ABSTRACT
Ecocentrism is considered as an alternative ethic, but reasons are given for rejecting it. Biocentrism is intrinsically superior as an ethic, and signifcantly strengthens the case for strong international action on climate change. The phenomenon of global warming, and of its largely anthropogenic causes, became increasingly acknowledged, not least through successive reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from the 1990s onwards. It is time to turn to the kind of issue mentioned earlier, and to ask what difference non-anthropocentric kinds of environmental ethics make in matters of climate regimens. Issues that arise concern the compatibility of biocentrism with Contraction and Convergence, and also whether biocentrism makes a difference to the solution that is needed. Contraction and Convergence could be accused of anthropocentrism, since the entitlements that it recognizes are for human beings and for them alone.
