Problem
As you may have noticed, Broome focuses on the moral obligations that humans have to one other in connection with global climate change, but does not address moral obligations that humans might have toward other living things.* One reviewer of Climate Matters also mentions this important omission. Avram Hiller writes:
[Climate Matters] contains virtually no discussion of the effects of climate change on non-humans. Given certain highly plausible assumptions that all sentient beings deserve some degree of moral consideration and that very many sentient non-human animals will be severely impacted by climate change, it follows that the effects on non- human animals are morally significant. Furthermore, given that there is some level of public approval for wilderness preservation and of the value of biodiversity, some discussion of the value of these wholes is in order. Of course, it is extremely difficult to determine both the facts concerning the impacts of climate change on non- human animals and ecosystems and the values to be attributed to those things. But it is unlike Broome to shy away from difficulties; indeed, one of his goals is to shed light on the difficulties in arriving at a solution to climate change.
Suppose that Broome were to add a chapter to his book devoted to non-humans. How might this addition affect his main arguments and conclusions? For instance, would the inclusion of non-humans weaken the grounds for his pragmatic preference for "efficiency without sacrifice"? Or, would including non-humans alter his view in other ways, say with regard to "cost-benefit" analyses or the merits of "expected value theory"? You decide what is most relevant, but make sure to try to support your claims.