It is no exaggeration to say that climate change is the most pressing issue facing the world today. This is a strong claim to make, but the scientific evidence is more or less incontrovertible.[1] Barring the emergence of an imminent nuclear war, an alien invasion, or a deadly coronavirus mutation, climate change will remain the biggest challenge that humanity faces. Climate change is also, of course, intricately bound up with politics – practical politics, political science, and political theory are all having to come to terms with humanity’s impact on the planet.
It is a highly regrettable fact that the political sphere has not been particularly successful at dealing with the issue of global warming. This is especially true in the world of practical politics: environmentalists and green parties have often been – to put it mildly – less than effective at getting their message across to the population as a whole.[2] At the same time, populists who have participated in climate change denial have gained support across the world. Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Boris Johnson, Andrej Babiš, Vladimir Putin, and Viktor Orbán are just some of those who have engaged in climate change denial, attempted to stifle efforts to combat global warming, or both.[3] The state of affairs in political theory is also imperfect. Although environmental ethics is a branch of philosophy that has gained prominence in recent years,[4] ideas about ecology are still a sideline in much contemporary theorizing. Or, at least, the attention given to this topic does not reflect the seriousness of the situation.[5]
We need to see why it may be a prima facie difficult task for many political theorists to take ecological concerns very seriously. One possible reason is that the majority of political philosophers in the English-speaking world are, broadly, in the liberal and social democratic traditions. There is no straightforward way to reconcile liberalism as an ideology with environmentalism because it is historically associated with ideas such as progress, individualism, capitalism, economic growth, and the inherent worthlessness of nature – things that many green thinkers believe have contributed heavily to mass environmental degradation. Clearly, contemporary liberalism cannot be caricatured in this way, because it is a very broad family of related views. Not all liberals would be comfortable with the label ‘capitalist’ (it may well depend how that term is itself defined), nor would every liberal be fully wedded to anthropocentrism. However, for the purposes of this article, we can say that liberal theorists generally do accept social democratic capitalism and the need for economic growth.
Another, more specific, reason that many political philosophers have historically given less attention to environmental concerns relative to other issues is the enormous influence of John Rawls, who does not deal directly with environmentalism even though it was an established political topic when A Theory of Justice was written.[6] Because of Rawls’ continuing fame and influence within political theory, I will largely focus on Rawlsianism here – although many of the issues I raise can be applied to other kinds of liberal theorizing.
I believe that many liberal Rawlsian philosophers are reluctant to delve really deeply into this topic because they either believe that environmentalism is intrinsically unwelcoming to their liberal ideas, or they think that the Rawlsian framework already has the resources to deal with the issues of climate change and environmental degradation. Let us take a look at these alternatives.
***
Why would many believe that it may be a difficult task to reconcile Rawlsian liberal theory with environmentalism? First, many environmental activists and philosophers have argued that environmental concerns are so important that they demand recognition in the basic principles of justice.[7] However, when Rawls draws up his two principles of justice, there is seemingly an absence of environmental considerations.[8] Secondly, contemporary Rawlsian liberalism is pro-growth, in the sense that it usually accepts a conventional mixed capitalist economy. The changes to the conventional economic model that it does propose – such as the idea of a “property-owning democracy” instead of an orthodox welfare state – are designed to bring about more meaningful equality and societal cohesion.[9] These are of course very noble goals in themselves, but it is true that the issue of the environment is not a major concern in Rawls’ economic proposals. Another line of criticism that environmentalists make is that standard Rawlsian liberalism is still wedded to some variation of the idea of progress, which many in the green tradition find unacceptable. To even loosely connect technological progress with moral and political well-being is anathema to those who believe that the quest for endless technological progress is part of the problem when it comes to climate change.[10]
