Scan barcode
obscuredbyclouds's review against another edition
4.0
A good overview of the ethical side of climate change but a bit too short and heavy on the economics.
jojol's review against another edition
5.0
:( sad bc i just finished my final cc ethics paper and it was mala no disrespect to broome you were so nice to read and wonderful leagues better than nordhaus but also i just hate econ majors so
drewburd4's review against another edition
3.0
Hard to believe I read this book just a few years ago since I've forgotten most of it. Anyway, it's a decent primer for thinking about climate change, but the philosophical discussion was not entirely convincing, and I wish the book did a better job highlighting the dangers of climate change.
ironi's review
4.0
We're going to be reading this book in my Climate and Ethics class so in like three months I'm going to have to write an academic essay about it but hey, right now, I can write my thoughts on it without thinking about grades! Watch me make lots of uninformed claims!
In Climate Matters, Broome attempts to answer questions relating to climate change through ethics. Each chapter deals with a specific query and together, he builds a framework for considering the climate.
I knew Broome as the guy who said economics is a field of ethics since economics knows how to calculate stuff but without ethics, we don't know what we value. Therefore, I was not surprised that economics features heavily in this book. As a PPE student, it was delightful to see Broome use economical theory to base ethical actions. When we read his paper in class last semester, it wasn't entirely clear to me how ethical economics looks in practice. Here, we see it in action and it's just so cool.
However, if you're a hardcore philosophy person, you won't enjoy this book. There's a lot of economics for an ethics book. Broome's conclusions are mostly philosophical but he gets there through economical terminology and theory. That can definitely be unfortunate if you prefer the logical philosophical way.
Other reviews claim this book is outdated. In some ways, they're absolutely right. Broome leaves room in case it turns out climate change is nothing to worry about but nowadays, that's an odd claim. In 2020, it seems painfully obvious that climate change isn't going to be a problem in 400 years. Climate change is going to be a problem soon. We are going to experience it, we are already experiencing it.
Additionally, Broome falls into the classical "all of us need to do something" mindset. He discusses mostly individual responsibility. His comments about governments don't really go deeper than debating whether the government needs to act. I was shocked that he does not discuss companies. I mean, the impact of massive companies is far superior than individuals. It's convenient to pretend that if all of us close the lights more often climate change will go away but that's simply not the case. Large scale companies need to change.
This is a fascinating topic because where is that change supposed to come from? Can the government dictate climate friendly policies when the impact of climate change is still mostly in the future? Which policies are the most effective in order to curb the companies' effects? Are we willing to accept an economic impact for the climate? This connects with what Broome writes about our responsibilities to future generations. However, the work needs to be done on a larger scale than individuals so it is a shame that Broome only really asks the ethical individual questions.
However, despite these flaws, I think Broome's exploration is incredibly worthwhile. The questions he raises are still relevant. For example, how do we make ethical choices when the future is uncertain? When research can contradict itself? What do we owe future generations? What does the government owe future generations?
There's a chapter about population growth. Now, as far as I know, it's mostly agreed that the problem isn't population growth- it's what each society does. The West ruins the environment far more than places with a bigger population but less of a footprint. So the question isn't how many people are here but rather where they are. Incidentally, I'm hoping to write my final paper about the responsibilities of richer countries towards poorer ones so I'm gonna wait with my thoughts on this till I properly do some reading.
With covid-19, that chapter about population growth felt different. It reminded me of that economics class where we discussed how a smaller population means more capital per person and then the slideshow pointed out that a plague is good for capital gain. Needless to say, it was a little uncomfortable to read. Sure, theoretically, that makes sense but now that there is a literal plague, it's not great to hear that people around you will die but good news! More capital for everyone!
Covid-19 has forced us to take ethical questions and bring them to life. Broome writes about assigning value to human life. He ponders whether a life of an 80 year old is equally worth a life of a 17 year old and well, that's an interesting theoretical question but nowadays, it's hard to only see it as just that. Sure, perhaps a young person's year is "worth" more but heck, I care about my grandparents and that's something that's hard to quantify economically speaking.
To conclude, I think it's going to be fun to come back to this review at the end of the semester and see what I think about it after spending more time with this book. If you're interested in climate change and ethics, I imagine there are more recent publications but if you like economics and philosophy, this is a lot of fun.
What I'm Taking With Me
- The last chapter is a fantastic summary of everything so hopefully I'll remember to go back there when I get confused.
- Ugh, this class was supposed to be full of class discussions and now that it's online it's not going to be the same, my Zoom anxiety has no bounds.
- I absolutely adore the fact that Broome just went, "hey economists, you all are nothing without ethics". However, his fondness of utilitarianism is kind of off putting. Like, you can't just assume utilitarianism like that.
- We're going to be meeting Broome! I'm so ridiculously excited, he's like an actual academic celebrity!!
------------------------------
Level of being Hermione: I finished reading a course book a week before the beginning of the semester.
The real ethical question is whether I can count this book as part of my reading challenge if it's technically for uni. Review to come!
In Climate Matters, Broome attempts to answer questions relating to climate change through ethics. Each chapter deals with a specific query and together, he builds a framework for considering the climate.
