Intergenerational distributive justice and climate change: Balancing present needs and future obligations

This paper critically examines the issue of intergenerational distributive justice and responsibility in the context of climate change on a normative and abstract level. The paper seeks to analyze the ethical and moral principles that underpin our responsibilities towards future generations in the face of global warming. Building on normative premises from political and moral philosophers, including Derek Parfit's no-difference view, John Rawls's Just Savings Principle, John Broome's prohibition of harm principle, Gardiner's tragedy of the commons analogy, Caney's Just Target Question and Just Burden Question, and Peter Singer's shallow pond analogy, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dimensions of climate change. The paper also examines theories by economists who have studied climate change, such as Nordhaus and Stern. The paper is highly relevant as the negative effects of climate change are already affecting many regions, and the poorest areas are likely to be the most severely impacted. Inequality will increase more and more because of the negative effects of climate change. Through presenting basic empirical findings on the connection between growth and greenhouse gas reduction and the effect of climate change on the most vulnerable regions, the paper normatively compares three different scenarios, ultimately arguing for the scenario in which the burdens of climate change reduction are carried by the rich. The paper concludes that present-day people have a responsibility to take action to address climate change and that this can be done without major restrictions on our autonomy. Nonetheless, the paper acknowledges that this responsibility must be balanced against other competing responsibilities towards today's living people. These responsibilities towards today's living people could compete with the need to save for future generations, even in the non-overlapping generations (PIP) hypothetical analytical assumption. The paper emphasizes the importance of achieving a more equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of climate change reduction to ensure a just and sustainable future for all. This is particularly important given the potential for climate change to exacerbate existing inequalities and further marginalize vulnerable populations. Therefore, the paper argues that addressing climate change must be a shared responsibility across generations and that a just and equitable transition to a sustainable future requires a commitment to distributive justice at all levels.