Vol. 11: 1–2, 2011
doi: 10.3354/esep00117

ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
Ethics Sci Environ Polit

Published online April 27

OPENACCESSEDITORIAL

Civil disobedience, climate change andthe risks of nuclear accidents
Darryl Macer
UNESCO Bangkok, 920 Sukhumvit Road, Prakanong, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

Should we go beyond our knowledge of an ethicalproblem to act upon it? The answer to this question
may seem, quite obviously, yes! If we do not act, thenwe cannot expect any ethical problems to be resolved,and the world will not get any better. But how to act?
This issue of Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) features an article by John Lemons andDonald A. Brown entitled ‘Global climate change andnon-violent civil disobedience’. Commentators fromdifferent countries and perspectives broadly agreewith their conclusions.
The claim is that we cannot expect certain governments to change their concrete actions to reducegreenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climatechange because they have not taken sufficient actions
over the past decades. Lemons & Brown (2011, thisissue), supported by most commentators, argue that
non-violent civil disobedience is a method that could
be used to convince governments to act. One suggestion is that consumers start campaigns to boycott products produced by countries who fail to adopt international plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, suchas the Kyoto Protocol. They also suggest mass public
protests and other measures to demand change in climate-change policies.
Lemons & Brown (2011) focus on the policies of thecountry they live in, the USA, and particularly criticize
the policies of that country. ESEP is an open forum fordiscussion of ethical issues of science and environmental policies, and cannot condone any targeting of individuals, institutions or countries. It is for the readers to
critically assess all points of view, and ESEP will welcome future responses to this and any other paper fromall perspectives. In addition, we can see that a numberof other countries cannot escape from similar criti-cisms. The commentators in this issue come from avariety of countries, ranging from Mongolia to Europe,and disciplines, including natural science, social science, law, philosophy and sociology. We can see acommon framework of discourse being used in a variety of ways.
Industries may also be considered as potential culprits in a similar vein of not adopting policies to mitigate climate change and pollution. In this case, there
have been some consumer-led campaigns against particular products. How should consumers be educatedabout the risks and dangers of energy choices, andlifestyle patterns? The recent naturally induced disaster in Japan that affected several nuclear power plants
is a serious challenge for ethics and energy choices. It
is an industry that has been backstopped by governments because the insurance risks for the catastrophes
that are not meant to happen are too large for private
industry. Thus, these nuclear choices are public ones,
since public funding is used. At the same time, governments have actively promoted campaigns to claim thesafety of nuclear energy. ESEP does not take a particular position on the ethics of nuclear energy; however,
we call now for papers in a special issue on the ethicsof nuclear energy technology. We invite authors tosubmit their papers by 31 May 2011, for a rapid publication of a series of papers to critically analyze the ethical issues and context of nuclear energy.
The threats facing biodiversity are numerous, but
clearly anthropogenic causes of climate change are one
factor in a myriad of activities that adversely affect biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity of
1992 showed that wide-ranging policy on species protection in the international forum is a viable course ofaction. If we really care about the dramatic loss of bio-*Email: d.macer@unesco.org© Inter-Research 2011 · www.int-res.com

2Ethics Sci Environ Polit 11: 1–2, 2011

logical diversity that will limit the choices for future
generations, as well as extinguish the lives of entire
species on our planet, we need to seriously consider
more concrete actions to challenge the decisions ofgovernments.
Academic integrity and sound research and policy
analysis are critical pathways towards good decision
making for us in the future uses of energy. There aremany ways to take action, not just directly limiting ourenergy use, but changing consumption patterns, shifting away from industrial agriculture,1 and voting ingovernments that will prioritise the issues that wevalue. Research needs to be accompanied by action,
and action by research, so I hope that readers will contribute, in future papers and reports, the detailed
accounts of the impacts of their actions on government
policy, no matter what actions they decide are ethicallyjustified.

1
The UNESCO Publication ‘Energy flow, environment andethical implications for meat production’ can be downloaded
from www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/ethics-and-climate-change/energyethics/eetwg13/

LITERATURE CITED➤ Lemons J, Brown DA (2011) Global climate change and nonviolent civil disobedience. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 11:3–12