"Although the task of formulating an appropriate policy response to the problem of anthropogenic climate change is one that raises a number of very difficult normative issues, environmental ethicists have not played an influential role in government deliberations. This is primarily due to their rejection of many of the assumptions that structure the debates over policy. This book offers a philosophical defense of these assumptions, in order to overcome the major conceptual barriers to the participation of philosophers in these debates. There are five important barriers: First, the policy debate presupposes a stance of liberal neutrality, as a result of which it does not privilege any particular set of environmental values over other concerns. Second, it assumes ongoing economic growth, along with a commitment to what is sometimes called a weak sustainability framework when analyzing the value of the bequest being made to future generations. Third, it treats climate change as fundamentally a collective action problem, not an issue of distributive justice. Fourth, there is the acceptance of cost-benefit analysis, or more precisely, the view that a carbon pricing regime should be guided by our best estimate of the social cost of carbon. And finally, there is the view that when this calculation is undertaken, it is permissible to discount costs and benefits, depending on how far removed they are from the present. This book attempts to make explicit and defend these presuppositions, and in so doing offer philosophical foundations for the debate over climate change policy"--

There is widespread agreement that something must be done to combat anthropogenic climate change. And yet what is the extent of our obligations? It would clearly be unjust for us to allow global warming to reach dangerous levels. But what is the nature of this injustice? Providing a plausible philosophical specification of the wrongness of our present inaction has proven surprisingly difficult. Much of this is due to the temporal structure of the problem, or the fact that there is such a significant delay between our actions and the effects that they produce. Many normative theories that sound plausible when applied to contemporaneous problems generate surprising or perverse results when applied to problems that extend over long periods of time, involving effects on individuals who have not yet been born. So while states have a range of sensible climate change policies at their disposal, the philosophical foundations of these policies remains indeterminate. By far the most influential philosophical position has been the variant of utilitarianism most popular among economists, which maintains that we have an obligation to maximize the well-being of all people, from now until the end of time. Climate change represents an obvious failure of maximization. Many environmental philosophers, however, find this argument unpersuasive, because it also implies that we have an obligation to maximize economic growth. Yet their attempts to provide alternative foundations for policy have proven unpersuasive. Joseph Heath presents an approach to thinking about climate change policy grounded in social contract theory, which focuses on the fairness of existing institutions, not the welfare of future generations, in order to generate a set of plausible policy prescriptions.

In this book, eleven prominent authorities on climate change consider the legal, policy, and philosophical issues presented by geoengineering. The book asks: When, if ever, are decisions to embark on potentially risky climate modification projects justified? If such decisions can be justified, in a world without a central governing authority, who should authorize such projects and by what moral and legal right?

This book argues that climate change is politically catastrophic in that it threatens to undermine the conditions necessary for justice and stable democratic government. It explores pressing questions relating to the design of climate policy, authoritarian climate emergency powers, and the nature and role of climate disobedience.

A comprehensive and accessible introduction, as well as an original contribution, to the main philosophical issues raised by climate science.

Climate change poses one of the greatest challenges for human society in the twenty-first century, yet there is a major disconnect between our actions to deal with it and the gravity of the threat it implies. In a world where the fate of countries is increasingly intertwined, how should we think about, and accordingly, how should we manage, the types of risk posed by anthropogenic climate change? The problem is multi-faceted, and involves not only technical and policy specific approaches, but also questions of social justice and sustainability. In this volume the editors have assembled a unique range of contributors who together examine the intersection between the science, politics, economics and ethics of climate change. The book includes perspectives from some of the world's foremost commentators in their fields, ranging from leading scientists to political theorists, to high profile policymakers and practitioners. They offer a critical new approach to thinking about climate change, and help express a common desire for a more equitable society and a more sustainable way of life.

While civil society and social movements claim for more effective measures to cope with anthropogenic climate change, legal scholars are witnessing the “aurora” of climate change law. What is quite relevant in this double-process of recognition/establishment is the interdisciplinary nature of such a field of studies, which goes beyond formalistic legal aspects. Based on the need to rethink legal paradigms, “Climate Constitutionalism Momentum: Adaptive Legal Systems” deals with three major means to combat anthropogenic climate change—namely science, politics and law—further addressing the thesis regarding a supposed adaptiveness of legal systems and proposing new pathways for further inquiries on the current climate constitutionalism momentum. The book introduces the international efforts in acknowledging the need for concrete measures to achieve ambitious results, addressing the comparative public law debate, merging theoretical appraisals and quantitative insights under a top-down approach and a civil-law methodology. Furthermore, the book combines theoretical and empirical viewpoints in reference to climate justice and litigation. The last part of the argumentative pattern merges the aforementioned key elements and grounds of investigation, providing an overall account of the current climate constitutionalism momentum. Academic researchers are the book’s primary audience, but it is also targeted for undergraduate and postgraduate students of specific courses. For the numerous insights and the contemporary relevance of the topic, the book is also addressed to political stakeholders and legal practitioners. Given the transnational development of this area of law, the expected audience of the book is global.