Effective Climate Change Decisionmaking: Scientific Consensus Plus a Hint of Religion?

• Author: Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne
• Pages: 143-166

143

Chapter 7

Effective Climate

Change Decisionmaking:

Scientific Consensus Plus

a Hint of Religion?

Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne

Eective decision-making to limit clim ate ch ange and its eects can be

informed by a w ide range of analyt ical approaches for evaluati ng expected

risks and benet s, recognizing the importa nce of governance, et hical dimen-

sions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments a nd diverse perceptions

and responses to risk a nd uncertaint y.1

While ethics and mora lity have always played a role in the development

of climate policy, the role of religion has been far more tenuous until very

recently, part icularly in relation to climate science. Long-sta nding tension s

between science, environmentalism, and religion underpin this disjunc-

tion. As political w ill to respond to clim ate change has continued to waver

even when conf ronted with solid empirical evidence about the existence

and risks of hum an-induced climate change, however, the debate about

climate change polic y has widened to include more, and more varied

voices, including religious voices. e compatibility of science and reli-

gion, however, continues to be a point of tension. is chapter ex plores the

relationship between climate science and relig ion, focusing on how recent

developments in these two a reas a re bringing this relationship into greater

relief, and making this relationsh ip of muc h greater importance to the

future development of cli mate polic y.

1. I  P  C C, C C 2014: S  R

17 (2014), available at ht tp://ar5-syr.ipc c.ch/topic_s ummary.php [herein after 2014 IPCC S -

 R ].

144 Contemporary Issues in Climate Change Law & Policy

I. The Coexistence of Science and Religion

In the Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report (A R5), the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) embraces a multidisciplinary

approach to addressing climate change that recognizes the role of norms in

decisionmaking processes. Specica lly, in discussing the foundations of deci-

sionmaking about climate cha nge, the IPCC determines that:

eective decision-maki ng to limit climate change and its eects ca n be

informed by a w ide range of analyt ical approaches for evaluat ing expected

risks and benet s, recognizing the importa nce of governance, et hical dimen-

sions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments a nd diverse perceptions

and responses to risk a nd uncertaint y.2

e IPCC t hen adds specicity to this statement, noting that “[s]ustain-

able development and equity provide a basis for assessing climate policies,”

that both “[m]itigation and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice and fair-

ness,” and that “[d]elaying mitigation shifts burdens from the present to the

future.”3 Here, albeit indirectly, the IPCC —an objective, empirica l body—

acknowledges, if not legitimizes, the idea that sustainable development and

equity provide valid normative principles upon which to base eorts to

address climate change.

In the world of environmental law and policy, the idea that norms matter

is unremarkable. Environmental law and policy choices can never be neu-

tral. Sustainable development is a central, albeit imprecise, driving norm in

systems of domestic and international environmental law. Simi larly, envi-

ronmental law—including climate change law—is infused with principles

grounded in equity considerations.

One need only look at the international climate change regime to nd

evidence of the ways in which sustainable development and notions of equity

provide guiding principles in ongoing eorts to implement and develop the

regime. In relevant part, the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) characterizes the Earth’s climate system as of

common concern to humankind; articulates the importance of protecting

the climate system for present a nd future generations; recognizes that the

common responsibility to protect the climate system should be dierentiated

among parties on the basis of capacity; promotes a precautionary approach to

addressing cli mate change; and recognizes the right to sustainable develop-

2. Id.

3. Id.