Given these considerations, why would some be tempted to think that standard liberal philosophy does have the resources to deal with environmental issues? One possibility is that Rawls’ famous veil of ignorance, in which rational agents choose principles of justice without any knowledge of their own talents, wealth and such, provides the answer. Although parties behind the veil are deprived of specific societal knowledge, they still have access to general social knowledge and facts of science.[11] As a result of this, they will be aware that climate change is happening and is a serious problem, and they will therefore be able to devise their principles of justice so that they take account of environmental matters. Even if those behind the veil are “mutually disinterested” and do not, as contracting parties, have any concern with each other’s specific interests or the natural world itself, it would still be rational for them to place some limitations on environmental degradation in order to ensure a reasonably safe world for themselves and those close to them. This is roughly the position outlined by, for example, Russ Manning, who says that Rawls’ theory “…can generally be applied to give justification for the prudent and continent use of our natural resources.”[12]
Another reason to be optimistic about the prospects of Rawlsian liberalism accommodating environmental problems is its ability to make room for issues of intergenerational justice. Manning contends that, with a little tweaking, Rawls’ idea of the “just savings principle” (which holds that we are morally required to set aside a “suitable amount of real capital accumulation” to future generations[13]) can be applied to environmental issues, such that future generations have a just claim to environmental ‘goods’ such as clean air and land[14]. Similar arguments are made by Marcel Wissenburg, who introduces the idea of a “restraint principle” which serves as an intergenerational side-constraint preventing the gratuitous destruction of nature.[15]
So, is the optimistic or pessimistic view of Rawlsianism going to win out here? Whilst I think that there is something correct about the arguments put forward by Manning and Wissenburg, they certainly have their limitations. Firstly, it seems clear that, in the context of climate change, non-ideal theory should be given priority because being able to put environmental policies into practice quickly is of the highest importance (this is not true in every area of political theory). Indeed, it is noteworthy that even Manning says that “I make no attempt to evaluate the adequacy of this ethic as a basis for environmental preservation; that may be a separate concern.”[16] So even those sympathetic to Rawls on this topic do not necessarily think that his system creates a very strong practical outline of how we should deal with climate change. In essence, we cannot posit principles that are excessively difficult to realize, because we cannot afford to wait for the non-ideal reality to catch up with the ideal. In general, therefore, tweaking Rawlsian theory can only take us so far; it cannot show that Rawlsian liberal theory is capable of taking climate change seriously enough considering the circumstances, and it cannot show that his theory is able to generate practical policies for dealing with climate change.
Secondly, questions about Rawlsians’ partial commitment to economic growth and the idea of progress are left relatively untouched. Although Rawlsian liberalism is against strong formulations of the idea of progress and growth, such as those given by Turgot, Condorcet, and Kant, Rawls himself still put forward the idea of the “realistic utopia” – he thought that his model of political liberalism could provide the framework not for unchecked progress, but for a great improvement in the human condition nonetheless.[17] In short, Rawlsian liberalism has a sense of optimism at its centre – if the institutions of the basic structure of society are brought closer to the just ideal, then correspondingly there will be an improvement in the moral and political condition of humanity.
Here we reach what is perhaps the heart of the matter: many Rawlsian liberals seem to believe that moral and political improvement is primarily driven by refining the basic structure of a society. If we resolve unfair inequalities and unjust social arrangements to the fullest extent possible, this will then produce the greatest conceivable expression of political improvement. This is precisely the claim that is rejected by many environmentalists; they do not believe that this is in any sense sufficient for moral and political progress, because improving the basic structure, at least in the long-term, first requires us to make sure that human civilizations are stable on the most fundamental level. It is not only that climate change will serve to compound social problems in many areas and make conflicts more likely, but also that depletion of natural resources and overpopulation will place limitations on how much growth is feasible. Thinkers such as Ronald Wright and Jared Diamond, for example, have detected disconcerting parallels between current trends and the collapses of the great civilizations of the past.[18] Most environmentalists are, of course, quite concerned with resolving unjust social inequalities. However, if they are correct to say that global warming, resource depletion, and environmental degradation are the greatest threats to the stability of human civilization, it seems to be necessary to first provide some kind of solution to these problems in order to create the conditions in which long-term social justice can possibly be realized.
