On Discussing Climate Change as a Moral Issue
With political action on climate change stalled, and social science indicating that humans are not hard-wired to tackle distant and amorphous problems, climate writers might want to consider shifting the debate to the moral and ethical realm.
Yes, some have tried this tack. For example, in 2010, James Hansen wrote in the Huffington Post:
The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Our fossil fuel addiction, if unabated, threatens our children and grandchildren, and most species on the planet.
In that same essay, Hansen correctly noted:
Religions across the spectrum — Catholics, Jews, Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals — are united in seeing climate change as a moral and ethical challenge.
More recently, in a speech earlier this year, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) declared:
Climate change is an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue, but it’s also fundamentally a moral issue.
And with renewed calls for a “pragmatic” approach to climate and energy politics (which would push global warming off center stage), some forceful rejoinders have invoked the “moral imperative” of climate change. As such, David Roberts of Grist asserts that climate change represents
a threat to the lives and welfare of our children and generations that will follow. That just isn’t the kind of thing you keep quiet about.
And indeed he shouldn’t. There is this mistaken belief floating around in some circles that a “pragmatic” strategy takes climate change off the table and buries it in a closet. As if scientists and activists will suddenly stop talking about the subject and the media will suddenly stop covering it. Rather, what this pragmatic approach suggests is a framework that offers its own
diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.
Why some believe that this pathway can’t co-exist in the public sphere with a dialogue on climate science beats me. Sure, there is the possibility that climate strategists might opt for the pragmatic route, which would then move the political debate on to new terrain, but even if this came to pass, I don’t envision a future where hearty discussions of climate science are ever sidelined. The issue is sure to be aired for years to come– in the halls of Congress, in newspaper op-ed pages, and across the blogosphere.
Which is a good thing. I desire a full, inclusive debate, in which all reasonable voices get a fair hearing. The irony of some of the complaints about the climate pragmatism approach is that for too long a tyranny of thought has reigned in certain quarters of the climate debate, which has effectively marginalized voices that have dissented from majority opinion. At times, this tyranny has been enforced in the ugliest manner.
That has not been healthy for the larger climate debate. So having witnessed that, I’d be the last person to suggest that climate change should be kicked off stage. It’s a hugely important societal issue. It should be part of the policy equation and political debate. I just think it needn’t hog the whole stage anymore.
But back to the moral component of climate change, which I would welcome more discussion of. For me, there can be no honest climate debate without a true consideration of the global “energy challenge,” something that Andy Revkin has cogently laid out on numerous occasions at Dot Earth, such as here and here.
Lately, Revkin has been joined (in taking the full measure of current and projected global energy demand) by some notable environmental thinkers and writers. The UK’s George Monbiot is one of them. Here’s a recent column of his that poses this question:
[W]e should ask ourselves what our aim is. Is it to stop climate breakdown, or is it to engineer the maximum roll-out of renewable power? Sometimes it seems to me that greens are putting renewables first, climate change second. We have no obligation to support the renewables industry ““ or any other industry ““ against its competitors. Our obligation is to persuade policy makers to bring down emissions and reduce other environmental impacts as quickly and effectively as possible. The moment we start saying we won’t accept one technology under any circumstances, or we must use another technology whether it’s appropriate or not is the moment at which we make that aim harder to achieve.
The headline of Monbiot’s column:
The Moral Case for Nuclear Power
So let’s have that moral debate about global warming, but I hope it also includes an honest discussion of what is required as a replacement for the prime energy source causing it.
Great post Keith, I hope this engineers some real discussion. But just to be a stickler:
“Why some believe that this pathway can’t co-exist in the public sphere with a dialogue on climate science beats me. Sure, there is the possibility that climate strategists might opt for the pragmatic route, which would then move the political debate on to new terrain, but even if this came to pass, I don’t envision a future where hearty discussions of climate science are ever sidelined.”
From my perspective, it is the “pragmatists” that are trying to remove words like Climate Change and the moral issues away from the discourse because they keep repeating it is too controversial etc etc. But if not, then great, I agree, both of these lines of messaging can exist. I think that’s the whole point of the climate hawk thing.
lots to agree with here Keith. OTOH I can’t help but feel that you’re pushing a ‘pragmatic’ narrative full of strawmen….what climate advocates push for solutions that don’t consider other motivations/allies, etc?
