In this commentary on Darrel Moellendorf’s Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change & Global Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), I discuss his use of the precautionary principle, whether his hope for climate-friendly ‘green growth’ is realistic given the tendency for inequality to accelerate as it gets higher, and what I call his assumption of a liberal baseline. That is, I worry that the audience to whom the book is addressed are those who already accept the environmental and economic values to which (...) Moellendorf appeals, while those who are blocking effective action on climate change in fact reject those values and are therefore unlikely to be moved by the arguments the book presents. (shrink)

We attempt to justify the use of synthetic biology in response to the climate crisis, based on the premise that it is impossible to avert runaway climate change without sequestering sufficient greenhouse gases (GHG), which could only become possible through Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs). Then, moving from a consequentialist standpoint, we acquiesce to how the consequences of using NETs through synthetic biology are preferable to the catastrophic consequences of runaway climate change. In conclusion, we show how our analysis of synthetic (...) biology resonates with a zoecentric view of climate science and ethics. (shrink)

Accounting for future generations is central in energy ethics and the ethical matrix can be used to reveal ethical impacts on them. However, the way it integrates future generations is questionable. The aim of this paper is to show why this tool does not consider ethical impacts on future generations appropriately and to propose a novel temporalized framework, which characterizes future people according to temporal, spatial and role features. By stimulating the disclosure of intergenerational conflicts, this temporalized matrix provides support (...) for a more nuanced overview of ethical impacts across generations, crucial in the field of energy ethics. (shrink)

Darrel Moellendorf places hope at the core of his call for climate-change vision and action, positing a ‘hopeful vision of a sustainable and prosperous world’ committed to ‘green growth’ – along th...

This paper offers responses to the challenges and questions rasied by the comments of John M. Meyer, Gwen Ottinger, Mark Reiff, and Steve Vanderheiden to my book Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty. Their concerns are insightful, many, and varied. My reply focuses on the following themes: The relationship between moral concern about climate change and moral concern abut global poverty, the role of hope in responding to climate change, the problem of plutocratic influences in democratic politics and international (...) negotiations, the role of technology in responding to climate change, and the value presuppostion of the book. I cannot do justice to all of the interesting points the commentators make, but I hope at least to have mustered decent replies in these areas. (shrink)

Mobilizing Hope asks that we take the eradication of poverty as morally mandatory, that we pursue technological development, and that we act on the belief that it is possible to do both of those things at once. It resolutely does not ask that we redefine prosperity in other-than-economic terms, reconsider the binary between “human” and “nature,” question financialization, colonialism, or other root causes of global poverty, accept qualitatively different lifestyles, or endure painful transitions. While this may seem strategic, I argue (...) that bigger asks could be effective in inspiring action. (shrink)

As Darrel Moellendorf observes in Mobilizing Hope, climate change and poverty are intertwined in various ways, including the facts that climate impacts threaten to exacerbate global poverty as well...

Climate change goals and actions are often discussed with reference to their feasibility. However, in the climate change literature, there is no agreed upon understanding of what feasibility means. In this paper, insights from political philosophy are used to address this problem in a two-fold way. First, different uses of the term feasibility in the climate change context are critically analyzed, surfacing problematic uses that can have severe consequences for what goals or actions are considered. Second, the ‘conditional probability account (...) of feasibility’ is presented as a positive account of how feasibility should be understood in the climate change context, and applied to the case of managed retreat as an approach for adaptation to sea level rise. Together, the critical analysis and the positive proposal furthers a necessary discussion on feasibility in the context of climate change. (shrink)

In this paper, we argue that rationing has been neglected as a policy option for mitigating climate change. There is a broad scientific consensus that avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change requires a rapid reduction in global emissions. We argue that rationing could help states reduce emissions rapidly and fairly. Our arguments in this paper draw on economic analysis and historical research into rationing in the UK during (and after) the two world wars, highlighting success stories and correcting (...) misconceptions. However, although the empirical details play an important role, the paper is primarily based on philosophical and ethical argument and policy analysis, particularly highlighting the normative assumptions behind policy choices.We build on Hugh Upton’s work in healthcare ethics, rejecting a broader conception of rationing which conceals significant distinctions between policy options, obscuring the specific advantages of an egalitarian conception of rationing. While some argue for the modernisation of rationing, introducing tradable allowances, we argue that the rejection of markets, and a commitment to fair shares, is a key part of the value of rationing, and precisely what made rationing attractive to the public in the 1940s. (shrink)

‘Relational value’ (RV) has intuitive credibility due to the shortcomings of existing axiological categories regarding recognizing the ethical relevance of people’s relations to nature. But RV is justified by arguments and analogies that do not hold up to closer scrutiny, which strengthens the assumption that RV is redundant. While RV may provide reasons for ethically considering some relations, much work remains to show that RV is a concept that does something existing axiological concepts cannot, beyond empirically describing relations people have (...) to environmental areas and places. (shrink)