The Ethics of Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 276

well be the greatest barrier, and rising to the challenge of such costs will not only
require signifi cant fi nancial output but also paradigmatic change. In turn, much of
the centre stage discourse is diluted with endless debates on the ins and outs of car-
bon trading and on arguments about which forms of lifestyle changes are most war-
ranted. Many people put great stock in the scientifi c development of future
technological discoveries that may help to solve some of the problems that emerge
as a result of climate change, but the effectiveness of scientifi c intervention will
likely be limited and is by no means a certainty.
In the absence of discernible, visible risks, governments are hesitant to devote
resources to addressing a threat that may not present itself imminently. With a need
to balance short-term growth with long-term sustainability, governments have thus
far set their sights mainly on short-term growth and 'so far, climate change policy
has been ineffective' (Barrett 2011 ). Virtually all contemporary political structures
are focused on clear effects and deliverable results during their political term.
Mitigation and preparation for climate change fall outside of this mandate.
Governments continue to place a higher degree of focus on short-term growth,
and many have delayed either commitments or failed to respond to existing frame-
works with concrete policies. However, the effects of climate change are already
being experienced in a variety of different ways. Furthermore, the inability to be
able to fully isolate an environmental event that is caused by anthropogenic-induced
climate change allows continued erosion to the will to make changes. Even with
aberrant extreme weather events, such as 'Superstorm Sandy', which caused an
estimated 65 billion dollars in damage and killed 285 people, no one can fully guar-
antee that anthropogenic-induced climate change was responsible for the severity
and intensity of the storm. This gives fuel to the highly charged fi nancially and
ideologically motivated positions against taking action.
Yet we are living in the real world and change is upon us. While minimizing or
even eliminating anthropogenic greenhouse gases remains critical, we also hold an
obligation to protect human populations and the environment from the climatic
threats that are here now, and ethical arguments for the development of EWS that
transcend scientifi c proof can be enormously benefi cial. For example, consider the
analysis of EWS for climate change through the lens of 'justice'. Extreme weather
and above average temperatures are 'already undermining the realization of a broad
range of internationally protected human rights' (ICHRP 2008 ). Vulnerable popula-
tions who have arguably contributed the least to anthropogenic climate change are
at the greatest risk of being affected by it. Indeed the 'risks and consequences are
already being felt' (ICHRP 2008 ), and 'people who are already vulnerable will be
disproportionately affected' (ICHRP 2008 ). In general, developing countries, tropi-
cal countries, minorities, the poor and indigenous populations in developing and
developed countries are more susceptible to environmental changes and climate-
sensitive health outcomes induced by climate change (Jäger and Kok 2007 ).
Although damage cannot be fully prevented, harm and suffering can be quickly
reduced through EWS. Oftentimes, access to information can be the fi rst and most
important step in protecting people from extreme climate events, and the benefi ts of
early warning systems and disaster preparedness are well documented. The effects of