The Monbiot column was fascinating, thanks for linking to it.
Monbiot is having a hard time seeing any evidence of worry about Climate Change within policies advocated by the climate change concerned community. The most illuminating comes in the following paragraph which, remember, was written by Monbiot- not Morano:
“In June, Angela Merkel announced that she would bridge the generation gap caused by shutting down nuclear plants by doubling the volume of coal-fired power stations Germany will build over the next ten years. Outrageously, her government will help pay for them with a fund originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This shows what a fix you can get yourself into when getting rid of nuclear power takes precedence over dealing with climate change.”
Remember the context here- Monbiot genuinely trying to figure out the actions of the climate concerned- not the actions of skeptics. If they aren’t really concerned, why should we be?
Well, here we go. This should have legs.
If climate change were not a moral issue, it would likely have been fully addressed (one way or another) long ago.
The key point is that there is a moral case on either side of the issue. The moral case for elevating climate change to the top of the policy agenda is well known and forcefully (if not compellingly) argued by the people mentioned in your post.
The moral case on the other side of the fence has been reviled when it is not ignored, but it is just as real. Lomborg, both Pielkes and others (including myself at the minor-league level) have put forward the idea that helping the world get richer and more resilient is in fact an ethically superior proposition than the extreme, top-down approach to bringing emissions to zero.
I think there is much of merit on both sides. I think that pretending one side is villainous and the other is saintly verges on the ridiculous. But I think if you let this post run through its natural lifespan we will see lots of namecalling and lots of mischaracterization of the two sides.
And the easiest mischaracterization will be fallacious lumping together of people who actually have different positions.
But it’ll be fun to watch–you might actually get traffic this weekend!
I think that the key is here: “Our obligation is to persuade policy makers to bring down emissions and reduce other environmental impacts as quickly and effectively as possible.” Since the goal is to reduce the environmental impacts of our need for energy, obviously not reproducing Japan’s recent disaster is a strong component of that agenda.
A book with many interesting and inspirational readings related to the moral case for combating climate change whcih I would recommend is: Moral Ground; Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril Edited by Kethleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson, and with a forward by Desmond Tutu.
I have to agree with Tom re: the dangers of casting this as a moral issue…it’s way too easy for people to only see one side.
The manner in which Hansen’s moral issues of the 19th and 20th centuries were resolved should give pause. Do we really want to go down that route?
the costs and benefits of climate change are extremely asymmetrical in both time and space. So in many ways climate change is a uniquely moral issue compared to others discussed here.
#7, the true asymmetry is found looking at who will bear the burdens of whatever decision is reached.
If we decide to focus solely on climate change (and the sums involved make Hansen’s and Gore’s position pretty close to an all-in commitment), taxpayers in the developed world will pay an eye-watering high price between now and 2100–2% of GDP every year, which runs into the tens of trillions of U.S. dollars.
Astonishingly, the developing world would pay an even higher price, in terms of development foregone. China would have to delay its development by decades, as would Indonesia, India, Turkey, South Africa and even Mexico.
Worst of all, the stalled pace of development would involve loss of life for all the same causes that afflict the developing world today.
So, while it might be easy to scoff at those protesting about taxes, it’s a bit of a red herring. Zero emissions kills people, people whose only crime is not developing as quickly as we did.
And that’s the moral issue.
Keith. You say: “So let’s have that moral debate about global warming, but I hope it also includes an honest discussion of what is required as a replacement for the prime energy source causing it.”
That statement apparently shows that you accept the proposition that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing potentially dangerous global warming, AND that natural factors, and land-use factors (as argued by Roger Pielke Sr) are minor factors.
To me, the true moral issue is to discuss the evidence/proof that the CAGW hypothesis is correct. There is ample evidence by now that it is based mainly on a) observations of an apparent correlation (which isn’t holding up too well lately by the way) between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and temperature (correlation is not causation) and b) dismissal of natural and land-use factors as being a factor in observed climate change and c) use of models with questionable assumptions.
Until the sceptical questioning is addressed by the IPCC and their supporters, governments would be wise to pause in taking action against anthropogenic CO2.
This is not to say that it doesn’t make sense to introduce energy saving measures that reduce CO2 emissions – it does. It also makes sense to encourage nuclear power.
