Dominic Lenzi

Although concerns about large-scale implementation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) are well known, the ethical implications of ‘nature-based’ forms remain underexplored. Depending upon their implementation, these projects may benefit or harm local communities and biodiversity, risks that may be obscured by framing them as ‘natural’. We examine ‘nature-based’ CDR by contrasting three conceptions of the capabilities approach that may be extended to nonhumans. While two of these conceptions face justificatory challenges arising from widespread environmental pluralism, we build upon Amartya Sen’s conception to propose a deliberative model of climate justice. This model calls for participatory processes to determine which nonhuman entities are recognized as subjects of justice, ensuring that CDR decisions reflect the full range of environmental values at stake in each context.

Technological innovation is a double-edged sword for the environment. While it can significantly reduce environmental and societal risks of harm, technological progress is often a major contributor to environmental degradation. This suggests the need for an anticipatory approach to research oversight which can mitigate the harmful and contradictory effects of research and innovation. In this article, we conduct a scoping review to identify cross-cutting concepts between environmental ethics, environmental justice, climate ethics, climate justice, and research ethics and integrity, focusing on literature on research and technological innovation. This article identifies an important gap between research ethics and these other topic areas. It also demonstrates the importance of updating existing research ethics frameworks to incorporate environmental concerns evident in environmental ethics and climate justice. Finally, it reveals an over-representation of studies focused upon climate change at the expense of other environmental issues, and of research on the ethics and governance of geoengineering, which we suggest is not a generalisable model for governance of research.

Can economics reflect climate justice? Although the scenario forecasts of climate economists are key inputs to IPCC assessments, their ethical assumptions fail to reflect important considerations of justice. This is clearest regarding sufficientarian justice, which requires that no person falls below a minimum level of well-being. This view is reflected in an important strand of climate diplomacy and activism that highlights the plight of those most vulnerable to climate harms. However, I show that sufficientarian justice is largely incompatible with predominant approaches to climate economic modelling. I then examine the prospects for a sufficientarian climate economics, considering dual discounting approaches, well-being ‘guardrails’ approaches and basic needs modelling. I find that the latter two are closest to sufficientarianism, although they reflect different interpretations of its core claims. Finally, I consider whether climate sufficientarianism requires economic ‘degrowth’, as some have claimed. I argue that sufficientarianism is compatible with periods of economic growth, but is likely to be incompatible with the indefinite pursuit of growth due to the ecological impacts this would entail. Since growth is a standard assumption in climate economics, this reiterates the need for new economic approaches in the pursuit of a just and sustainable future.

In response to the looming environmental crisis, many have recommended lists of environmental virtues. As a result, environmental ethics has been enriched by new virtue terms, such as ecological sensitivity or kinship with nature, and with new applications of older terms, such as benevolence or care. But how do we know which of these are genuine virtues? Although this question is important, it is difficult to answer for two reasons. First, we might think of ‘nature’ in a variety of ways, each of which presupposes ethical beliefs about the relationship between humans and the nonhuman world. Second, environmental virtue terms seem far less clear than our more familiar virtues, which calls into question both their intelligibility and usefulness as normative concepts. I respond to both problems by considering the environmental virtue of care for nature, and one plausible examplar of this quality, US nature writer and conservationist Rachel Carson. I claim that Carson's example illuminates this virtue, and that care for nature is one environmental virtue we have reason to recognise. While this account might seem vulnerable to a kind of relativism stemming from particular conceptions of nature, I claim that the threat of cultural variation need not shake our reflective confidence in recognising some ways of thinking about nature as excellent.

The urgency of climate change has never been greater, nor the moral case for responding to it more compelling. This review essay critically compares Darrel Moellendorf's Mobilizing Hope and Catriona McKinnon's Climate Change and Political Theory. Moellendorf's book defends the moral importance of poverty alleviation through sustainable economic growth and argues for a mass climate movement based on the promise of a more prosperous future. By contrast, McKinnon provides a political vocabulary to articulate the many faces of climate injustice, and to critically examine proposed policy solutions—notably including the indefinite pursuit of economic growth. While both find reasons to be hopeful, their wide-ranging accounts reflect different visions of what a just and sustainable future might look like. They reflect different understandings of sustainable development and the significance of environmental values; the scope of permissible climate activism; and the ethics of geoengineering. Building upon them, I argue in favor of a more pluralistic vision of a just climate future, one that is capable of speaking to the range of moral interests bearing upon the climate and biodiversity crises, and that supports sustainable development that is inclusive of diverse human-nature relationships.

In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Scholars have critiqued mainstream economic approaches to environmental valuation for decades. These critiques have intensified with the increased prominence of environmental valuation in decision-making. This paper has three goals. First, we summarise prominent critiques of monetary valuation, drawing mostly on the work of Clive Spash, who worked extensively on cost–benefit analysis early in his career and then became one of monetary valuation's most thorough and ardent critics. Second, we, as a group of scholars who study relational values, describe how relational values research engages with and addresses many of the critiques of monetary valuation. Third, we offer suggestions for relational values research that continues and deepens its ability to respond to critiques of monetary valuation and contributes to transformative change towards sustainability.

Land-based climate mitigation schemes such as REDD+ imply the creation of ‘rights to carbon’ for actions that enhance carbon sinks. In many cases, the legal and normative foundations of such rights are unclear. This article focuses on special rights on the basis of improvement. Considering improvement in relation to carbon sinks requires asking what it means to ‘improve’ an environmental resource. Our answer departs in two significant respects from the standard conception of improvement, namely by reconceiving action in relation to ecosystem services, and accordingly, making the case for a counterfactual baseline to be used to compare an improved and unimproved state. Our modifications potentially allow for a variety of agents to claim special carbon rights on the basis of beneficial interactions with land-based carbon sinks. We give three archetypical examples of agents who may claim pro tanto special rights to carbon based on their interaction with carbon sinks.

Proponents of deliberative democracy believe deliberation provides the best chance of finding effective and legitimate climate policies. However, in many societies there is substantial evidence of biased cognition and polarisation about climate change. Further, many appear unable to distinguish reliable scientific information from false claims or misinformation. While deliberation significantly reduces polarisation about climate change, and can even increase the provision of reliable beliefs, these benefits are difficult to scale up, and are slow to affect whole societies. In response, I propose a combined strategy of ‘thinking and nudging’. While deliberative theorists tend to view nudging askance, combining deliberation with nudges promises to be a timelier and more effective response to climate change than deliberation alone. I outline several proposals to improve societal deliberative capacity while reducing climate risks, including media reform, strategic communication and framing of debates, incentivising pro-climate behaviour change, and better education about science.

Chris Armstrong argues that attempts at justifying special claims over natural resources generally take one of two forms: arguments from improvement and arguments from attachment. We argue that Armstrong fails to establish that the distinction between natural resources and improved resources has no normative significance. He succeeds only in showing that ‘improvers’ are not necessarily entitled to the full exchange value of the improvement. It can still be argued that the value of natural and improved resources should be distributed on different grounds, but that the value of improvements should be conceived differently.