Rock Ethics Institute2019-09-252019-09-252010-09-152009-01http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175522"The climate change problem is solved when we have stabilized atmospheric concentrations at a safe level. However, achieving this goal is time-dependent as the longer we wait to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuel (~70% of annual global emissions) and destroying terrestrial biosphere carbon stocks (~30% of emissions) the more difficult and expensive it becomes to solve the problem. Furthermore, the longer we wait the greater the consequences of our inaction as the more harm caused to people, other species, ecosystems, and future generations. From this perspective, solving the climate change problem is as much an ethical challenge (i.e., public ethics in the sense of the imperative to give moral consideration to the consequences of our collective actions and inactions on others) as it is a technical or finance issue. Currently, we face a growing and alarming mitigation implementation gap – emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing at a faster rate than mitigation efforts can counteract. International negotiations are bogged down in a complex agenda around issues concerning mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. A key stumbling block to negotiations is interpretation of the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities (CDR) regarding the respective roles of developing versus developed countries. CDR is a legal principle recognized by the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) to help guide negotiations. However, there is ongoing debate about its interpretation and relevance to the practical problems that are the focus of the road to Copenhagen. In this paper we first consider the meaning of CDR. We then we propose “Contraction and Convergence” as a negotiating framework, consistent with CDR, that can be used to ethically close the mitigation implementation gap in time to solve the climate change problem." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderclimate changeclimate ethicshuman rightstechnologyPolitical ethicsCommunity ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsLifestyle ethicsResources ethicsPreprint