Astonishingly, the developing world would pay an even higher price, in terms of development foregone.
Can you back up that gem Tom?
#10, what do you think the effects of spending tens of trillions of dollars converting the world’s economy from fossil fuel to other, more expensive sources will have? And why do you think so? More importantly, why on earth do you think it would have anything other than a dramatic effect on developing countries?
Mondo (9),
I’m not sure how you’ve managed to interpret that statement by me the way you did.
BTW, I’ve always felt that the argument by RPS has gotten short shrift. (But that’s a topic for another thread…)
The whole point to global agreements is to deal with the question of how to assist developing nations in maintaining a growing economy with lower emissions energy options. US missed the nuclear boat. There’s no reason why China and India need to.
This still doesn’t address the third world (those countries eligible for the green fund) or the future generations that we are deciding for.
And here’s the ethical argument made through recent science literature. BTW, Keith, has this paper been discussed in the environmental media. It seems to have the hook that a good writer could use for an impacting story. Is this old? I don’t here about it much. And this paper quantifies it.
“The Earth is warming on average, and most of the global warming of the past half-century can very likely be attributed to human influence. But the climate in particular locations is much more variable, raising the question of where and when local changes could become perceptible enough to be obvious to people in the form of local warming that exceeds interannual variability; indeed only a few studies have addressed the signiï¬cance of local signals relative to variability. It is well known that the largest total warming is expected to occur in high latitudes, but high latitudes are also subject to the largest variability, delaying the emergence of signiï¬cant changes there. Here we show that due to the small temperature variability from one year to another, the earliest emergence of signiï¬cant warming occurs in the summer season in low latitude countries (≈25S”“25N). We also show that a local warming signal that exceeds past variability is emerging at present, or will likely emerge in the next two decades, in many tropical countries. Further, for most countries worldwide, a mean global warming of 1C is sufï¬cient for a signiï¬cant temperature change, which is less than the total warming projected for any economically plausible emission scenario. The most strongly affected countries emit small amounts of CO2 per capita and have therefore contributed little to the changes in climate that they are beginning to experience. ”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034009/pdf/1748-9326_6_3_034009.pdf
@ 14
for most countries worldwide, a mean global warming of 1C is sufï¬cient for a signiï¬cant temperature change
I can’t imagine the definition of “significant” that would make this true.
Well, Sashka, it makes sense to me. A global average of 1 degree will certainly mean 0 in some places and 2 in others–maybe more. Global warming will be expressed regionally. If those regions are already in bad shape, a 2 degree rise will not just be significant, it will be very bad news.
@ Tom: currently we annually spend about 9% of gdp on health care on a global basis. According to you that means we are paying over 4 times “an eye-watering high price between now and 2100″“2% of GDP every year, which runs into the tens of trillions of U.S. dollars,” which, as you seem to allude, can only lead to the financial ruin of us all.
Oh no! More bad news. According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009, in the “reference scenario” (i.e. business as usual) the capital spending required globally is $26 trillion by 2030 to meet our energy needs. This eye-watering high price will run into the tens of trillions of U.S. dollars and is close to 2% of GDP every year! Our economies are surely ruined. We might as well just quit now.
Mr.Kloor:
Have you read this post? http://timworstall.com/2011/08/10/the-new-climate-change-models/
or, more expanded: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/
For our alarmist Tom Fuller…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Christy-crock-7-part1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Christy-crock-7-part2.html
For links to detailed non-partisan economic analysis of various carbon reduction initiatives…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=308
Rustneversleeps, heck–if it’s small change, why don’t you just stump up and take care of it?
I heard Richard Alley say recently that from a purely scientific perspective, it might be interesting to continue business-as-usual, dumping more emissions into the atmosphere at high rates and observing the precise effects. But we only have one planet. The moral issues are inescapable.
From the consensus statement of the AMS:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases…
Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Meteorology_and_oceanography
Oh–and rustneversleeps, thanks for providing early validation of my comment above about ragging on people in the developed world who don’t want to pay taxes to fight climate change, shifting everybody’s attention away from the people who will continue in immiseration in the developing world as a result of fighting climate change.
Ignore the poor! Attack the Republicans! Forever!