I knew Broome as the guy who said economics is a field of ethics since economics knows how to calculate stuff but without ethics, we don't know what we value. Therefore, I was not surprised that economics features heavily in this book. As a PPE student, it was delightful to see Broome use economical theory to base ethical actions. When we read his paper in class last semester, it wasn't entirely clear to me how ethical economics looks in practice. Here, we see it in action and it's just so cool.
However, if you're a hardcore philosophy person, you won't enjoy this book. There's a lot of economics for an ethics book. Broome's conclusions are mostly philosophical but he gets there through economical terminology and theory. That can definitely be unfortunate if you prefer the logical philosophical way.
Other reviews claim this book is outdated. In some ways, they're absolutely right. Broome leaves room in case it turns out climate change is nothing to worry about but nowadays, that's an odd claim. In 2020, it seems painfully obvious that climate change isn't going to be a problem in 400 years. Climate change is going to be a problem soon. We are going to experience it, we are already experiencing it.
Additionally, Broome falls into the classical "all of us need to do something" mindset. He discusses mostly individual responsibility. His comments about governments don't really go deeper than debating whether the government needs to act. I was shocked that he does not discuss companies. I mean, the impact of massive companies is far superior than individuals. It's convenient to pretend that if all of us close the lights more often climate change will go away but that's simply not the case. Large scale companies need to change.
This is a fascinating topic because where is that change supposed to come from? Can the government dictate climate friendly policies when the impact of climate change is still mostly in the future? Which policies are the most effective in order to curb the companies' effects? Are we willing to accept an economic impact for the climate? This connects with what Broome writes about our responsibilities to future generations. However, the work needs to be done on a larger scale than individuals so it is a shame that Broome only really asks the ethical individual questions.
However, despite these flaws, I think Broome's exploration is incredibly worthwhile. The questions he raises are still relevant. For example, how do we make ethical choices when the future is uncertain? When research can contradict itself? What do we owe future generations? What does the government owe future generations?
There's a chapter about population growth. Now, as far as I know, it's mostly agreed that the problem isn't population growth- it's what each society does. The West ruins the environment far more than places with a bigger population but less of a footprint. So the question isn't how many people are here but rather where they are. Incidentally, I'm hoping to write my final paper about the responsibilities of richer countries towards poorer ones so I'm gonna wait with my thoughts on this till I properly do some reading.
With covid-19, that chapter about population growth felt different. It reminded me of that economics class where we discussed how a smaller population means more capital per person and then the slideshow pointed out that a plague is good for capital gain. Needless to say, it was a little uncomfortable to read. Sure, theoretically, that makes sense but now that there is a literal plague, it's not great to hear that people around you will die but good news! More capital for everyone!
Covid-19 has forced us to take ethical questions and bring them to life. Broome writes about assigning value to human life. He ponders whether a life of an 80 year old is equally worth a life of a 17 year old and well, that's an interesting theoretical question but nowadays, it's hard to only see it as just that. Sure, perhaps a young person's year is "worth" more but heck, I care about my grandparents and that's something that's hard to quantify economically speaking.
To conclude, I think it's going to be fun to come back to this review at the end of the semester and see what I think about it after spending more time with this book. If you're interested in climate change and ethics, I imagine there are more recent publications but if you like economics and philosophy, this is a lot of fun.
What I'm Taking With Me
- The last chapter is a fantastic summary of everything so hopefully I'll remember to go back there when I get confused.
- Ugh, this class was supposed to be full of class discussions and now that it's online it's not going to be the same, my Zoom anxiety has no bounds.
- I absolutely adore the fact that Broome just went, "hey economists, you all are nothing without ethics". However, his fondness of utilitarianism is kind of off putting. Like, you can't just assume utilitarianism like that.
- We're going to be meeting Broome! I'm so ridiculously excited, he's like an actual academic celebrity!!
------------------------------
Level of being Hermione: I finished reading a course book a week before the beginning of the semester.
The real ethical question is whether I can count this book as part of my reading challenge if it's technically for uni. Review to come!
silviasilviareadsbooks's review
2.0
Thank god it's over
I wanted to read this for a course I'm doing at university and I only have a few thoughts to share:
• it's very outdated (not its fault)
• it's way too philosophical/economical for this poor science student
While it was interesting to read (or listen since I audiobooked it) things from a different point of view than my own, it was also very disquieting and some things gave me chills because of the sheer objectivity in which they were shared. I acknowledge this philosophy/economy/ethics world is not at all mine and I will just stick to the science thank you very much.
Also can the author stop using "she/her" when referring to a generic person, just use they ffs
I wanted to read this for a course I'm doing at university and I only have a few thoughts to share:
• it's very outdated (not its fault)
• it's way too philosophical/economical for this poor science student
While it was interesting to read (or listen since I audiobooked it) things from a different point of view than my own, it was also very disquieting and some things gave me chills because of the sheer objectivity in which they were shared. I acknowledge this philosophy/economy/ethics world is not at all mine and I will just stick to the science thank you very much.
Also can the author stop using "she/her" when referring to a generic person, just use they ffs
More...