Original title:
the green man’s burden
what responsibilities do individuals h**e to stop climate change?
the nature of climate change makes that a tricky question
The burden on environmentalists.
What is the responsibility of individuals in halting climate change?
The very nature of climate change makes this question tricky
paragraph 1]
the vast majority of readers of the economist wouldrecoilat the idea of stealing from a poor malian goatherd or a struggling bangladeshi farmer.
The thought of stealing from poor Malian shepherds or struggling farmers in Bangladesh leaves the vast majority of The Economist readers in disgust.
next to none wouldcountenancemurdering such a person.
Hardly anyone would approve of such a person.
paragraph 2]
how, then, should we think about readers’ (and your correspondent’s) responsibility for global warming?
So, how should we view our readers (and our reporters) responsibility for global warming?
almost every human activity involves some emissions of greenhouse gases.
Almost every human activity involves some level of greenhouse gas emissions.
global warming is already harming the livelihoods of many people, including lots of poverty-stricken goatherds and farmers.
Global warming has already damaged the livelihoods of many people, including many impoverished shepherds and farmers.
at the extremes, the increasing frequency and intensity of droughts, floods, storms and heatw**es brought on by global warming is killing people—a tragedy that will get worse as the planet bakes.
In extreme cases, droughts, floods, storms and heat waves brought about by global warming are increasing in frequency and intensity, leading to deaths – a tragedy that will become even worse as the planet warms.
are rich western consumers thusconnivingin theft and murder?
Do wealthy Western consumers thus condone theft and **?
paragraph 3]
many would dismiss such a question ashyperbole
Many would think that such a problem is an exaggeration.
how much harm is any one person doing through their planet-cooking ways?
How much of a negative impact can one person have on global warming?
how could you even answer that question, given that the precise impact of any givenwispof greenhouse gas is unknowable?
Given that the exact effects of any particular wisp of greenhouse gas are unknowable, how can you answer this question
is it too much to ask individuals to do their part to mitigate these harms?
Is it too harsh to ask individuals to do their part to mitigate these harms?
paragraph 4]
yet the relationship between carbon emissions in aggregate and extreme weather is strong.
However, there is a strong correlation between total carbon emissions and extreme weather.
and during the course of their lives, wealthy western consumers generate a lot of emissions.
Affluent Western consumers emit large amounts of greenhouse gases in their lifetime.
estimates of the damage done vary widely, but none concludes it is insignificant.
Estimates of the damage caused vary widely, but no one concludes that the damage is insignificant.
in 2011 john nolt, a philosopher at the university of tennessee, estimated that a typical american, born in 1960, would be responsible for enough greenhouse-gas emissions over his or her lifetime to cause between one and two deaths.
In 2011, John Nauert, a philosopher at the University of Tennessee, estimated that the average American born in 1960 emits enough greenhouse gases in their lifetime to cause 1-2 deaths.
john broome, another philosopher, thinks the typical westerner shortens a human life by six months.
Another philosopher, John Bloom, argues that the average Westerner shortens a person's life span by 6 months.
either way, it is a grim thought. and that is only the **erage.
Either way, it's a grim thought. And that's just the average.
drive a gas-guzzling car, heat or cool a big house or fly a lot (ahem, readers of the economist) and yourrap sheetgets worse.
If you drive a gas-guzzling car, heat or cool a large house, or fly a lot (The Economist readers), you'll have a more and more serious "criminal record."
paragraph 5]
is it too much to ask individuals to do their part to mitigate these harms?
Is it too harsh to ask individuals to do their part to mitigate these harms?
that doing so will impose a he**y burden on some does not let themoff the hook
Doing so can be a heavy burden for some people, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility.
that is true regardless of your underlying moral theory.
This is true no matter what basic moral theory you believe.
schools of philosophy that focus on outcomes, such asutilitarianism, make big demands on the individual for the greater good.