NewYorkJ, more people will die this year from respiratory ailments caused by cooking in an enclosed space using dung and wood as fuel than will Aids, Malaria and Tuberculosis.
Give them electricity. Then let’s talk.
Yes, a good point, Tom. So, if we use some of our limited capital to spend on anything but the status quo, all will be well, and the developing world will thrive. But if we use some of it to buy a windmill, look out. Economic stagnation or collapse. Doom. Starvation.
These are eye-watering huge amounts, after all, tens of trillions of George Washingtons!
By the way, where is all the capital going to come from to build hospitals in 30 years? Do I have to write the cheque now for that as well? Now I’m getting nervous. How did we ever build the microelectronics industry? At one point we were spending all of our capital on not-the-microelectronics-industry, and then later we started spending capital there, so it must have collapsed the economy.
Er, Tom, you are the one saying that saying that the developing world will be crushed like bug by investing in climate change mitigation, not me.
Not crushed like a bug, rustneversleeps, just held in stasis watching the rest of us bicker.
And as I pointed out to Dr. Tobis yesterday, I support using large sums of money to combat climate change. I support a $12/ton carbon tax, 100 billion for technology transfer to developing nations, investment in public transportation to reduce the need for automobiles, large and broad-based investment in energy storage and distribution.
I just don’t support mandated emission cuts that will affect only the poor.
Tom lives in a world of old dirty technologies reliant on increasingly scarce resources, and zero progress. That is a dire world indeed.
African Huts Far From the Grid Glow With Renewable Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/science/earth/25fossil.html
Yes, NewYorkJ, and Bangladesh recently celebrated the installation of solar panels on its 1 millionth roof. I’m delighted that progress is being made.
The French multinational Total recently bought 60% of the American solar company SunPower–and it was only the second most important solar acquisition it made in the past year. The more important one was an innovative South African company.
This is unmitigated wonderful news. But you’re making Paul Kelly’s case, not your own.
TF: I just don’t support mandated emission cuts that will affect only the poor.
Depends on how such emissions cuts are structured. Assuming “affect” is “negative”, one can conclude that TF supported Waxman-Markey, as the net effect on the U.S. poor would be positive.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300
TF may counter that he’s only referring to poor countries, to which he’s not made a case.
Actually, NewYorkJ, I did support Waxman-Markey in its initial version. I abandoned it after it got larded up and switched to supporting a carbon tax. You could look it up…
No, Tom. I’m afraid your alarmist case is being picked apart.
spending tens of trillions of dollars converting the world’s economy from fossil fuel to other, more expensive sources will have?
More importantly, why on earth do you think it would have anything other than a dramatic effect on developing countries?
Oh maybe you meant a dramatically positive effect. You see, if you bothered to read any of my first 2 links, you’d note that quality of life doesn’t depend on massive per person energy consumption, nor does energy consumption need to be of the high emissions per unit variety, which are the claims you’ve been peddling. This is also why emissions-reductions schemes will not plunge the world into poverty.
Yes, NewYorkJ, and we can all put on sweaters here, too. And I would–I like Jimmy Carter and would do it just to salute him.
But the argument fails as there are more people and points of view than mine.
Quality of life does not depend on massive per person energy consumption. True. But it has to reach a minimum level. Which it has not for most of the people on this planet. To bring them up to an adequate level which will address rustneversleeps admirable concern for their healthcare spending and release their creative energies–and not coincidentally give them time and resources to protect their environment in their own manner–will require more energy than we can save with our sweaters.
Sorry. Math is involved.
TF,
Your argument reminds me of Republicans in 2008 describing Obama’s energy plan as “tire gauge”, a play on the Jimmy Carter sweater thing. If you’re going to dumb everything down into silly strawmen and political talking points, don’t bother. Math is involved.
Ya know, I had to go remind myself what the point of this post was. And then how the thread developed.
Tom solemnly intones that both sides have a moral case, and should be heard and respected.
And then, in his very next comment, declares that the path that those like “Hansen and Gore” propose is an “all-in” strategy, an “eye-watering” price, which won’t allow for any other initiatives, doom the developing world and kill people.
“And that’s the moral issue.”
Ok, got it.
