PHIL51 Assignment 3: Policy Evaluation, Develop normative standards

PHIL 51—Climate Ethics, 

Assignment 3: Policy Evaluation

Big Picture Your assignment, in a nutshell, is to write-up a short answer to the justificatory question we have discussed in class: Under what conditions would SSI (stratospheric sulfate injection) become justified? I’m giving you this assignment because it is a way to practice the 4th and 5th learning objectives1 for this course, which are that you will be able to:

• Develop normative standards for evaluating climate policies, and

• Evaluate climate policies using these standards of evaluation.

Recall that the term “normative” has to do with right and wrong, with value judgments, and how we believe things should be. What I want you to think really hard about in this assignment is which kinds of normative standards you think are most important when it comes to making decisions about SSI, and what it would take, in concrete, real-life terms to meet those normative standards. It’s ok if you don’t feel like you have a neat and tidy answer to the justificatory question by the end. I also want you to highlight unanswered questions and things you feel unsure about. But I also want you to go one step beyond just pointing to uncertainties: I want you to think about what could ultimately reduce those uncertainties. In the last assignment, I gave you lots of learning scaffolds, and I will do the same this time, though there won’t be quite as much of it.

Assignment Details

 Imagine you are the ethics consultant to a head of state. They have requested a short policy memo that takes a position on what it would take for SSI to be justified. They will use the ethical guidance you provide in some upcoming negotiations at an international climate summit— perhaps it’s COP28! I will provide you with a template for this memo that you can fill in. Or, you can forgo the template and write the memo entirely in your own words. Your memo answering the justificatory question should include the following:

• A discussion of what you think are the most important considerations for deciding when SSI would be justified. o You can refer to all of the different considerations brought up in Dialogues on Climate Justice and then decide which ones are most important. o You should not just list which considerations are important, you should also explain why.

 You’ve practiced the skills related to Learning Objectives 1-3 already in class, your first two homework assignments, and the extra credit assignment.  

A discussion of what you think are the least important considerations for deciding when SSI would be justified.

o You can refer to all of the different considerations brought up in Dialogues on Climate Justice and then decide which ones are most important.

o You should not just list which considerations are least important, you should also explain why. A more concrete discussion of what criteria would have to be met before you think it would be ethically acceptable to sign off on SSI.

 o You can include both normative criteria and empirical criteria.

o Talk about how close or far we are from meeting these criteria, as well as the big unknowns and uncertainties that might make it difficult for us to know if we have met these criteria.

A discussion of how confident you are in your analysis. This part of the assignment might be woven into other sections, or it might be a section on its own. That’s up to you.

 o Which aspects of what you have written do you have high confidence in?

 o Which do you have lower confidence in? And explain why.

o What new information would make you more confident, or change any of the views you have developed?

A rough guideline for how long this memo should be is 500-700 words. It will be difficult to do justice to the assignment if you come in under 500 words, though it is probably possible. We won’t take off points for an assignment being too short, only for not adequately addressing the questions I’ve asked you to address. It’s ok to go over 700 words if you feel like you need to, but no one gets extra points for length, either. Write as many words as you need to do a good job.

Submit your assignment in Canvas, as a file upload. The sample template for the memo is at the end of this document.

 You can copy it into a new document and fill it in if you like, or start from scratch, whichever you prefer. You don’t need to do any outside research for this assignment, but you certainly can if you like. If you end up referring to outside sources, cite them clearly. Any style of citation is fine. Just make sure we can tell what you got from another source, and how to track it down for comparison if we want to. Do not use AI tools to help you write this assignment.

Assessment

This assignment is worth 20% of your grade in the course. As we grade, Sam and I are looking for four main things (described below). It may also help you to really imagine that you are writing for a politician who has to make decisions and needs concrete guidance for doing so.

1. Understanding. Evidence that you understand the issues you are discussing. (One way to do this is to define technical terms that you use so that it’s clear to the reader you know what they mean.)

2. Engagement. Evidence that you have thought genuinely and deeply about the justificatory question—that you have gone beyond simply repeating parts of the discussion we have read in Dialogues on Climate Justice.  

3. Analysis. A clear, well-reasoned set of criteria for deciding if/when SSI is justified.

4. Style. Give me your best writing. Revise your first draft. Find and correct errors. Make it as easy as you possible can for your reader to understand you. (After all, heads of state don’t have time to wade through dense and difficult writing.)