One possible solution to this problem is, therefore, to give environmental ideas greater prominence in political theory. Just as Rawls saw the liberty principle as having lexical priority over the difference principle, so too should we see environmental principles as being of the highest importance. Given that thinkers such as Manning, Wissenburg, and Andrew Dobson have produced careful analyses of liberal intergenerational justice and argued that it aligns well with green politics, this seems like a good place to start.[19] However, it may still be that other principles will be necessary and even greater emphasis is needed on the importance of climate change. Political philosophers always write against a political and historical background; for those writing several decades ago, giving environmental concerns less space than other issues was acceptable, but for us it is not. In light of this, we must be prepared to revise liberalism to allow it to take account of problems that would have been almost unimaginable a few decades ago. If political philosophers are to respond effectively to the most pressing problems that we face now, then altering the fundamental principles of justice will be an intrinsic part of this.
This does not mean, of course, that we should restrict people’s basic freedoms in the name of environmental preservation. We do not, on account of the burning importance of environmental issues, have a carte blanche to override other all other concerns. There is, naturally, still the need to uphold basic freedoms and protect people against abuses of power. Environmentalism should not be prioritized over these vital concerns. Nor should it be prioritized over the need to provide everyone with a decent standard of living, healthcare, education, and so on. What I am suggesting, however, is that the threat of climate change is so serious that tackling it should sometimes be considered more important than trying to achieve long-lasting and extensive social justice; indeed, fighting the climate crisis is actually a prerequisite to achieving long-lasting social justice. In Rawlsian language, we can say that principles of environmental preservation should be treated as fundamental, or on a par with the liberty principle. If we are to have a fair society and an improvement in the condition of humanity in the long run, we will need to make sure that our society is sustainable on a basic environmental level.
It may seem as though I am arguing that environmental issues should always be prioritizedover problems such as inequality and social injustice. However, in practice this is not necessarily the case. It may be, in some situations, necessary to create a fairer society so that environmental concerns can be tackled in the first place. For example, it will perhaps be necessary to strengthen democratic institutions and curtail the influence of special interest groups such as oil companies in order to deal with climate change. However, there may also be situations in which achieving widespread social justice does not align neatly with tackling climate change. In such cases, I think, prioritizing environmental issues is indeed the right thing to do.
***
I now wish to turn to the difficult issue of how we are to win over the support of the majority and successfully put environmental policies into practice. It is crucial not to lose sight of this question; it is no good to simply create a coherent environmental philosophy if there’s little hope that it will appeal to many people. This is true of many political ideas, but it is very clear-cut with the case of global warming – putting the necessary changes into practice is in no sense optional, but of the utmost importance. I said that environmental activists and Green Parties have often been unsuccessful at getting their message across; here are some reasons why this may be the case. First, many people have the suspicion that environmentalism is hostile to individual freedom. Secondly, many conservatives and others on the right may feel marginalized in the environmental debate, which is usually dominated by those on the left.
