By ALEX MAULE and ELLIOT AVE-LALLEMANT
This past week, Beloit College hosted Stephen Gardiner, this year’s Crom Visiting Philosopher. Gardiner is a professor of philosophy at the University of Washington. His lecture on November 14 focused on the ethics of Stratospheric Sulfate Injection, a type of geoengineering, to be a possible solution to climate change. Some Round Table staff also had the chance to sit down with Gardiner for a 1:1 lunch conversation and student discussion.
When asked whether the solution to climate change necessarily entails abandoning capitalism, Gardiner said he’s both “sympathetic and not.” He thinks the U.S. is a mixed economy, emphasizing the government makes up a considerable percentage of the GDP, and that free markets are likewise not truly “free” in that there is significant federal intervention and price controls in place. Furthermore, he described that when people talk about dismantling or fundamentally shifting away from a market system, he thinks they’re really describing the system as a whole being dysfunctional. He mentioned one college student during a previous Q&A who said the only solution was to overhaul capitalism, and when Gardiner asked for clarification the student “revealed they really meant fixing the Supreme Court”. He said there are issues of power concentration and corruption at the highest level within capitalist societies in the form of lobbying, campaign finances, and bribery, but that realistically a small group of individuals holding a disproportionate amount of power, and seeking to enlarge and entrench their influence, is prevalent in socialist societies as well.
Gardiner also appeared in both his talk and presentation to be ideologically opposed to solutions that would involve heavy government intervention, unless absolutely necessary. He described anarchical opposition to technological progress as “unproductive,” and that population reduction efforts and the restructuring of urban centers are often skipped in favor of climate capture solutions, because it entails tackling the slippery slope of restricting freedom of movement and other rights considered inalienable to personhood. He declared progress has been made in recategorizing SSI and carbon dioxide removal as a “Plan B” to a “Plan A+,” as the main objective has always been to “get off fossil fuels,” but now politicians, businesses, and the world are realizing that more radical solutions are necessary to “buy more time” to make that transition, which he argues is at least a recognition of urgency. Gardiner also voiced skepticism of nuclear energy solutions “as an ethicist,” saying while he’s open to future development, the issue of storing nuclear waste has not been properly resolved and instead “kicked down the road” to future generations as an unresolved burden.
In a nutshell, the generational animosity that underlies the climate crisis (Boomers vs Gen X, Gen X vs Gen Y) originates from what Gardiner describes in his work as the “Pure Intergenerational Problem,” a paradox where actors hold both collectively rational interests of cooperating and restricting overall pollution to achieve the best outcome, and individual rational interests of not restricting one’s own pollution, regardless of what others do. While there are overlaps in interests between older and young generations through obligations to children and personal connections, the causal asymmetry and wealth gap between past and future generations makes it easy for older generations to pollute for moderate gains in quality of life at the cost of compounding environmental issues down the line. To make matters worse, the global scope of climate change also poses a classic tragedy of the commons and free rider problem, where countries do not want to commit resources towards reducing emissions if they can benefit off the backs of others, and vice versa.
On a similar note, we discussed how capitalism incentivizes turning products that work consistently into disposable commodities that cannot be easily repaired, such as iPhones and fridges whose lifespans are artificially cut short through planned obsolescence to incentivize consumers to buy new models, contributing to e-waste. This coincides with the rise of Temu, Amazon, and other global online retailers who produce massive waste to achieve efficiency, and deliberately price out competitors and lock in customers once gaining majority market share. Gardiner reiterated that Monopolies and Oligopolies are “absolutely not good for the world.”
When asked whether consumer choice in buying products by their moral standards will drive progress, Gardiner responded he “does not believe the myth” that “people will (consistently) register their moral preferences within the marketplace” enough to make an impact. He believes even those who are environmentally conscious often are induced into buying plastic straws and disposal cups out of convenience and circumstance, factors beyond their control, suggesting that change is more ingrained within social norms and practices. Additionally, Gardner dismissed the assertion frequently made by coal and fossil fuel companies that green transition is impossible because massive layoffs of workers within these industries will hurt local communities, citing the U.K. as precedent of a nation that did with the coal miners and unions “whatever they damn well pleased” whenever it was in their better national interests to do. In other words, job security is a legitimate concern that has to be weighed, but not an insurmountable obstacle.
Gardiner once again highlighted the intergenerational problem, and the myopic “parochialistic” perspective older generations in power have towards addressing the concerns of younger constituents. He thinks that the underlying causes behind climate change are partially rooted in systemic inequality, racism, and colonialism, and that climate solutions should “have more to say about despotism and the tyranny of the majority.” He spoke multiple times in favor of an age ceiling within Congress or a mandated percentage of leaders proportional to age groups, as “the ones writing and enforcing legislation on issues should be those most affected by it.” Gardiner thinks that if young people were adequately represented, humanity would be in a far better position.
According to Gardiner, most models for staying below the 1.5°C and 2°C ceilings set at the Paris Climate Accords assume carbon dioxide removal technologies will be effective and ready to deploy on a global scale either immediately or within the next decade, which in actuality is a roughly 50/50 or 2/3rds chance. According to the journal Nature and corroborated by data released from the NCEI, among 34 countries, 12 failed to meet their emission goals for 2020 set at COP15 in 2009 despite the pandemic year. Another 16 countries met their lower territorial emission targets, but only by outsourcing emissions to international trade, marking a net increase. Overall, Gardiner claimed that total CO2 emissions are consistent with the “business as usual” route outlined at COP15, and that a 6-7% yearly reduction in net emissions is now needed to avoid the worst outcome compared to the 4% yearly goal set in 2009.
In spite of these frightening statistics, Gardiner said he considers himself an optimist. In terms of what practical solutions individuals can take to combat climate change, Gardiner mentioned there are numerous existing pathways for influencing organizations, government bodies, and businesses to change. He suggested the issue of collective action is not mutually exclusive to climate change, alluding to national issues such as reproductive rights and gun control. He said that existing institutions are not corrupted beyond repair enough to justify eco-terrorism or violent overthrow, and do not resolve “the classic question of what happens the day after the revolution.” He also mentioned technological acceleration and social media, which he thinks have amplified the divisiveness among individuals, especially in the U.S. where ideological opposition between parties is reaching an inflection point. However, Gardner is doubtful that social media discourse reflects the actual mindsets of people and maintains a positive outlook that solutions can be reached face-to-face.
Near the end of our lunch convo, he exclaimed that “it’s tough being in your generation,” and that we can “rise to the challenge.” When asked by a student near the end of his presentation about what historical precedent people can look towards in instituting the radical change necessary to stop the climate crisis, Gardiner answered that there have been many challenges in the past with no precedent on how to solve, suggesting that younger generations must be the ones to “step up” and create solutions. He used an analogy of climactic moments of change through history, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent fall of the USSR, and the ending of racial apartheid in South Africa; these conflicts were resolved peacefully and democratically without initiating global war as many experts predicted. However, we feel this is an ironic message to end on, as this rhetoric places the burden onto younger generations to resolve the consequences of actions they did not commit, seemingly justifying Boomer’s short-term gains in quality of life and the subsequent arrested development of future generations. Still, Gardner mapped an informative description of the complex and interlocked nature of the climate crisis, and how organizations need to broaden their horizons through a combination of geoengineering solutions and change in practiced social norms.
Leave a Reply