Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations Indigenous, African, Asian, and Western Perspectives
Book contents
- Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations
- Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Indigenous Philosophies on Justice between Generations
- Part II Intergenerational Ethics in Dialogue with Confucianism and Daoism
- Part III Humanity Facing the Near Environmental Future
- 9 Double Intergenerational Responsibility
- 10 Guidelines for a Global Constitutional Convention for Future Generations
- 11 Philosophy for an Ending World
- Index
- References
10 - Guidelines for a Global Constitutional Convention for Future Generations
from Part III - Humanity Facing the Near Environmental Future
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2024
Book contents
- Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations
- Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between Generations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Indigenous Philosophies on Justice between Generations
- Part II Intergenerational Ethics in Dialogue with Confucianism and Daoism
- Part III Humanity Facing the Near Environmental Future
- 9 Double Intergenerational Responsibility
- 10 Guidelines for a Global Constitutional Convention for Future Generations
- 11 Philosophy for an Ending World
- Index
- References
Summary
Humanity is currently in the grip of deep institutional denial concerning the adequacy of its institutions for dealing with serious intergenerational challenges, such as global climate change. In response, we should call for a global constitutional convention focused on developing new institutions to protect future generations and further their interests. This chapter presents ten initial guidelines for how to construct such a global constitutional convention. Although each follows as a fairly modest and natural inference (a ‘baby step’) from the purposes of the convention itself, the implications stand in sharp contrast to the status quo and to most conventional discussions of reform. The guidelines are, thus, both modest and radical. As a result, the global constitutional convention is, perhaps, just the kind of realistic utopia that we need.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Intercultural Philosophy and Environmental Justice between GenerationsIndigenous, African, Asian, and Western Perspectives, pp. 178 - 203Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Anderson, Kevin and Peters, Glen. 2016. “The Trouble with Negative Emissions.” Science 354, no. 6309: 182–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bostrom, Nick and Ćirković, Milan M., eds. 2008. Global Catastrophic Risks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrov, Radoslav, Hovi, Jon, Sprinz, Detlef F., Sælen, Håkon, and Underdal, Arild. 2019. “Institutional and Environmental Effectiveness: Will the Paris Agreement Work?” WIREs Climate Change 10: e583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Sue. and Kymlicka, Will. 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forster, Piers M., Maycock, Amanda C., McKenna, Christine M. and Smith, Christopher J.. 2020. “Latest Climate Models Confirm Need for Urgent Mitigation.” Nature Climate Change 10: 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2004. “The Global Warming Tragedy and the Dangerous Illusion of the Kyoto Protocol.” Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 1: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011a. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Challenge of Climate Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011b. “Some Early Ethics of Geoengineering.” Environmental Values 20: 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2013. “The Desperation Argument for Geoengineering.” Political Science & Politics 46, no. 1: 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2014. “A Call for a Global Constitutional Convention Focused on Future Generations.” Ethics & International Affairs 28, no. 3: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2019. “Motivating (or Baby-Stepping Toward) A Global Constitutional Convention for Future Generations.” Environmental Ethics 41: 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2022a. “Is the Paris Climate Agreement Another Dangerous Illusion?” In Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Yearbook 2021, 157–174. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2022b. “On the Scope of Institutions for Future Generations.” Ethics and International Affairs 36, no. 2: 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2022c. “Environmentalizing Bioethics: Planetary Health in a Perfect Moral Storm.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 65, no. 4: 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2023a. “The Ethics of Climate Targets: Extinction Rebellion vs. the Climate Establishment.” In The Routledge Handbook on Applied Climate Ethics, ed. by Brown, Donald and Gwiazdon, Katy, 38–51. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2023b. “Climate Targets and Moral Corruption.” American Philosophical Association Public Philosophy Blog.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen M. and Weisbach, David A.. 2016. Debating Climate Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ord, Toby. 2021. The Precipice. Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York, NY: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
Robinson, Mary. 2008. “Foreword.” In Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide. Versoix: International Council on Human Rights, pp. iii–iv.Google Scholar
Shepherd, John et al. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
Spash, Clive. 2016. “This Changes Nothing: The Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality.” Globalizations 13, no. 6: 928–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiery, Wim, Lange, Stefan, Rogelj, Joeri, et al. 2021. “Intergenerational Inequities in Exposure to Climate Extremes.” Science 374, no. 6564: 158–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations. 2015. “Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change: 195 Nations Set Path to Keep Temperature Rise Well Below 2 Degrees Celsius.” UN News. https://unfccc.int/news/finale-cop21.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2019. Emissions Gap Report 2019. www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019.Google Scholar
United Nations Secretary-General. 2013. Intergenerational Solidarity and the Needs of Future Generations. United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/756820#record-files-collapse-headerGoogle Scholar
Von Bulow, Michael. 2009. “Failure in Copenhagen is Not an Option.” COP Website. http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257 [no longer available].Google Scholar
Watene, Krushil. 2016. “Valuing Nature: Māori Philosophy and the Capability Approach.” Oxford Development Studies 44, no. 3: 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watene, Krushil. In press. “Kaitiakitanga: Toward an Intergenerational Philosophy.” In Oxford Handbook of Intergenerational Ethics, ed. by Gardiner, Stephen M.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whyte, Kyle Powys. In press. “Ancestry and Crisis: Intergenerational Ethics and Ecocentrism.” In Oxford Handbook of Intergenerational Ethics, ed. by Gardiner, Stephen M.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Yangyang and Ramanathen, Veerabhadran. 2017. “Well Below 2°C: Mitigation Strategies for Avoiding Dangerous to Catastrophic Climate Changes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences 114, no. 39: 10315–10323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar