In his article, “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption”, Stephen Gardiner examines climate change as a global, intergenerational, and theoretical phenomenon. He refers to each of these interpretations as a storm and argues that they converge to form the perfect moral storm which compromises our ability to behave ethically (Gardiner 398). In this paper, I will be examining each of Gardiner’s proposed storms and his claim that they, in unison, give rise to moral corruption. I believe that Gardiner’s accounting of climate change and how it fuels bad faith acts of moral corruption are worth accepting. Beyond supporting Gardiner’s argument, I will argue that the moral corruption strategies he lays out – specifically distraction, selective attention, and unreasonable doubt – have been employed to prevent the implementation of nuclear power in place of fossil fuels.

Gardiner’s Three Storms

The Global Storm

The global storm, in Gardiner’s analogy, refers to a spatial interpretation of climate change in which it is an international phenomenon requiring global cooperation. Gardiner begins his discussion of the global storm by exploring the consequences resulting from the atmospheric mixing of greenhouse gases (GHG’s). Namely, once GHG’s are released into the atmosphere, they mix and are distributed globally. The problem that arises from this is that it becomes difficult to track the volume of emissions released by each state in the global system; Gardiner refers to this characteristic of the global storm as the fragmentation of agency (399). While it may seem sensible that each state would want to quantify and restrict their GHG emissions, given that climate change is a global threat, the desire to rein in emissions is complicated by the fact that those who contribute to the total release of GHG’s are not met with consequences proportional to their contributions (399). Because of this, those who emit the most may not field all that many consequences from their emissions. Instead, the burden may fall disproportionately on other states who contribute less to the total global GHG emissions (401). This dispersion of causes and effects, as Gardiner calls it, presents a challenge given that the primary emitters might not be the most impelled to change their behaviour (401-402). While these two characteristics of climate change present a challenge, they are not all that unique given that several issues already require international cooperation (400). What complicates an otherwise relatively straightforward global effort to collectively rein in GHG emissions is the lack of proper enforcement mechanisms to ensure global cooperation (400-401). In this way, the problem of climate change can be presented as a prisoner’s dilemma in which it is rational for each state to restrict their own GHG emissions for the best collective outcome, but the lack of sufficient institutional enforcement mechanisms to secure the desired outcome and eliminate the option of free-riding overrides the collectively rational option in favour of what is individually beneficial given that restricting GHG emissions would impose considerable burdens without guaranteed rewards (400). While the problems arising from the spatial interpretation of climate change are daunting enough to try to navigate on their own, they are amplified once we consider the intergenerational consequences of our actions.

The Intergenerational Storm

In the previous section, we explored the characteristics of Gardiner’s global interpretation of climate change and the problems which arise from it. The key characteristics discussed were the uneven distribution of causes and effects, the fragmentation of agency, and the lack of sufficient institutional mechanisms to hold actors accountable to cooperative efforts (399). Beyond a spatial interpretation, each of these characteristics can be applied to the intergenerational relationship between the current generation and the successive generations who will be forced to reckon with the consequences of our actions (402). Gardiner begins his discussion on the intergenerational implications of our response to climate change by examining the life cycle of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere and concludes that, because we cannot pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, the best we can do is act in a way that minimizes the harms of climate change (403). This becomes a challenge, though, as the effects of our emissions are backloaded onto future generations giving rise to a temporal interpretation of Gardiner’s dispersion of causes and effects principle introduced in the previous section (403). Similarly, because the effects of our actions are distributed over successive generations, rather than being experienced by us in the present, adapting to climate change is a multi-generational cooperative scheme; this temporal fragmentation of agency is, in Gardiner’s view, much worse than that of the previously discussed spatial fragmentation of agency given that, at absolute best, temporally fragmented agents can only act as if they were unified whereas spatially fragmented agents can actually become unified (404). The overall outcome from this is a prisoner’s dilemma similar to the one before, but one we are much less prepared to resolve for there are no real enforcement mechanisms to ensure intergenerational climate justice (405). While current international practices can be extrapolated upon to imagine a solution to the global storm, the novelty of the intergenerational storm presents an unprecedented challenge given that we need to navigate a moral dilemma with future generations. This complexity gives rise to the third, and final, storm – the theoretical storm.

The Theoretical Storm

The final storm Gardiner presents in his article is that of the theoretical storm which arises from a lack of sufficient theoretical understanding to navigate topics that arise due to climate change (407). Gardiner highlights a few of these topics as scientific uncertainty, intergenerational equity, animal rights, and our obligation to nature (407). The theoretical inadequacy presented in this storm is, in essence, what makes navigating the previous two storms so complex – we do not have a pre-existing intellectual framework to build off in our response to climate change. Even more troubling, our theories of knowledge rely on trial-and-error observations which is a luxury not afforded to our climate change response plan. Rather than exploring this topic further, Gardiner instead opts to explore the implications of this storm in convergence with the global and intergenerational storms through his theory of moral corruption (407).

