Broome

Global warming has been turned into climate change and climate change has now been turned into ethics. Broome has mad climate change into an ethical matter. He basically says people know what they should be doing about climate change but they do the opposite regardless. People are selfish and only do what benefits them and not others or the environment. Broome really gets into economics when he brings in discount rates. He uses discount rates to support another claim he makes. People care more about the present than the future. In other words, the present is discounted more than the future (brings me back to economics class =/). Another reason for the higher discount rate for the present is because of the costs involved in fixing climate change. People will have to give up all sorts of luxuries to help save the planet and because they only care about what is going on in the present, this will most likely not happen.
Broome continues the battle of ethics with prioritariainism vs. utilitarianism. Both these approaches have different discount rates for the future which makes their ethical views completely different. Broome's example for this matter is the question hes poses about the death of a 10-year old child. He asks does it matter more if a child dies now or in the future? Or does it not matter? I think Stern's prioritarianism approach works best. We should start doing things now to help our future because the benefits outweigh the costs of what we have to give up.