Climate Change, the Intersectional Imperative, and the Opportunity of the Green New Deal

Hathaway, Julia

doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1629977

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Green and Brandstedt 2020). For example, some theorists are exploiting the many interconnections between ecological themes and other issues that are of concern to already-active cultural and social movements-those grounded in class/labour, racial, indigenous, feminist, anti-colonial and other progressive projects-with a view to forging new ideological and political alignments capable of responding to interlinked challenges (Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans 2003;Bullard 1990;Green 2017;Hathaway 2020;Healy and Barry 2017;Prakash and Girgenti 2020;Schlosberg 2007;Walker 2011;Whyte 2017).…”

Section: Ecological Limits and The Good Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Having Too Much

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having Too Much is the first academic volume devoted to limitarianism: the idea that the use of economic or ecosystem resources should not exceed certain limits. This concept has deep roots in economic and political thought. One can find similar statements of such limits in thinkers such as Plato, Aquinas, and Spinoza. But Having Too Much is the first time in contemporary political philosophy that limitarianism is explored at length and in detail. Bringing together in one place the best writing from key theorists of limitarianism, this book is an essential contribution to political philosophy in general, and theories of distributive justice in particular. Including some of the key published articles as well as new chapters, Having Too Much is necessary reading for scholars and students of political theory and philosophy, as well as anyone interested in questions of distributive justice.

show abstract

Section: Ecological Limits and The Good Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Having Too Much

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Green and Brandstedt 2020). For example, some theorists are leveraging the many interconnections between ecological themes and other issues that are of concern to already-active cultural and social movements-those grounded in class/labour, racial, indigenous, feminist, anti-colonial and other progressive projects-with a view to forging new ideological and political alignments capable of responding to interlinked challenges (Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans 2003;Bullard 1990;Green 2017;Hathaway 2020;Healy and Barry 2017;Prakash and Girgenti 2020;Schlosberg 2007;Walker 2011;Whyte 2017).…”

Section: Ecological Limits and The Good Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological limits: Science, justice, policy, and the good life

Green

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed a revival of scientific, political and philosophical discourse concerning the notion of ecological limits. This article provides a conceptual overview of descriptive ecological limit claims-i.e. claims that there are real, biophysical limits-and reviews work in political and social philosophy in which such claims form the basis of proposals for normative limits. The latter are classified in terms of three broad types of normative theorising: distributive justice, institutional/legal reform, and the good life. Within these three categories, the article reviews normative proposals for limits on both aggregate-level and individual-level ecological exploitation. It also considers the relevance of political and ideological facts to the normative analysis of ecological limits, raising methodological questions about how normative theorists should respond to a world facing escalating ecological challenges. | INTRODUCTIONFrom claims of "peak oil" and climate "tipping points" to proposals for climate stabilisation goals and "planetary boundaries", recent years have witnessed a revival of scientific and political discourse concerning the notion of ecological limits (Dobson 2016). The climate crisis and a plethora of other ecological concerns have prompted philosophers, too, to make various kinds of claims about ecological limits. Reviewing these claims, one is struck by their diversity. Ecological limits receive expression in terms of widely varying normative vocabularies, from theories of "natural resource justice" (Armstrong 2017) to "capability ceilings" (Holland 2008), from an "ethos of restraint"This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Following Tuana (2019), we endorse ecologically informed intersectionality that traces environmental exploitation as intertwined with social injustices. Rather than glossing over historically specific contexts and ever‐shifting axes of privilege, power, and disenfranchisement, these are made explicit in ways that promote the forging of coalitions across diverse populations, agendas, needs, and aspirations (Hathaway, 2020). For instance, in majority Black areas in Washington, DC, ecological harm and racism need to be understood in conjunction with housing justice and climate justice, as shown by Ranganathan and Bratman (2019), requiring an ethics of care as part of a radical politics.…”

Section: Multispecies Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Multispecies justice: Climate‐just futures with, for and beyond humans

Tschakert

Schlosberg

Celermajer

et al. 2020

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2019, the climate emergency entered mainstream debates. The normative frame of climate justice as conceived in academia, policy arenas, and grassroots action, although imperative and growing in popularity across climate movements, is no longer adequate to address this emergency. This is for two reasons: first, as a framing for the problem, current notions of climate justice are insufficient to overcome the persistent silencing of voices belonging to multiple “others”; and second, they do not question, and thus implicitly condone, human exceptionalism and the violence it enacts, historically and in this era of the Anthropocene. Therefore, we advocate for the concept of multispecies justice to enrich climate justice in order to more effectively confront the climate crisis. The advantage of reconceptualizing climate justice in this way is that it becomes more inclusive; it acknowledges the differential histories and practices of social, environmental, and ecological harm, while opening just pathways into uncertain futures. A multispecies justice lens expands climate justice by decentering the human and by recognizing the everyday interactions that bind individuals and societies to networks of close and distant others, including other people and more‐than‐human beings. Such a relational lens provides a vital scientific, practical, material, and ethical road map for navigating the complex responsibilities and politics in the climate crisis. Most importantly, it delineates what genuine flourishing could mean, what systemic transformations may involve (and with whom), how to live with inevitable and possibly intolerable losses, and how to prefigure and enact alternative and just futures. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

show abstract

Climate Change, the Intersectional Imperative, and the Opportunity of the Green New Deal

Cited by 19 publications

References 30 publications

Having Too Much

Having Too Much

Ecological limits: Science, justice, policy, and the good life

Multispecies justice: Climate‐just futures with, for and beyond humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About