Rachel Cripps

From a traditional environmental ethics perspective, rights of nature are linked to debates about non-anthropocentrism because they give legal force to the idea that nature has intrinsic moral value. However, we claim that the emergence of Indigenous-led rights of nature initiatives shows that intercultural respect is also an important aspect of this issue. Supported by an example involving an Indigenous nation in Peru, we explain how intercultural respect encourages greater engagement between Western and Indigenous philosophies. On this basis, we advance an argument that a river can be a living being with interests of its own. We also explain how intercultural respect is helpful for understanding the relationship between rights of nature and climate change. In general, our contention is that rights of nature should be understood in the context of efforts to counteract the disrespect of marginalized groups commonly found in environmental injustices. [Open access]

A just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has been associated with a variety of duties, including climate change mitigation and promoting procedural, distributive, and recognitional justice. Several authors have discussed transitional justice tensions between the need for rapid greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other aspects of a just transition, such as fair inclusion of stakeholders. We make the case that such trade-offs are often uncertain, and that this has important moral implications tied to inductive risks. Inductive risks arise when decision-making requires accepting or rejecting an uncertain statement, where the moral harms of errors may be asymmetrical. This line of reasoning suggests that very strong evidence should be required to accept that imposing injustices on marginalized populations is necessary for rapid emissions reductions. [Open access]

We claim that a moral obligation to take climate leadership by means of unilateral mitigation depends on the existence of a plausible follow-the-leader mechanism whereby unilateral mitigation by some increases the probability of sufficient mitigation by others to avert catastrophic climate impacts. By understanding these mechanisms, we can better articulate the obligation for climate leadership across various sectors, from government to individual actors, in the fight against climate change. [Open access]

This article explores the consequences of falling costs of solar and wind power for the ethics of climate change mitigation. We suggest that price competitiveness of renewables reveals a divergence of interest between fossil fuel consumers and producers: cheap renewables strengthen precautionary arguments for aggressive mitigation for consumers but threaten the economic base of producers. As existing applications of the precautionary principle to climate change do not address this issue, we develop a novel approach based on lexical utilities. Given the premise that climate catastrophe entails economic catastrophe but not vice versa, we argue that both producers and consumers should favor mitigation.