How can these problems be addressed? If we make environmental concerns a key priority in our political theory – but do not place them above protecting basic civil liberties – that goes some way towards addressing the first concern. If a broadly liberal environmental philosophy that emphasizes the importance of basic freedoms can be found, that may help to reduce anxieties about ‘environmental authoritarianism’. Perhaps broadly liberal environmental theory can also allow mainstream conservatives to feel more at ease – most of them would commit to at least basic liberal values. Many of them would also be willing, I think, to engage in a programme to protect the environment, as long as it was couched in language that they could accept. Given the seriousness of climate change, it may be necessary to cross political and cultural divides by appealing to ideas that conservatives can relate to. As Andre Spicer has put it: “Researchers have found that conservatives heed messages about climate change when they are couched in values they hold dear – that means talking about saving the climate as obeying authority, preserving the purity of nature or defending your country.”[20]
I can see no reason to believe that the ideas I have outlined cannot take this into account. In fact, some environmental philosophers, such as John Gray, have already attempted to build a broadly conservative green theory that may still be compatible with liberalism. As he writes, “Many of the central conceptions of traditional conservatism have a natural congruence with Green concerns: the Burkean idea of the social contract…as a compact between the generations of the living, the dead and those yet unborn; Tory scepticism about progress…perhaps most especially, the traditional conservative tenet that individual flourishing can only occur in the context of forms of common life.”[21] There is clearly some room for dialogue between liberalism and conservatism here. The Burkean idea of the social contract can, to some degree, be reconciled with the idea of intergenerational justice. Moreover, both conservatives and liberals do share a common concern for individual liberty: It will probably be the case, of course, that some features of such a conservative philosophy do not fit in well with a liberal outlook. Nevertheless, given the prominence of conservative politics worldwide and the immense importance of protecting the environment, it is necessary to have a process of dialogue and compromise.
[1] See. e.g., Timothy M. Lenton et al., “Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against”, Nature, 27th November 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 (Accessed 15.54, 28/09/2020): “In our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute…” See also William J. Ripple et al., “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”, BioScience Vol.67, Issue 12, Dec. 2017, p.1026: “Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse…”
[2] See, e.g., Doug McAdam, “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States”, Annual Review of Political Science Vol.20, pp.189-208. See also Sarah Birch, “Real Progress: Prospects for Green Party Support in Britain”, Parliamentary Affairs Vol.62, Issue 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 53–71.
[3] See, e.g., Laura Millan Lombrana et al., “What Does Boris Johnson Really Think About Climate Change?”, Bloomberg, 5th February 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-05/what-does-boris-johnson-really-think-about-climate-change (Accessed 16.22, 28/09/2020); “Czech PM urges EU to ditch Green Deal amid virus”, EURACTIV, 17th March 2020, https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/czech-pm-urges-eu-to-ditch-green-deal-amid-virus/ (Accessed 16.29, 28/09/2020).
[4] See Andrew Brennan and Lo Yeuk-Sze, “Environmental Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/ethics environmental/>. (Accessed 16.33, 28/09/2020).
[5] For instance, in many of the top philosophy and political theory journals, there have been few articles in recent issues about climate change or environmental concerns.
[6] When I read, for example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Lathe of Heaven (New York, Avon Books, 1971), I was surprised to see her talk about the “greenhouse effect”.
[7] For a strong expression of this idea, see Arne Næss, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement”, Inquiry Vol. 16, 1973, pp. 151–155.
[8] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1999, p.266.
[9] See Leif Wenar, “John Rawls”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/rawls/>. (Accessed 16.56, 28/09/2020).
[10] See, e.g., Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress, Toronto, House of Anansi Press, 2004.
[11] Rawls, Theory, p.137.
[12] Russ Manning, “Environmental Ethics and John Rawls’ Theory of Justice”, Environmental Ethics, Vol.3, Issue 2, Summer 1981, p.155.
[13] Rawls, TJ, p.285.
[14] Manning, p.165.
[15] Marcel Wissenburg, Green Liberalism: The Free and the Green Society, London, University College London Press, 1998.
[16] Manning, p.156.
[17] John Rawls, “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory”, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Papers, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1999, p.307.
[18] See, e.g., Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, New York, Viking Press, 2011.
[19] See Andrew Dobson, Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998, ch.8.
[20] Andre Spicer, “The Extinction Rebels have got their tactics badly wrong. Here’s why”, The Guardian, 19th April 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/19/extinction-rebellion-climate-change-protests-london (Accessed 15.03, 28/09/2020).
[21] John Gray, “An Agenda for Green Conservatism”, in Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings, London, Penguin Books, 2010, p.308.