A Responsible Path

Light, Andrew; Taraska, Gwynne

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744047.003.0009

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some people have denied that the climate wrongdoers Shue identifies (most frequently, the United States) are in fact at fault (Posner and Weisbach, 2010). Others have claimed that taking feasibility seriously puts most of the injustices identified by Shue beyond the scope of climate policymaking (Gardiner and Weisbach, 2016); that most ethical judgements underdetermine decisions on climate policy (Hulme, 2009;Light and Taraska, 2016); or that economic valuation must be used to capture everything that matters in climate policymaking, including the ethical stakes (Tol, 2008). 2 I shall focus on a different path of resistance, which takes seriously the requirement that climate policy must serve the ends of climate justice.…”

Section: Calling Out Unjust Climate Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate justice in the endgame for 2 degrees

McKinnon

2019

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate justice in the endgame for 2 degrees One of the most striking features of Henry Shue's work on climate justice is its moral anger. Shue calls out inadequate governmental action on climate change since 1992 as shameful and pathetic. He describes most countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement as 'paltry', 'pitiful' and 'farcical'. Those in the Trump administration are called 'environmental vandals'. For many people, the righteous anger that simmers beneath the surface of his words is the morally and emotionally appropriate response to the delays in political action on climate change that have left us with just eighteen years until the carbon budget for two degrees is depleted. 1 Shue's moral anger is crystallised in his denunciation of climate policies that depend on some people sacrificing subsistence in order that others can enjoy luxuries. The earliest versions of this critical line focus on emissions created by subsistence in a global economy locked in to fossil fuels. Later versions-including this Breakthrough Article-expand the call for protection of the means to subsistence as a non-negotiable feature of any just transition to a zero carbon global economy. As Shue puts it, 'the politically crucial question of the fair sharing of burdens cannot be evaded and will not be forgotten' (p. xxx).

show abstract