Is it morally wrong for us to ignore global warming?

Not a moral issue. It’s an issue of science.

@Captain_Fantasy – It’s an issue of both, in my opinion. Science has more or less confirmed that global warming is happening. It hasn’t confirmed that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, but that shouldn’t change the ethical implications surrounding our response. The issue of climate change crosses boundaries between (at least) international relations, law, science, ethics and economics.

“Another argument is that prevention is too expensive, or not worth it.”

Not worth it to the people that will not benefit from it in their life time.
We are such a greed society. When you get down to it.

Morally wrong? Depends on which side of the fence you are on.

@ChazMaz Which side of the fence are you on?

Climate change should not be ignored. But requiring the western European and Us economies to meet strict environmental standards, when the rest of the world has no limits is idiotic.

US and the EU have been reducing greenhouse emissions since we became aware of the damage pollution does to the environment. Spending a billion dollars to build environmentally friendly plants in China and the developing countries, will reduce pollution and greenhouse gasses more than spending that same amount of money in Europe or the USA

Yes, I do think it’s wrong to ignore the impact we have on the environment (even if it partially contributes to global warming). Is it a moral issue? Depends on how you feel about the environment. For me it is an issue of morality, certainly, especially once you know the facts.

@xxii – I would and try to do what ever I can to make us less abusive on this world.

But the people on the other side of the fence hold all the cards.

Solar power will not be cheep till the wealthy start to buy and use it.
Electric cars will not go father or cost less until the wealthy embrace it.
Our lands will not become less polluted until the wealthy stop selling it off to the highest bidder and give it back to “Mother Nature”.

We should be preparing for climate instability, not worrying about using paper instead of plastic. But, that’s not going to happen.

Yes it is wrong to ignore, i have three kids, that i am sure want a planet for their kids, and so on and so on. It is our job because we are in the here and now.

@ChazMaz – Do you think it’s immoral for the wealthy NOT to embrace these things?

I do and not crazy about the word immoral. “Survival” is a funny thing.
They don’t see it that way and they will argue that they are doing plenty already. Compaired to what “we” are doing. Dollar for dollar.

Even though they can do so much more, and have to.

Of course it is morally wrong. Without environmental health we would not be alive. It’s as simple as that. We need to care for the environment so it can care for us.

In either of the arguments you presented there is no question, inaction would be unethical as it would knowingly lead to undue hardship for a great number of people. The question then becomes what action ought to be taken. It seems the reasonable answer is to address both arguments equally in terms of effort as neither can be qualified conclusively as being more injurious than the other.

Personally, I think it’s silly that rather than any nation leading the way, they all continue to step back and wait for the other to take the first move forward, not wanting to risk economic hardship or fearing failure. The idea that economy is even an issue I believe clearly illustrates the imbalance of priorities humanity sustains. The fear of failure is only warranted so long as the potential results of failure would overly burden other efforts or clearly make matters worse.

@wonderingwhy GA!

If I poured poison into the town’s drinking water; or if I saw someone do so and I did not say or do something, I would consider it immoral.

Thus, if it is proven that global warming is going to cause the death of many people (as I believe is the case), and I am able do something about it, it would be wrong not to so something.

Perhaps there should be an Exhale Less campaign.
Gotta cut down on that nasty CO2 in the atmosphere.
Don’t we?

It is not really a moral issue, unless you mean moral = in our best interest.

If there are things we can to to mitigate the harmful impact of climate change on future generations, then we have a moral obligation to do our very best to allow them to inherit the best possible environment in which to live.

Not everything good a person does has to benefit them in their lifetime.

We pass on knowledge to succeeding generations and well as all kinds of technology.

We all walk in the shoes of our ancestors.
We have an obligation to leave them in the best possible condition.

The question is both a scientific and a moral one!

The only thing we are going to do to “benefit” our/this world is becoming food for the worms.

Has nothing to do with moral. It is just the process of life.

@ChazMaz But what if the ”worms” develop excess gas through having eaten us?
Surely us being eaten by worms would only add to the problem. All those little worm farts add up to a whole heap of you know what.
It’s not just cattle that are a flatulent threat to us.

Moral : “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong”

So for those who say it is not a matter of morality how do you figure? It is quite obviously wrong to ignore environmental degradation. Therefore it is a matter of morality.

Then every time you drive your car to work. You are being immoral.
Your greed for money and your desire to survive supersedes you effort to save the planet.

@ChazMaz That may in fact be true but it is a matter of scale.

Always is and it always adds up.

You (in general) want to cut down the tree. That is seen as a bad thing (immoral). But you, generally speaking, planted the seed.

@ChazMaz – You could say that technically everyone who turns on their lights or drives their fuel-powered car to work is immoral. But does that mean that we are free to degrade the environment as we wish with no regard for consequences, since we are all immoral already? Surely we still have a moral obligation to “minimise” our immorality.

@ChazMaz I agree that it adds up. I’m not sure I disagree with you on these points. But simply it is a matter of morality. And @xxii makes a great point.

Yes, very wrong. It is our duty to honor the precautionary principle. Otherwise our grandkids will hate us for ignoring the danger and screwing up their future.