presenting a more balanced palate of options for thinking about value and what is important to measure and consider in climate policy than is currently included in the chapter. Also -- the better discussion of indigenous people and gender issues could be used to balance the earlier significantly weaker sections on distibution within economic analysis (bc any recognition of th
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 66 , Line 46 To Page 66 , Line 47
UK
Needs to specify how 'the relation[ship] between communities and the environment is not gender-neutral'.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 67
UK
The discussion of social capital is the passage in this report that seems to me the best candidate for cutting. That’s not to say that social capital might not be worth discussing—however, the present treatment contributes little of value.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 67 , Line 1 To Page 67 , Line 8
UK
This paragraph either needs to be expanded or deleted. As it presently stands, it's not clear what it's talking about.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 67 , Line 14 To Page 67 , Line 23
UK
This vaguely written passage fails to convey a clear definition of what social capital *is*. What does 'with temporal and spatial variability' mean? Wouldn't '[t]he sum of all the resources of each individual or social group in relation to their position in the social structure and their way of establishing social relationships' refer to just about anything an individual or group could possess? How does anyone ever interact except as part of an 'associative network of iindivi
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 67 , Line 28 To Page 67 , Line 29
UK
The causal logic of this claim needs to be specified. If A (social capital), B (human capital) and C (social development) all cause fluctuation in D (community empowerment), this does not ipso facto imply feedback effects among A, B, C and D. Such feedback may exist, but the passage needs to explain how.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 67 , Line 30 To Page 67 , Line 43
UK
The link to climate change needs to be made more explicit. Is the point that social capital can assist communities in adapting, or what?
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 69 , Line 33 To Page 69 , Line 33
UK
Please define the 'winner's curse'.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 7 , Line 1 To Page 7 , Line 20
UK
This entire section needs to be reframed. As it stands lines 19-20 are tacked on without any context allowing the reader to see what the point it -- that sometimes we would like to have information about aggregate wellbeing and that there are many ways of trying to do this. ONE (among many) ways of trying to generate information about wellbing is to use income as a partial indicator of wellbing and then model is in MAC curves. Other ways of looking at wellbeing might inclu
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 7 , Line 19 To Page 7 , Line 20
UK
Integral to what?
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 7 , Line 28 To Page 7 , Line 29
UK
*Resolved* how? This might not be obvious to those unfamiliar with previous IPCC reports.
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 7 , Line 31 To Page 7 , Line 32
UK
Such a claim would not be very persuasive, because while there is little doubt that climate change is occurring, there remains the crucial questions of how much and what kinds.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 7 , Line 35 To Page 7 , Line 38
UK
Shouldn't *benefits*, and not only costs, also be mentioned here?
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 73 , Line 33 To Page 73 , Line 33
UK
The phrase 'productivity of fossil fuels' is confusing: One can easily take it to mean how much a given unit of fuel *contributes*. Would it be better to say *production*?
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 77 To Page 111
UK
The bibliography omits Donald Brown et al., 'White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change', College Park: Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University, 2006, and this is a serious omission.
View full comment by ROBIN ATTFIELD...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 79 , Line 20 To Page 79 , Line 20
UK
I cannot find any evidence that Arrhenius 2011 has yet appeared in print.
View full comment by Matthew Rendall...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 8 , Line 11 To Page 8 , Line 14
UK
Questions of at least conventional economics are always at least based on normative ethical assumptions. That is, in examining 'how firms have reacted in the past to cap-and-trade programs for limiting emissions' is done through the lens of economics would typically look at the relative increase or reduction in utility, GDP or simply money. A deontological approach could look at whether legal duties have been met and whether there has been a change more generally in consideri
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 8 , Line 17 To Page 8 , Line 19
UK
It is stated 'This chapter does not attempt to answer normative questions, but rather provides policymakers with the tools (concepts, principles, arguments and methods) to make such decisions using their own values.' As already stated the chapter itself is framed by barely recognised ethical and epistemological assumptions which are likely to reinforce the assumptions of many of the most influential policy making organisations and policymakers which are unlikely to be the as
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 8 , Line 26 To Page 8 , Line 26
UK
outcome-based' is a better term than 'criteria-based'.
View full comment by Catriona McKinnon...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 9 , Line 13 To Page 9 , Line 25
UK
One of the problems of this chapter is that the conversation repeatedly gives preference to a neo-classical perspective without balancing or even recognizing that it is doing it. For instance, dividing the ethics as "theoretical" and the economics as "practical" is deeply problematic. This language infers that ethics has nothing useful or real to contribute (this attitude permeates this chapter in so many small ways I simply cannot identify them all). If nothing else this
View full comment by Sonja Klinsky...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 9 , Line 26 To Page 9 , Line 26
UK
Something seems to be wrong with the numbering here (should be 2.3?)
View full comment by Yair Levy...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 9 , Line 36 To Page 9 , Line 39
UK
Despite considering justice 'a political virtue' this chapter does not appear to consider virtue notions of justice. This severely limits the chapter's attempts to 'indicate where there are differences of opinion in the literature' about justice and clearly makes the 'review of the literature in this section ... policy relevant [and] policy prescriptive'.
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 9 , Line 7 To Page 9 , Line 10
UK
The section numbering here appears to be incorrect - there is no 3.2.1 to 3.2.7 as discussed.
View full comment by Mark Charlesworth...
First Order Draft, Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods: From Page 9 , Line 4 To Page 9 , Line 12
UK
The execution of this programme is apparently absent from the draft text.
View full comment by ROBIN ATTFIELD...