Intergenerational Justice and Curtailments on the Discretionary Powers of Governments

Wood, Paul M.

doi:10.5840/enviroethics20042646

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…assuming that there is a written constitution which is the supreme law). Under this approach, the courts would be able to strike down legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the interests of future generations, thereby forcing governments to enact only those policies that take such considerations properly into account (Hayward, 2005;Wood, 2004). To quote Beckman (2008, p. 612), rights-based solutions assume that "[a] constitutional right to a "decent" environment would protect the interests of future generations from the living majority's disregard for the environment".…”

Section: Constraining Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change

Boston

Lempp

2011

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper has two main purposes. First, it considers the detrimental effects of four politically-salient asymmetries on the policy choices of liberal democracies when dealing with the problem of human-induced climate change. Second, it outlines and evaluates possible solutions for reducing or countering these asymmetries. Design/methodology/approach -The approach involves an analysis and evaluation of policy options based on a survey of the relevant literature. Findings -The paper highlights the serious mismatch between the magnitude and urgency of the climate change problem and the current political will to overcome or mitigate the problem. Although four categories of potential solutions, and the various mechanisms through which they might operate, are discussed, it is recognized that all the available options have significant drawbacks, not least limited political feasibility and doubtful effectiveness. In short, action within liberal democracies to mitigate climate change is likely to remain seriously constrained by the four asymmetries discussed, thus increasing the risk of dangerous climate change.Originality/value -The paper highlights the complexities, both international and national, of confronting human-induced climate change. In particular, it identifies four systemic reasons, in the form of politically-salient asymmetries, why liberal democracies have struggled to take effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provides a systematic assessment of possible solutions to these asymmetries. These include changes to accounting frameworks to ensure that the impact of humanity on the environment and future generations is more transparent.

show abstract

Section: Constraining Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change

Boston

Lempp

2011

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The principles spelled out in declarations and agreements like the one above are, in turn, incorporated as constitutional environmental provisions in a number of countries, such as Brazil, Norway, Russia, South Africa and Spain (Birnie et al, 2009;Ekeli, 2007). These constitutional rights to an adequate environment have also been endorsed in several works on environmental protection and intergenerational justice (Brandl and Bungert, 1992;Doeleman and Sandler, 1998;Wood, 2004). The rights in question may be exercised through judicial review to overrule laws or policies that are in conflict with the stipulations as in these rights (May, 2006).…”

Section: Proposal 2: Restricting Permissible Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dilemma of Green Democracy

Wong

2015

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can democracy secure environmental sustainability? This article proposes a basic, yet substantial organising principle-the 'dilemma of green democracy'-which maps out the possibility of realising green decision outcomes under democratic constraints. The dilemma posits that there is no logical or unconditional relationship between democratic decisions and environmental sustainability. More specifically, three plausible conditions for collective environmental decision making-robustness to pluralism, consensus preservation and green outcomes-are mutually inconsistent, meaning that they cannot be satisfied simultaneously. To construct a logically possible environmental-democratic institution, we must avoid the dilemma by relaxing at least one of the conditions. This article explores a number of escape routes from the dilemma, and discusses each proposal by drawing on democratic theory and empirical examples in environmental politics. It concludes that as long as the dilemma of green democracy is resolved, democracy can, at least in principle, secure environmental sustainability.

show abstract

“…usually too late to avoid them. An adaptive, resilient society requires a critical mass of people who value proactivity; otherwise, decision makers will be unable to set new directions and help society to break out of undesirable patterns of behavior (Wood 2004).…”

Section: Adaptive Human Societies and Social-ecological Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%