Rustneversleeps, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
If I might be so bold as to quote myself, “Zero emissions kills people, people whose only crime is not developing as quickly as we did. And that’s the moral issue.” You keep trying to hide it behind your kicking and screaming about how much it will cost the developed world. But the moral issue is that a global emissions policy will retard development in the developing world. And people who would otherwise live will die. And people who would otherwise achieve a decent quality of life will remain miserably poor. And 1.2 billion people who do not have access to electricity will not receive it.
And at the risk of repeating myself, that’s the moral issue.
Yes, I’m trying to hide and I am kicking and screaming about how much it will cost the developed world. Got it.
Fuller is doing the full Lomborg, but as Stephen Gardiner pointed out it is Swiss cheese, full of holes There is more at the link, but here is a start
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/07/models-suck-part-i.html
———————
But wait, there are, as they say, issues
Kieth, no one wants to question the sincerity of people – ‘yours’ or ‘ mine’ – but, this is very serious – and, therefore, we want serious questions made to serious people. And, because, we ask these questions doesn’t mean we fit a stereotypypical (so much reminds me of the early ’70s which you can’t remember) ‘rightist’ concern (rather from a left you have forgotten!) = we ask, of ourselves, the realistic questions – Is this real? – If it is real, how serious is it? – Assuming the worst case, what should we do? Ie we avoid your friends hysteria but think of a rational way to be.
Lewis (38):
People who really want answers to their questions (as opposed to having their biases reinforced) can easily find serious people who they can trust all along the political/ideological spectrum.
So, for example, political conservatives can look up what Richard Alley says about climate change and climate science.They don’t have to listen to a thing Al Gore says. And so on…
NewYorkJ Says:
August 11th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
<i>Assuming “affect” is “negative”, one can conclude that TF supported Waxman-Markey, as the net effect on the U.S. poor would be positive.</i>
The impact of Waxman-Markley would have been felt most heavily by rural dwellers rather then urban dwellers. Which is why it was DOA in the Senate. The US House of Representatives is weighted towards urban dwellers. The US Senate is weighted towards rural states.
Just last week my wife and I visited Pateros, Washington. Nice community on the banks the Columbia River. In the last 2 years their grocery store, bank and boat rental shop closed. A few weeks ago we visited Watuschna, WA, it’s not fairing much better. It lost it’s gas station, post office and grocery store. The bank is still there though.
37, you seem to think the passage you pasted in is a refutation of Lomborg and, by proxy I guess, myself.
Bit anybody who actually reads it can see that it just raises questions and does not cla to refute. Where you see Swiss cheese, the rest of us see a tired academic pasting in stuff he’s too lazy to read.
Tom, it questions the assumptions that underlie your, and Lomborg’s arguments. Read the book for details, or are you perhaps under the impression that all those things or perhaps you are under the impression that
1. Helping the poor and mitigating climate change are obviously mutually exclusive.
2. Or are you asserting that helping the poor and mitigating climate change are obviously mutually exclusive.
3. Why do you think taking care of climate change will affect how much is devoted to helping the poorer countries in the light of how much is not being spent on the latter?
Ummm, because you will limit their energy consumption and blackmail them into compliance as you did with gmos.
Developed world governments are drowning in debt.
They are/will need to gut their social programs.
Developing world governments have masses of people living near starvation.
And you people seriously argue that pissing away trillions on untested technology that probably won’t solved the stated problem is a “moral” thing to do?
Sorry. Not in my book. People in the future can look after themselves. They will be richer than us. We need to look after the people living today.
BTW – Eli – you are deluding yourself if you believe there is money to pay for everything. We must make choices.
@Tom Fuller
Agree with you. A moral question for developing countries is whether to lift their poor from squalor with cheap energy or leave those coal powerplants unbuilt.
Studies suggest that economic development is the most powerful antidote to problems caused by climate change. By problems I mean food production related stuff and environmental degradation. It is also curbs population growth.
This stuff should be studied and assessed scientifically to provide answers to policymakers. Which way is better?
#40,
It’s much more simple than that. It passed the House and failed in the Senate because of the unique Senate filibuster threat, like so many legislative initiatives before it, along with the massive fossil fuel lobby influence.
I actually think the Senate works somewhat the opposite way as you think. < 20% of people live in rural areas. They are represented proportionately in the House. Senators represent an entire state. In most states, rural dwellers complain that urbanites control their agendas. It’s one reason why you have some individuals in rural areas like Eastern Oregon wanting to form their own state. The Senate does, however, represent well those sparsely populated states. Populated CA gets 2 Senators. So does OK.
