The normative foundations of climate legislation

Green, Fergus

doi:10.4337/9781786435781.00014

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, domestic civil society mobilization is likely to be less effective in countries where the political space for such mobilization is narrow (Falkner 2016(Falkner , 1123Flockhart 2006, 105-8). Third, more research is needed on the complementarities and/or tensions between AFFNs (the Bnegative^goals) and other desirable climate-related norms, frames and initiatives, such as 100% renewable energy / green transformation (the Bpositive^goals) and Bjust transition^(the hinge between the negative and positive goals) (Green 2017; see Online Resource 1, sec. 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, concepts such as greenhouse gases, B2°C average warming^, and B350 ppm^are abstract, technical constructions not readily grasped by laypersons (Gauri 2012, 11). Moreover, the prohibitionary AFFNs with which I am concerned are straightforward deontological imperatives, whereas grasping climate change goals typically requires cognitively demanding forms of ethical reasoning, such as utilitarian calculation or the resolution of multiple conflicts among rights and duties (Green 2017). These features make the empirical and moral messages associated with AFFNs more intuitively plausible (e.g., Bcoal kills: no new coalmines!^).…”

Section: Awareness-raising and Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anti-fossil fuel norms

Green

2018

Climatic Change

Self Cite

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, climate governance initiatives and associated scholarship have all but ignored the potential for Bglobal moral norms^to bring about changes in the political conditions for global climate mitigation. This is surprising, since global moral norms are widely employed-as both a mode of governance and an analytical framework-in other domains of global governance, from international security to human rights. However, recent national-level fossil fuel divestments, moratoria on new coal mines and bans on gas fracking, among other developments, suggest the promise of global moral norms prohibiting fossil fuel-related activities, which this article terms Banti-fossil fuel norms^(AFFNs). The article interprets recent examples of such activities in the light of international relations theory on moral norms to provide a general framework for understanding how AFFNs originate, spread and affect states. Specifically, the article argues that there are: (i) influential agents that are originating, and likely to continue to originate, AFFNs; and (ii) international and domestic mechanisms by which AFFNs are likely to spread widely among states and have a significant causal effect on the identity-related considerations or rational calculations of states in the direction of limiting or reducing the production or consumption of fossil fuels. The article also shows that, because they spread and affect state behaviour through mechanisms of Binternational socialization^and domestic Bpolitical mobilization^, AFFNs cohere with and build upon the new paradigm of global climate governance crystallized in the Paris Agreement. AFFNs, the article concludes, represent a promising new frontier in climate governance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Awareness-raising and Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-fossil fuel norms

Green

2018

Climatic Change

Self Cite

133

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%

“…17 There are also internationally-determined limits in the climate realm, as expressed, for example, in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and, more recently (but in a less precise way), in the Paris Agreement. 18 For further exploration of the normative foundations of climate legislation, see Green (2017). 19 The tradability or otherwise of quotas is an important design feature amendable to philosophical analysis, but is not germane to my arguments below.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Green

2021

Philosophy Compass

Self Cite

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

“…7 According to the main divestment coalition, 350.org, the number and market value of institutions committing to or having divested from fossil fuels grew from about 42 institutions valued at $50 billion in early 2013 to about 990 institutions valued at $7.2 trillion by October 2018. This rapid growth lends credence to the rise of an anti-fossil fuel norm among mostly ethically concerned financial institutions and international banks in Western countries, especially turning away from coal projects (Green, 2017). Although promising, norm diffusion towards a broader range of financial institutions and countries, as well as effective influence over fossil fuel state companies, remain to be seen.…”

Section: Divestmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has generally been approached through demand-side initiatives, yet there are increasing calls for supply-side interventions to curtail fossil fuel production. Pursuing energy transition through supply-side constraints would have major geopolitical and economic consequences. Depending on the criteria and instruments applied, supply cuts for fossil fuels could drastically reduce and reorient major financial flows and reshape the spatiality of energy production and consumption. Building on debates about just transitions and supply constraints, we provide a survey of emerging interventions targeting the supply of, rather than the demand for, fossil fuels. We articulate four theories of justice and criteria to prioritize cuts among fossil fuel producers, including with regard to carbon intensity, production costs, affordability, developmental efficiency and support for climate change action. We then examine seven major supply constraint instruments, their effectiveness and possible pathways to supply cuts in the coal, oil and gas sectors. We suggest that supply cuts both reflect and offer purposeful political spaces of interventions towards a ‘just’ transition away from fossil fuel production.

show abstract

The normative foundations of climate legislation

Cited by 13 publications

References 37 publications

Anti-fossil fuel norms

Anti-fossil fuel norms

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

Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About