This essay argues for a distinctive approach to the climate problem, understood as one manifestation of a wider ethical challenge. In the first part, I provide a brief analysis of where we stand, and make three basic claims. First, the standard analysis of climate change as a tragedy of the commons (or prisoner’s dilemma) is a mistake. Second, this misdiagnosis is dangerous, since it obscures the deeper, yet underappreciated challenges of the tyranny of the contemporary and the wider perfect moral storm. Third, though they have several roots, these challenges are driven primarily by institutional failure and especially the neglect of intergenerational concern.
In the second part, I make a specific proposal about how to proceed. I argue that the current generation should take responsibility for addressing the institutional gap, and that a natural first step would be for morally serious actors to initiate a call for a global constitutional convention focused on concern for future generations. To push forward the discussion, I then advance a number of guidelines concerning the characteristics, aims, composition and scope of the convention. Taken together, these guidelines begin to suggest a vision of how a global constitutional convention might be organized. As such, they are very much open to debate. What is less open to debate is the need to have that discussion.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Fall 2014 (28.3) • Review
The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from World War I to the Present by David Runciman
This book provides a clear and plausible articulation of democracy’s central dilemma, paired with a far less definite treatment of its implications for the ...
Fall 2014 (28.3) • Review
Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World by Philip Pettit
An innovative and resonate work, this book explores new ground in Pettit’s ongoing attempt to articulate the importance of republicanism in the modern age.
Fall 2014 (28.3) • Essay
Who Are Atrocity’s “Real” Perpetrators, Who Its “True” Victims and Beneficiaries?
Modern law’s response to mass atrocities vacillates equivocally in how it understands the dramatis personae to these expansive tragedies, at once extraordinary and ubiquitous.