traditional knowledge conference 2008 te tatau pounamu

achieve: no mitigation effort, no matter how rigorous and relentless, will prevent climate change fromhappening in the next few decades. Adaptation is unavoidable (IPCC, 2007 II, p. 747).While the first IPCC report dealt mainly with the science, subsequent reports and the literaturedebate around them picked up the issues related to the Articles and Principles, namely, equity, costeffectiveness and economic analysis, sustainable development and (to a lesser extent) governance. Theissues around this debate include, first, a difference between neoclassical economists and ecologicaleconomists about the fundamental assumptions for an appropriate economic model. From this, therefollow differences about the use of cost-benefit analyses. The second aspect concerns the use of theterm “sustainable development.” This recognises that the current development or business-as-usualmodel is inadequate, but the IPCC reports do not adequately face up to the limitations of thesustainability model. Thirdly, there is recognition that the fundamental issues are ethical and thedisputes between the economists, scientists and policy makers are not resolvable without dealing withthe ethical issues (Grubb, 2006).The ethical debate in and around the IPCC is limited and flawed. It relies on the notion of equity.The policy issues include how to allocate responsibility for the cause, reduction (mitigation) and copingwith the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (adaptation) between existing nations and current andfuture generations. So the debate considers matters like how to use (if at all) the concepts or methods of“polluter pays,” ability to pay and distributing the benefits. But the problem is that the concept of equityalone is inadequate. We have gone beyond the stage where we have an option of allowing thedeveloping countries the opportunity to use the current business model; India and China now have to beincluded in the calculations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid dangerous levelsbeing reached (Metz, Berk, Den Elzen, De Vries, & Van Vuuren, 2002; Howell, 2008). So, developingcountries cannot be treated fairly. And the notion of equity does not deal with human relationship to theenvironment.If the notion of equity alone is inadequate, what are the options? To answer that question, we needto consider the six major ethical streams or traditions: Aristotelian or Virtue Ethics, Kant, the SocialContract, Utilitarianism, Religious Traditions and what I have called the Ecological Tradition. Before Iget into a more detailed discussion of the ethical options, let me first describe some science, and thendeal with the differences between the economic models. Once I have described and discussed these, Iwant to come back to the UNFCCC Articles and Principles because they have fatally compromised anyattempt to provide a workable solution to achieving the purpose for which the UNFCCC wasestablished.ScienceIn science, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter and energy in the universe isconstant, that it cannot be created or destroyed. The Second Law (entropy law) states that matter andenergy can only be changed in one direction: from usable to unusable, from ordered to disordered. TheEarth is a closed system, except for the entry of energy in the form of sunlight. In the Earth’s system,what goes into a part of the system (for example, a factory or production process) must come out, and itdoes so with its productive potential irrevocably diminished. The implication is that the more societyrelies on an increase in material flows to satisfy an increasing demand for production, the greater willbe the level of pollution and the dis-amenities associated with it; the greater will be the demand placedon the assimilative capacity of the biosphere; and, finally, the smaller will be the productive potential ofthe biosphere in the future (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975; Ropke, 2005; Underwood & King, 1989).In theory, the capture of solar energy could adequately supply energy for abundant life. In practice,this is not the case. Vitousek and others, in 1986, calculated that 40% of the solar energy converted byphotosynthesis, available to counter the entropic effect of the Second Law, is captured by humans(Vitousek, P. Ehrlich, A. Ehrlich, & Matson, 1986). The ecological footprint calculations by Rees (1992)and Wackernagel, Wermer and Goldfinger (2007) indicate that this is too high: currently, the Earth’sbiocapacity is exceeded by 23% (Global Footprint Network, 2006).202