Abstract

Climate ethics and environmental ethics sometimes provide conflicting action guidance. For instance, favored climate policies to avoid global mean increases beyond 1.5-2 °C may have detrimental effects on biodiversity by requiring transforming environmental areas into croplands for bioenergy and for negative emission technologies. From this follows a potential moral conflict between the demands of climate ethics, according to which transforming natural ecosystems to cropland for bioenergy is permissible and perhaps even obligatory if it reduces risks of climate change, and the demands of environmental ethics, according to which transforming natural ecosystems into croplands is prohibited if it reduces biodiversity, assuming that biodiversity, or its components, have moral standing. Consequently, there is a choice: either preserve biodiversity, but accept higher risks of dangerous climate change; or reduce the risks of dangerous climate change with the aid of negative emission technologies but increase biodiversity deterioration. In this paper I investigate other options like lower population growth and relying on technological efficiency; I conclude that neither will ultimately be consistent with both climate and environmental ethics. I argue that both climate and environmental ethics can support limiting the consumption of energy while mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases and preserving biodiversity, hence resolving the conflicting moral recommendations. I further suggest that virtues such as humility and simplicity can accommodate just such an expansion of moral concern and provide environmental ethical guidance in climate policies.