Towards a Global Carbon Integrity System: Learning from the GFC1 and avoiding a GCC²

Charles Sampford
DOI: 10.4236/lce.2011.24026                

Abstract

This paper examines some of the central globalethical and governance challenges of climate change and carbon emissions reduction in relation to globalization, the ‘global financial crisis’ (GFC), and unsustainable conceptions of the ‘good life’,and argues in favour ofthe development of a global carbon ‘integrity system’. It is argued that a fundamental driver of our climate problems is the incipient spread of an unsustainable Western version of the ‘good life’, whereresource-intensive, high-carbon western lifestyles,although frequently criticized as unsustainable and deeply unsatisfying, appear to have established anunearned ethical legitimacy.While the ultimate solution to climate change is the development of low carbon lifestyles, the paper argues that it is also important that economic incentives support and stimulate that search: the sustainable versions of the good life provide an ethical pull, whilst the incentives provide an economic push. Yet, if we are going to secure sustainable low carbon lifestyles, it is argued, we need more than the ethical pull and the economic push. Each needs to be institutionalized – built into the governance of global, regional, national, sub-regional, corporate and professional institutions. Where currently weakness in each exacerbates the weaknesses in others,it is argued that governance reform is required in all areas supporting sustainable, low carbon versions of the good life.

Keywords

Integrity System, Climate Change, Carbon, Good Life, Ethics, Governance

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	C. Sampford, “Global Transparency: Fighting Corruption for a Sustainable Future: From National Integrity Systems to Global Integrity Systems,” Paper Presented at the 13th IACC, Athens, November 2008a, pp. 1-3.
[2]	C. Sampford, “Water Rights and Water Governance: A Cautionary Tale and the Case for Interdisciplinary Governance,” In: M. R. Llamas, L. Martínez Cortina and A. Mukherji, Eds., Water Ethics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008b, pp. 45-67.
[3]	C. Sampford, “Re-Conceiving the Good Life: The Key to Sustainable Globalization,” Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2010, pp. 13-24.
[4]	J. Stiglitz, “The Future of Global Governance,” In: N. Serra and J. Stiglitz, Eds., The Future of Global Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, pp. 309- 323.
[5]	J. Bentham, “Pannamonial Fragments,” In: J. Bowring, Ed., The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 3 (Reprint)), Russell & Russell Inc., New York, 1962 [1843], p. 228.
[6]	C. Sampford, “Ethical Standard Setting for Global Incentives: Towards an Effective Regulatory Philosophy of Global Greenhouse Response (Opening Plenary),” Paper Presented at the World Council of Churches Consultation on the Global Atmospheric Commons, Saskatoon, 2000.
[7]	M. Nussbaum, “Capabilities and Human Rights,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, 1997, pp. 273-300.
[8]	A. Cornwell and D. Gunasekera, “Essential Elements of Tradable Permit Schemes,” Trading Greenhouse Emissions: Some Australian Perspectives, Vol.11, No. 17, 1998, p. 17.
[9]	W. Ransome and C. Sampford, “Ethics and Socially Responsible Investment,” Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, 2010.
[10]	A. Smith, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” 5th Edition, Methuen, London, 1976 [1776], p. 26.
[11]	A. Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” 6th Edition, A. Miller, London, 1976 [1759].
[12]	K. Haakonssen, “The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 1-21. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521770599.001
[13]	A. Leftwich, “Redefining Politics: People, Resources and Power,” Methuen, London, 1983, pp. 2-5.
[14]	N. Preston, C. Sampford and C. Connors, “Encouraging Ethics and Challenging Corruption: Reforming Governance in Public Institutions,” Federation Press, Sydney, 2002.
[15]	C. Sampford, “Environmental Governance for Biodiversity,” Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2002, pp. 79-90. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00027-8