Low carbon sources of energy, such as wind power, are a boon for many rural towns, less so for areas where coal is entrenched, such as among the utter coal wastelands on the rise in Appalachia, where politicians and the coal industry walk hand in hand.
I guess I should have provided links for this passage, but I thought the context was clear. Apparently not:
Warmist Keith Kloor: “for too long a tyranny of thought has reigned in certain quarters of the climate debate, which has effectively marginalized voices that have dissented from majority opinion”
A moral debate about AGW would begin with the morality of using fear and lies to promote it, and the morality of some of its biggest proponents exploiting it to enrich themselves and push their careers.
This effort to spin its alleged consequences into some moral mission for its promoters is just more evidence that this is NOT based on real science at all but just another dishonest political project.
As anyone wioth a clue knows, politicians/predators exploit alleged ‘moral’ or religious issues all the time, when it suits them.
The AGW crisis industrial complex has no morals.
EdG:
I assume you are aware which political party in the U.S. has the well established track record for exploiting “alleged ‘moral’ or religious issues all the time”?
Yes, that would be the same one that uses “fear and lies to promote” these issues.
The so-called “AGW industrial complex” could learn a thing or two from this political party about such a successful strategy, I suppose.
Easy question Keith. Both parties do.
The AGW industrial complex learned all they know from the military-industrial complex (or, if you prefer, God-fearing religions).
That is, hype real or imagined fear to freeze rational thinking and stampede the public into supporting emotionally-based decisions.
This time-tested method – which simply exploits the ‘us and them’ groupthink of primates – is used by all power seekers and/or political parties.
Perhaps you missed the Obamite ad showing some Repub pushing granny off a cliff?
Partisanship is for sheep, Keith. It only helps the manipulators at the top who OWN both US parties.
Keith,
You wrote:
“Why some believe that this pathway can’t co-exist in the public sphere with a dialogue on climate science beats me.”
I wouldn’t say they can’t co-exist, but the problem and risk is that many measures that may be needed to limit climate change don’t have co-benefits. CCS makes no sense for other reasons that climate mitigation.
For different problems that relate to our energy systems the optimal solutions are different.
A great essay outlining this situation is this one (in Dutch; perhaps google translate is helpful; I may try to condense he main points in English some day): http://natuurlijkewereld.blogspot.com/2011/06/de-transitiefanfare.html
The blue tabel gives an indication of synergies (+) and anti-synergies (-) between different themes, resp. to do with reserves (first two), costs, (technological) chances, climate.
Hi Bart. Glad to see you’re back in town, and I hope you had a great vacation.
The posting quote Hansen as writing:
===============
The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century
===============
One must recall that the consensus opinion about Nazism in the 1930s was one of appeasement. Churchill was very much the outsider and a sceptic of the consensus position. The consensus opinion ws held by the educated elite and took at its basis the horrors of World War One. Churchill’s opinion favoring rearmament was considered to be foolish and he as considered to be a warmonger. Consensus opinion has outlawed armed conflict and restrcited armaments through a series of treaties in the 1920s.
　
So it is possible to take Hansen’s metaphor and use it in a way that he did not intend. Both Churchill an his opponents were making highly moral choices. Both wanted to prevent the carnage of war. Churchill favored one way. The consensus favored another. Both recognized the moral imperative of their actions and both acted to further highly moral ends.
The difference that Hansen sees is that he is of the opinion that Churchill’s favored course of action was correct and that of his opponets incorrect. So Hansen is quite incorrect that the choice in 1930s about Nazism rested on a moral foundation. Both sides viewed the problem through the same moral filter and both sides favored peace.
So Hansen is really saying that his views are correct and the views of others favoring different courses of action are incorrect. This has nothing to do with any point of moral imperative and the attempt by Hansen to try to define his favored course of action as that defined by a concern for morality is both incorrect and not useful. How is he going to convince anyone to change their mind if his point is that if you disagree with him you are immoral. You have no concern for humanity. You have no concern for future generations. To be moral, just do what Granpa Hansen wants you to do.
Why do these AGW advocates think that they have a monopoly on concern for humanity and that people who disagree with them do not?