How Not to Save the Planet

Brooks, Thom

Abstract

Climate change presents us with perhaps the most pressing challenge today. But is it a problem we can solve? This article argues that existing conservationist and adaptation approaches fail to satisfy their objectives. A second issue that these approaches disagree about how best to end climate change, but accept that it is a problem that can be solved. I believe this view is mistaken: a future environmental catastrophe is an event we might at best postpone, but not avoid. This raises new ethical questions for climate change: what are the moral implications of a future climatic catastrophe that might be delayed at best? What practical consequences might these implications yield? This article argues most political philosophers have misunderstood the kind of problem that climate change presents and the daunting challenges we face.

Citation

Brooks, T. (2016). How Not to Save the Planet. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 19(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2016.1195153

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Jun 18, 2015
• Online Publication Date: Jun 10, 2016
• Publication Date: Jun 10, 2016
• Deposit Date: Jun 19, 2015
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 22, 2015
• Journal: Ethics, Policy & Environment
• Print ISSN: 2155-0085
• Electronic ISSN: 2155-0093
• Publisher: Taylor and Francis Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 119-135
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2016.1195153
• Keywords: Adaptation, Catastrophe, Climate change, Conservationism, Polluter Pays Principle, Ecological footprint.
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1405896