Do we really have a duty to protect our planet?

THE outcome of the Copenhagen Conference on climate change suggests that scepticism is the appropriate attitude to take with regard to the politics, as well as the science and ethics of climate change.

There might be people who know what the climate of the Earth has been over the past millennium, but I am not one of them. Hence, for me and, I suggest, for many others, an attitude of scepticism is appropriate with regard to the issue of climate change.

Similarly, there might be people who know that the climate of the Earth will irrevocably change unless a specifiable reduction is made in humankind's emission of carbon.

Again, I am not such a person.

It is often said that there is a consensus within "the scientific community" about the facts pertaining to carbon emissions, global warming and climate change.

I do not know whether or not I should believe the claim. What sort of study, if any, was undertaken in order to establish what the views of the relevant scientists are? Who decides who are the relevant scientists?

In any case, it is not clear what significance should be accorded to a scientific consensus. For much of my life, there was a strongly held consensus among the community of scientists concerned that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. The science, one might have said, was settled on that matter. However, the scientists were wrong. We now know that some sort of bug causes stomach ulcers and that invasive surgery is inappropriate treatment, despite much initial resistance to this idea by scientists.

Even if, in time, accepted scientific opinion on particular matters tends to settle upon the truth, how can one know that sufficient time has elapsed?

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that particular forms of economic production and consumption activity have led to an increase in the temperature of the Earth and that this has produced a problem that we want to solve. It does not follow that there is a solution. If there is one, it does not follow that the solution must be the reduction of the particular forms of activity. The activities in question are not the only causes of the temperature of the Earth.

Even if the activities in question were the only cause of the temperature of the Earth, it does not follow that the solution must be to reduce them. For instance, venereal disease is a problem that is caused by sexual activity. It does not follow that the only solution to the problem is the reduction or modification of sexual activity. In so far as there is a solution to this problem, it is penicillin and other such medicaments.

To believe that a scientific, technological solution to the problems is possible and might emerge is no more fanciful than to believe that a political solution will be forthcoming. After all, scientists have, in the past, surpassed our expectations of them, amazed and pleasantly surprised us far more than politicians ever have done. Why should we expect the future to be different?

Politicians are unable to control, for instance, the current level, far less the future level of inflation in their own countries. Why should we expect them to be able to control the climate of the planet? They lack the will and/or the ability to enforce, for instance, the laws against taking drugs even in their penal establishments.

Why should we expect them to enforce laws pertaining to the temperature of the planet, even if meaningful, enforceable laws with regard to the temperature of the planet could be promulgated?

To say that such and such is an important moral issue is not necessarily to say that politicians can, or should, do something about it, even if it is the most important moral issue facing the human race.

For instance, some politicians might think that the world is grossly overpopulated and that it would be far better if the population of the world were to be halved. They might think that, apart from anything else, this would sufficiently reduce the economic activities and practices that produce greenhouse gases to eliminate the suggested problems of global warming.

However, it is not the business of politicians to control the fertility or longevity of their own citizens, far less that of the inhabitants of the Earth.

Some politicians might think that atheism is the most important global moral issue. The fate of people's souls, they might suppose, is far more important than their physical welfare on this Earth.

Nonetheless, it is not the business of politicians to regulate the religious beliefs and practices of their own or any other citizens.

Even if particular politicians think that climate change is a crucially important moral issue, it does not follow that they must imagine that they can, or should, do anything significant about it.

Their fundamental duty, in their capacity as politicians, is to further the interests of their own citizens, rather than to pursue moral crusades on behalf of the human race. This will often oblige them to adopt policies that clash with the interests of other human beings who are not their own citizens. It will often oblige them to adopt policies that clash with the interests of some or of all future citizens of their own countries.

As human beings and as citizens, it is not clear what, if anything, we ought to do with regard to climate change, even if we accept what is said to be the consensual scientific views on the matter.

We are morally obliged to refrain from squandering scarce resources and from wantonly destroying our environment. However, we are not morally obliged to refrain from consuming scarce resources, nor are we morally obliged to leave the world without a trace of our presence.

That human actions might have consequences such as altering the climate is not inherently surprising, shocking or shameful. It is dubious that "sustainability" is a significant ethical virtue no matter how fashionable the term is in some political discourses.

What counts as the "squandering" of resources? What counts as a reasonable use of them? There are no answers that are obviously correct. Hell, I would suggest, is where we have everything that we need but nothing that we want. Others, of a more puritanical disposition, might take a different view.

• Hugh V McLachlan is professor of applied philosophy, School of Law and Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University.