What Climate Policy Can a Utilitarian Justify?

Gesang, Bernward

doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9380-4

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, comparing price with quantity instruments, Gesang (2013) suggests that price instruments have two distinct disadvantages compared to quantity instruments. First, he suggests that emissions reductions could be canceled out either by consumer behavior or by oil producers lowering their prices to offset the increased carbon tax whereas reductions are fixed by quantity instruments.…”

Section: How Ought We Price Carbon?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon pricing ethics

Mintz‐Woo

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The three main types of policies for addressing climate change are command and control regulation, carbon taxes (or price instruments), and cap and trade (or quantity instruments). The first question in the ethics of carbon pricing is whether the latter two (price and quantity instruments) are preferable to command and control regulation. The second question is, if so, how should we evaluate the relative merits of price and quantity instruments. I canvass relevant arguments to explain different ways of addressing these important policy questions, suggesting that carbon pricing is preferable to command and control regulation, and that price instruments have the theoretical edge over quantity instruments.

show abstract

Section: How Ought We Price Carbon?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon pricing ethics

Mintz‐Woo

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet when it focuses on the likely consequences in the real world of actual policy choices, it is a powerful ethical approach providing useful practical guidance. Within climate ethics, more grounded consequentialist approaches tend to support robust efforts to limit human population growth to deal with GCC (Coole, 2018; Dasgupta, 2019; Hedberg, 2020; see also Gesang, 2013). Their conclusions mirror the conclusions of most rights‐based treatments (Conly, 2016; Meijers, 2016a; Rieder, 2016), suggesting that the overall ethical case for such efforts is strong.…”

Section: Consequentialist Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate ethics and population policy: A review of recent philosophical work

Cafaro

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well‐established that human population growth is a leading cause of increased greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating global climate change. After decades of neglect, philosophical ethicists have, over the past decade, taken up the issue of climate change and population policy and there are now numerous articles and books which explore the subject. Both rights‐based and consequentialist approaches seek to balance reproductive rights against other human rights and interests threatened by overpopulation and ecological degradation. While biocentric ethicists have additional reasons to advocate for smaller human populations, even anthropocentrists affirm the need to balance reproductive rights against reproductive responsibilities in order to promote the well‐being of future generations. There is a particularly strong consensus on the value of choice‐enhancing population policies that reduce fertility voluntarily, such as securing universal access to modern contraception and promoting equal rights and opportunities for women. There is strong support for government policies that incentivize smaller families, some support for policies that disincentivize larger ones, and little to no support for punitive policies. Many ethicists warn that failure to enact reasonable population policies now may necessitate harsher policies in the future, a common theme in climate ethics generally. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change

show abstract