Moral Corruption

Moral corruption, in Gardiner’s view, refers to the utilization of bad faith tactics, such as manipulation or self-deception, when trying to navigate the complex issue of climate change (408). Because we lack a theoretical basis to navigate both the global and intergenerational storms, it can be tempting to participate in morally corrupt tactics such as distraction, complacency, unreasonable doubt, selective attention, delusion, pandering, false witness, and hypocrisy (408). In this section, Gardiner chooses to pay particular attention to selective attention due to its manifestation at both political and personal levels (408). For example, because the cause of anthropogenically induced climate change is our GHG emissions, and these emissions are a byproduct of the industry driving our economic system, steps to minimize the negative outcomes from climate change would come at considerable cost to the economy (401). Because of this – and scientific uncertainty as to how bad the harms from climate change will be for a particular state due to the dispersion of causes and effects – Gardiner proposes that it may be in the best interest of present-day actors to pay selective attention to the global storm over the intergenerational storm (401; 408).

Without sufficient accountability mechanisms to ensure intergenerational justice, it may be eternally rational for the present generation, and each successive generation, to favour the global storm over the intergenerational storm (408). Gardiner refers to this tactic as “exploiting [the] temporal position” of the present and it allows each generation to engage in self-serving actions while still maintaining an ethical façade through engaging with “weak and largely substanceless global accords” (408). As Gardiner mentioned, the root cause of climate change is GHG emissions resulting from an industrial society; without reconciling that catastrophic climate change cannot be prevented without fundamental changes to our energy use habits, we will continue to employ moral corruption tactics to pass off the burden of action to successive generations (408).

Moral Corruption and Nuclear Power

Given that climate change is so intrinsically tied to industry, changes to minimize the damage resulting from climate change will unavoidably harm industry (401). Operating on the assumption the primary emitters of GHG’s would prefer to protect industry rather than secure less damaging outcomes from climate change – and I believe this is a valid assumption looking at the political response to the numerous declarations from scientists warning that we are reaching the point of no return as well as Gardiner’s point that the global storm receives undue preferential treatment in climate negotiations – we must then look to alternatives in which negative outcomes can be mitigated without substantial harm to industry (408). Two proposed alternatives to fossil fuels are solar and nuclear power. Both options have seen some use globally but have received fundamentally different treatment in public discourse. A third strategy to combat climate change is that of solar radiation management (SRM); SRM is a relatively new proposal for modifying the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation (Torres 91). In this section, I will be discussing how the preferential treatment of solar power and SRM over nuclear power are examples of the types of moral corruption Gardiner laid out in his paper.

Solar Power, Solar Radiation Management, and Nuclear Power

Solar power refers to the use of systems of solar panels and batteries to convert and store solar energy as electric energy. Solar power has become one of the most prevalent and optimistic alternatives to fossil fuels due to its benefits for individual homes; homes with sufficient exposure to sunlight can install solar power to decrease their reliance on city energy infrastructure or provide power to remote locations not connected to preexisting power infrastructure. While this may be a great alternative for individuals, this technology should not be relied upon to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels given that the GHG emissions necessary to develop solar panels and batteries on a large scale would be immense. Instead of harnessing solar power, there have been proposals for SRM to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface (91). One of the main proposed SRM techniques involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation (91). This reduction of incoming solar radiation would facilitate a “global dimming” to counteract the effects of the warming climate (91). The problem with this proposal, though, is that the actual effects of injecting aerosols into the stratosphere are largely unknown and could have a result similar to, if not entirely worse than, a nuclear winter (91-92). Where SRM and solar power fall short, nuclear power remains a viable option. It relies on the abundant resource of uranium, it produces no GHG’s from its operation, and can be deployed on large enough scales to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. And yet, prospects of a nuclear-powered future are shrouded in skepticism. Before considering the effects of moral corruption on the acceptance of nuclear power, we must examine the threats posed to us by the implementation of nuclear technology.

The Threat of Accidental and Intentional Harms Resulting from Nuclear Power

For our discussion, the harms associated with nuclear power can be separated into two distinct classes – accidental harms and intentional harms. Accidental harms are events such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters. While these events were undeniably tragic, they can be insightful as to what a nuclear disaster would look like and what it would be mean for the future of afflicted regions. In the case of Chernobyl, the human-restricted Exclusion Zone set up to contain the fallout has become an ecologically diverse wildlife habitat; this is an immensely relieving turn of events given that public perception of fallout zones tends to resemble something of a post-apocalyptic wasteland rather than a wildlife habitat. Beyond just being a home for nature, a minority of residents displaced by the Chernobyl disaster returned to their homes in the Exclusion Zone and have lived there, albeit illegally, for decades.