Results-oriented philosophical schools, such as utilitarianism, place higher demands on individuals for the greater good.
even theories that frame morality in terms of individual rights, including many kinds of liberalism, still entail a duty not to harm others without reason.
Even those theories that use individual rights as a moral framework, including many liberalisms, still demand that others must not be harmed without cause. [paragraph 6]plenty of people feel a moral obligation to curb their own emissions of greenhouse gases.Many people believe they have a moral obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions. take grahame buss, a retired british engineer, who thinks climate change means that the world is headed towards economic collapse and war.Take, for example, Graham Bass, a retired British engineer who argues that climate change means the world is headed for economic collapse and war. his response has been to reduce his own carbon footprint dramatically.His response is to drastically reduce his own carbon footprint. he consumes only a couple of kilograms of meat a year, he reckons, and no beef at all.He estimates that he only eats a few kilograms of meat a year and does not eat beef at all. [paragraph 7]how far should someone worried about the climate take such self-denial?How much self-sacrifice should be taken for those who care about the climate?there is no obvious answer. mr buss stopped taking flights three years ago, even though his son lived in brazil at the time.There is no definitive answer yet. Bass stopped flying three years ago, even though his son was living in Brazil at the time. but his wife refused to forswear visits to their offspring, despite the emissions.But his wife refused to give up the opportunity to visit his children, even though it would generate greenhouse gas emissions. mr buss also decided that he should not drive cars that run on fossil fuels. but he has not just stopped using his two polluting cars; he is paying to h**e them crushed so that no one else can.Bath has also decided to stop driving fossil fuel cars. But not only did he not use 2 polluting cars himself, but he also spent money to crush them so that no one else could use them. [paragraph 8]mr broome has argued that, since all emissions are sure—or at least very likely—to hurt some people in some form over the thousands of years they linger in the atmosphere, we h**e a duty either not to cause those emissions or to compensate the victims.Bloom argues that since all emissions are certain – or at least likely – will linger in the atmosphere for thousands of years, harming some people in some way, we have a responsibility not to cause them, or to compensate the victims. (he considers activity to reduce others’ emissions or to remove carbon from the atmosphere—offsets, in the jargon—a suitable form of compensation.(He argues that activities that reduce emissions from others or remove carbon from the atmosphere — offsets, in jargon — are a suitable form of compensation.) ）[paragraph 9]this logic can be taken even further. some people decide not to h**e children—a question itself of great debate among climate activists.This logic can go further. Some people decide not to have children – a matter of debate among climate activists in itself. early in 2023 a belgian man in his 30s with two children was reported to h**e taken his own life after a long discussion with a chatbot about how best to curb global warming.In early 2023, a Belgian man in his 30s with two children reportedly chose to end his life after a long discussion with a chatbot about how best to curb global warming. [paragraph 10]such horrors are rare. but they hint at the high standards the most ferocious forms of carbon abstinence place on individuals in the rich world.Such terrorist incidents are rare. But they imply the high standards that the most extreme forms of carbon reduction in the rich world place on individuals. no living person can eliminate all their emissions, and even the dead decompose.No living person can completely eliminate all of their carbon emissions, even after death. what volume of emissions, then, may an individual reasonably inflict on the planet?So, how much emissions does one person contribute to the planet?(Congratulations on reading, this English vocabulary is about 829 2490, with deletions) Originally from: December 23, 2023 "The Economist" Christmas Specials section of the intensive reading notes** In: The Road to Free English Start planning my 2024 Translation and arrangement: Irene This article is edited and proofread: irene is for personal English learning and communication only. [Key sentences].(3 pcs.).
almost every human activity involves some emissions of greenhouse gases.
Almost every human activity involves some level of greenhouse gas emissions.
yet the relationship between carbon emissions in aggregate and extreme weather is strong.
However, there is a strong correlation between total carbon emissions and extreme weather.
no living person can eliminate all their emissions, and even the dead decompose.
No living person can completely eliminate all of their carbon emissions, even after death.