Introductory description

Dangerous climate change poses a fundamental ethical challenge: What is the fairest way of mitigating climate
change? Many policies have been proposed (and some adopted) to realize this - policies including mass electrification
(and the use of electric vehicles), carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, investment in clean energy,
redesigning towns and cities, fossil fuel non-proliferation treaties, a major deployment of renewable energy (wind,
solar, hydroelectric, biofuels), and nuclear energy. Such policies have distributive effects. They often create benefits (for example, clean air, green jobs, better health, energy security) but also in some cases costs and harms
(greengrabbing, displacement, unemployment, stranded assets, threats to health). They can result in social conflicts
(for example, over financial resources, land, water and critical minerals). Given this, we face the questions 'What is the
fairest way of moving to a low carbon society? What is a just transition?' This module explores these fundamental
ethical questions. It analyses how the burden of mitigating climate change should be distributed; who is duty bound to
bring it about; what a just renewables policy would be; what role practical considerations about political feasibility
should play in our theorizing; whether there is a trade off between effectively mitigating climate change and fairness;
and whether the existing political architectures at the state, regional and global levels, can be improved to better
realize climate justice.

Module aims

Outline syllabus

This is an indicative module outline only to give an indication of the sort of topics that may be covered. Actual sessions held may differ.

This module explores the ethical questions posed by climate change and by the policies required to mitigate climate
change. As such it explores questions such as:

• What duties of climate justice do members of one generation have to future generations? What kind of world are we required to leave future generations? What implications do these duties have for energy policy (such as the use of nuclear energy)?
• Whose responsibility is it to bring about the necessary social, cultural and economic changes? Who are the duty-bearers (governments? central banks? individuals? firms? universities? international institutions?) And, what is the content of their responsibility? What kinds of actions are dutybearers required to undertake? What is your (or my) responsibility?
• How should the burdens and benefits of moving to a low carbon world be distributed? What principles of distributive and corrective justice should guide policy making here? Should we adopt the principle that the polluter should pay? Or should we supplement, or replace, that principle with other principles of justice? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these, and other, principles? What would they entail in practice? For example, is it fair to hold the current members of a country liable for the emissions of earlier generations of that country?
• It is widely argued that decarbonizing the economy requires electrification (such as electronic vehicles), enhanced energy storage, and a much greater use of renewables. Many of these rely on critical minerals (such as lithium, cobalt, and copper). These are often extracted in developing countries in ways that are environmentally harmful and exploitative. What would be a just renewables policy? Some indigenous peoples have objected to some decarbonization policies (such as the cultivation of crops for biofuels, the construction of windfarms, the building of dams to generate hydroelectric power, and the extraction of lithium) that they infringe their territorial rights. Some, for example, are accused of ‘greengrabbing’. How do we fairly adjudicate the competing claims? In short, what is a just decarbonization policy?
• Some have argued that proposals for a just transition are politically infeasible. For example, some (such as John Broome) argue that the effective mitigation of climate change can be realized only if governments adopt policies that impose an unjust distribution of burdens. Are they right? If so, when, if ever, are such compromises permitted (or required)?
• Many argue that the existing political architecture – both within states and at the global level – is ill equipped to deal with climate change. Are they right? If so, how might political institutions be reformed to better enable them to confront the challenges posed by climate change?
  Addressing these requires reflecting on theories of global and intergenerational justice, and on ideal theory and nonideal theory.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

• Demonstrate an advanced knowledge of arguments for and against competing accounts of just mitigation policies and the just transition to a sustainable world, and ascertain their strengths and weaknesses
• Normatively evaluate the principles of justice that should guide the transition from an unsustainable carbon based economy to one in which humanity lives within its ecological limits, and their implications for economic management, societal goals, and rights to land and resources.
• Have the ability to apply the theories and arguments analysed in the module to some central questions facing contemporary societies. These include: (1) who has the responsibility to bring about the necessary changes?; (2) how should the burdens and benefits of moving to a low carbon world be distributed?; (3) how should societies address the moral challenges that arise because electrification and greater battery use require the extraction of critical minerals?;(4) what are the implications of renewables policies (such as hydroelectric power, biofuels, solar energy, wind power, nuclear energy) and how should we adjudicate the moral debates surrounding their use).
• Demonstrate enhanced key skills such as written communication skills, problem solving, and information technology skills.
• Construct and substantiate a comprehensive and sophisticated argument

Indicative reading list

Reading lists can be found in Talis

Subject specific skills

• Develop an advanced knowledge of arguments for and against competing accounts of just mitigation policies and the
  just transition to a sustainable world, and ascertain their strengths and weaknesses
• Normatively evaluate the principles of justice that should guide the transition from an unsustainable carbon-based
  economy to one in which humanity lives within its ecological limits, and their implications for economic management,
  societal goals, and rights to land and resources.
• Have the ability to apply the theories and arguments analysed in the module to some central questions facing
  contemporary societies. These include: (1) who has the responsibility to bring about the necessary changes?; (2) how
  should the burdens and benefits of moving to a low carbon world be distributed?; (3) how should societies address the
  moral challenges that arise because electrification and greater battery use require the extraction of critical
  minerals?; (4) what are the implications of renewables policies (such as hydroelectric power, biofuels, solar energy, and
  wind power) and nuclear energy, and how should we adjudicate the moral debates surrounding their use.

Transferable skills

• Develop enhanced key skills such as written communication skills, problem solving, and information technology
  skills.
• Construct and substantiate a comprehensive and sophisticated argument