Turning our attention to intentional harms, nuclear technology is inherently dual-use; this means that while nuclear power can provide a good alternative to fossil fuels to combat climate change, we must also reckon with the fact that it is the same technology that delivered us nuclear weapons of mass destruction. For the purpose of this paper, intentional harms will be restricted to environmental terrorism since other forms of terrorism, or a nuclear exchange between states, would be a result of political disputes or other agendas whereas environmental terrorism is likely to escalate in response to insufficient political response to climate change. For example, radical ideologies developed around deep ecology hold that destruction of the ecosphere facilitated through anthropologically induced climate change must result in omnicide (127-129;132). Organizations such as the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF) believe that omnicide must be achieved without collateral damage to the environment; the ideal method, in their view, is the release of multiple genetically engineered viruses designed to target humans specifically (129-130). Due to their restriction on collateral damage, however, we can rule out nuclear sabotage as a dominant plot in ecoterrorists' plans to bring about their desired omnicide (130). This is an important conclusion given the view that nuclear power plants could be in situ bombs waiting to be attacked. With this in mind, we can turn our attention to moral corruption and how it has been applied at the expense of nuclear power.

Distraction, Selective Attention, and Unreasonable Doubt in the Realm of Nuclear Power

In Gardiner’s examination of the global storm, he stated that it may be beneficial for the current generation to pay selective attention to the global interpretation of climate change – I believe this selective attention is also at play in dictating the public’s perception of nuclear power (Gardiner 408). We looked at the accidental harms imposed by nuclear power through the example of Chernobyl; while truly devastating to the inhabitants of the area, three decades later it has become a biologically diverse refuge for wildlife in that region. In comparing the magnitude of harms between nuclear accidents and unchecked climate change, it appears that our hesitancy stems from paying selective attention to the well-being of the current generation at the expense of future generations rather than there being a moral equivalence between averting nuclear harms and mitigating climate change. Further, we are “exploiting [our] temporal position”, as Gardiner put it, to be distracting ourselves with tactics such as SRM which could pose serious – if not existential – risks to life on Earth given how little we actually know about facilitating a global dimming (Gardiner 408; Torres 91). Further complicating matters is the coverage of nuclear events such as the Chernobyl disaster or the deployment of nuclear bombs like the Soviet “Tsar Bomba” (Torres 102). Having access to these striking visuals of the real-world consequences of nuclear catastrophe can bring awareness to the human cost of the misuse of nuclear technology; adding to this, the fictionalization of events through media, such as HBO’s “Chernobyl” mini-series, can make it seem that nuclear power is a technology ripe for misuse. However, an important consideration is that each nuclear incident – though catastrophic – did not prove to be an existential threat given that we are all, at the time of writing, still here and our capacity for growth has not been blunted prematurely (27). This is an important feature of nuclear technology which ultimately makes it less of a risk than climate change or SRM.

As Gardiner notes, paying selective attention to the global storm and global threats realized within one’s own generation, like nuclear catastrophes, is a manifestation of moral corruption in the decision-making process pertaining to climate change (Gardiner 408). Allowing ourselves to be distracted through sensationalized media coverage of nuclear incidents distracts us from the real threat of climate change – we are already on the pathway to catastrophic harms if we do not transition away from fossil fuels. Casting unreasonable doubt onto the viability of nuclear power brings into realization the harms Gardiner warns about in his discussion of the intergenerational storm; failure to act in the present does not simply pass the burden along to future generations, it compounds it and makes the situation much more dire given that future generations who may have been spared from the harms of climate change are now likely to be harmed (Gardiner 405-406). In this way, allowing media portrayals of present-generation nuclear catastrophes to distract us from the ultimate harm of climate change does not prevent us from creating harm, it saves us from the threat of potential, non-existential harm by enhancing the existential threat of climate change for future generations.

Conclusion

We began by examining the three thematic storms Gardiner argued converged into the perfect moral storm of climate change and his theory of moral corruption. Following this examination, brief overviews were given for solar power, nuclear power, and SRM with particular attention paid to the harms imposed by the adoption of each of these technologies. Where proposals for solar power and SRM fell short, nuclear power remained a viable alternative for large-scale adoption to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. Two types of harms were considered for nuclear power: accidental harms like Chernobyl and intentional harms through environmental terrorism. In the case of Chernobyl, within three decades the Exclusion Zone has become a sanctuary for wildlife in the region. In the case of radicalized environmental terrorists like the GLF, fears that nuclear plants could be seen as in-place nuclear bombs were addressed through the view that omnicide must be achieved without great collateral damage to the surrounding environment. This effectively rules out the option for environmental nuclear terrorism. Given the known risks and benefits of nuclear power, I argued that resistance to the widespread adoption of nuclear power was a result of the moral corruption tactics discussed by Gardiner. Our reliance on moral corruption tactics to justify our aversion to opening ourselves up to survivable, historically observable risks like nuclear power in the present threatens to transform climate change into an unmitigable existential risk for future generations. Accepting the risk of nuclear power will leave us in an infinitely better position than we, and future generations, will occupy under unmitigated climate change. For humanity to have a future, we must learn to care for the living conditions of future generations as though they are our neighbours and overcome the perfect moral storm.

Works Cited

Gardiner, Stephen M. “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption.” Environmental Values, vol. 15, no. 3, 2006, pp. 397-413.

Torres, Phil. Morality, Foresight & Human Flourishing. Pitchstone Publishing, 2017.