Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T12:38:39.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainties, Values, and Climate Targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mathias Frisch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using climate policy debates as a case study, I argue that a certain response to the argument from inductive risk, the hedging defense, runs afoul of a reasonable ethical principle: the no-passing-the-buck principle according to which scientists ought to offer their scientific judgment when such judgment is both possible and needed in public policy debates.

Information

Type
Values, Policy, and Social Epistemology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 5: PSA 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II Symposia Papers , December 2020 , pp. 979 - 990
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Betz, Gregor. 2013. “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2): 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John. 2012. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. Norton Global Ethics Series. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values In Environmental Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Mathias. 2013. “Modeling Climate Policies: A Critical Look at Integrated Assessment Models.” Philosophy and Technology 26 (2): 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Mathias. 2017. “Climate Policy in the Age of Trump.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 27, no. 2 (Suppl.): E87–E106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Mathias. 2018. “Modeling Climate Policies: The Social Cost of Carbon and Uncertainties in Climate Predictions.” In Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issues, ed. Lloyd, Elisabeth A. and Winsberg, Eric, 413–48. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2006. “A Core Precautionary Principle.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1): 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havstad, Joyce C., and Brown, Matthew J.. 2017. “Inductive Risk, Deferred Decisions, and Climate Science Advising.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, ed. Elliott, Kevin C. and Richards, Ted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2018. “Impacts of 1.5°C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems.” In Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report, ed. Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard C. 1956. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 23 (3): 237–46.10.1086/287489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, William D., and Boyer, Joseph. 2003. Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Wendy. 2014. “Values and Uncertainties in Climate Prediction, Revisited.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 46 (June): 24–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, et al. 2016. “Why the Right Climate Target Was Agreed in Paris.” Nature Climate Change 6 (7): 649–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Joel B., et al. 2009. “Assessing Dangerous Climate Change through an Update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘Reasons for Concern.’” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (11): 4133–37.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2014. Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle: Science, Evidence, and Environmental Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel. 2016. “Climate Change and Second-Order Uncertainty: Defending a Generalized, Normative, and Structural Argument from Inductive Risk.” Perspectives on Science 24 (6): 696–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Nicholas. 2013. “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models.” Journal of Economic Literature 51 (3): 838–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tol, Richard. 2002. “Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change.” Pt. 1, “Benchmark Estimates.” Environmental and Resource Economics 21 (1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, Martin L. 2009. “Additive Damages, Fat-Tailed Climate Dynamics, and Uncertain Discounting.” Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 3 (2009-39): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2009-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (1): 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar