Deck 8: Seth Mayer and Dan Shahar, “Environmental Regulation”

Question 1

In his essay, Seth Mayer discusses the relationship between the law and citizens of a democracy. He believes that this forms part of a solution to the climate change problem. Mayer affirms:
Even when rules are somewhat economically inefficient, they can manifest public attitudes and commitments about which actions and interactions are acceptable. Law, particularly democratically legitimate law, can represent the perspective of the public at large-deeming some actions morally acceptable and others out of bounds. It is an attempt to coordinate social action to further public purposes.
Begin your essay by describing the relationship between law and public attitudes, as Mayer understands it. Then, give a non-environmental example that further helps to illustrate Mayer's point. Finally, consider: what are the liabilities of using the law to accomplish Mayer's environmental goals? Are they significant enough to show that the law shouldn't be used for those ends? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Explain Mayer's understanding that the law has the potential to represent and coordinate public attitudes
Offer an example, real or imagined, from outside of the climate change debate that illustrates this kind of relationship between the law and citizens
Thoughtfully consider the costs of Mayer's approach
Defend a position on whether those costs are too great

Question 2

According to Dan Shahar, the negative effects of climate change:
…have significance beyond their ramifications for human interests: our obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves. Yet, even if we look solely at our own desires, I think we will see that we do not want to let nature's treasures fall by the wayside when we still have the opportunity to preserve them.
The second point here is about human desires. But the first isn't. If our "obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves," then to whom-or to what-might we have that obligation? Does it make sense to say that we have obligations to (some or all of the many) nonhuman parts of the world? Why or why not?

Answer 2

Demonstrate understanding of the point that Shahar is making about obligations to nonhuman entities
Propose some candidates for the entity/entities to which we might have an obligation
Explain why it is or isn't plausible that we have such an obligation

Question 3

Seth Mayer begins his reply by saying, "Our agreements show that the left and the right have an opportunity to work together on this issue, rather than taking a complacent, business-as-usual approach." In your essay, discuss some of the similarities between Mayer's and Dan Shahar's approaches to the environmental regulation question. Then, discuss at least one major difference. Based on this analysis, what do you think will pose the greatest challenge to Shahar's affirmation that "the left and the right have an opportunity to work together on this issue?"

Answer 3

Highlight some of the similarities between Mayer and Shahar's takes on environmental regulation
Discuss at least one major difference between their positions
Offer an argument that posits which aspect of their debate will pose the greatest challenge to cooperation

Question 4

In his essay, Mayer discusses two market-based policies that respond to climate change in detail. What are they?

A) Permit trading and technology transfers
B) Cap-and-trade policies and taxes
C) Command-and-control schemes and taxes
D) Free trade and direct trade

Question 5

In his essay, Mayer suggests that environmental regulation leads to a number of effects. Which of the following is NOT one of those effects?

A) Increased effectiveness
B) Human rights protection
C) Greater justice
D) Economic abundance

Question 6

In his essay, Mayer offers an argument that evades moral and political questions.

Question 7

In his essay, Shahar argues that reforms should be pursued with what goal in mind?

A) The continued expansion of material prosperity worldwide
B) The moral betterment of a well-informed citizenry
C) The protection of nature, which is of intrinsic value
D) The maximization of communal happiness across border lines

Question 8

In his essay, Shahar affirms that industrial growth has had a number of effects on the human community. Which of the following is NOT one of those effects?

A) Lower child mortality rates
B) Reduction in extreme poverty
C) Increased charitable giving
D) Greater respect for human rights

Question 9

In his essay, Shahar discusses a key work in the climate change literature. What is it?

A) The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change
B) The United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals
C) The EPA's "Climate Change Indicators"
D) The UNEP's "Emissions Gap Report"

Question 10

Mayer and Shahar agree with each other on a number of things. Which of the following is NOT an area of agreement?

A) The poor are disproportionately impacted by climate change
B) Future generations will do better if we begin to act on climate change now
C) Economic growth directly translates into broad-based human flourishing
D) Climate change creates severe and irreversible setbacks

Question 11

In his reply, Mayer states: "The core question is whether growth is desirable, not when and how we should use law to shape economic activities in light of climate change."

Question 12

In his reply, Shahar offers what as an example of something that is good when done in moderation, but bad when done too often?

A) Mountain biking
B) Withdrawing case
C) Beachgoing
D) Restaurant dining

Question 13

In his reply, Shahar defends a particular approach for responding to climate change. What is it?

A) Cap-and-trade
B) Legal regulation
C) Technological innovation
D) Redistributive justice