Eric S. Godoy

I discuss the energy democracy movement and its call to expand democratic power over energy production, distribution, and development. In addition to sparking wildfires and driving climate change, the world’s energy system is linked to a host of justice issues. A commitment to a robust conception of democracy and social sustainability is the best way to guard against replicating those injustices as the world transitions to a renewable energy system. Philosophers can say much more about the value of energy democracy and the role it can play in creating a more sustainable, more just future.

We constantly forget our interdependence with nature as we lose track of what “natural” means. Consider especially the American nostalgia for an imagined past believed to be lost; a past in which our relationship with nature was more authentic, more natural. Yet, as I argue below, such a past never really existed. The scary thing is, so long as that nostalgia guides our desire for a return to a “proper” relationship with nature, we’re bound to be misguided and forget again and again, no matter how horrific the consequences.

This article draws from political ecology and ecofeminism to examine sympathy, expressed by record-breaking donations from North Americans, for the death of Cecil the Lion. The overlapping normative critique offered by these two perspectives together demonstrates how sympathy is disclosive of power relations. Sympathy reveals, relies upon, and reinforces different forms of gender, racial, and neocolonial domination; especially when western sympathy remains ignorant of the power relations, including their politics and histories, that shape attitudes toward non-human animals and grant them status as members of the (western) moral community.

Colleges and universities already contribute significantly to the fight against climate change, but the UN has recently called upon them to do even more. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that institutions of higher education play a unique role in combatting climate change and other structural injustices, not only by conducting research and disseminating knowledge, but also by fostering a form of collective political responsibility. A philosophical analysis of different forms of collective responsibility, with specific attention to the Fossil Free divestment movement, reveals how social position facilitates this contribution more so in colleges than in other institutions.

Governments have been slow to address climate change. If non-governmental agents share a responsibility in light of the slow pace of government action then it is a collective responsibility. I examine three models of collective responsibility, especially Iris Young's social connection model, and assess their value for identifying a collective, among all emitters, that can share responsibility. These models can help us better understand both the growth of the movement to divest from fossil fuels and the nature of responsibility for collective action problems. Universities and colleges share a responsibility because they occupy similar positions of, among other things, power and privilege.

A popular argument against direct duties for individuals to address climate change holds that only states and other powerful collective agents must act. It excuses individual actions as harmless since they are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause harm, arise through normal activity, and have no clear victims. Philosophers have challenged one or more of these assumptions; however, I show that this definition of harm also excuses states and other collective agents. I cite two examples of this in public discourse and suggest we reconsider the notion of harmful action in our discussions about climate change.