This interview was made along side:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The University of Tasmania with the support of the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute hosted a multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Among the keynote speakers were Law Faculty Professors Jan McDonald and Ben Richardson. The Law Faculty's Dr Peter Lawrence co-convened the conference with Jan Linehan. The conference took place in Hobart from 8-9 Feb 2018.

Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice. Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

This interview was made along side:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The University of Tasmania with the support of the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute hosted a multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Among the keynote speakers were Law Faculty Professors Jan McDonald and Ben Richardson. The Law Faculty's Dr Peter Lawrence co-convened the conference with Jan Linehan. The conference took place in Hobart from 8-9 Feb 2018.

Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice. Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Linda Steg (University of Gröningen) outlined the role of values and past behaviour in shaping future action. Motivations play a key role in climate actions and responses to climate policy. The media is a space that reflects waves, but finds it difficult to create them.

This public talk was held along side:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania, with the support of local institutions and the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute, hosted a multidisciplinary conference in Hobart from 8-9 February 2018 examining the barriers to responding to climate change and implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice.The Conference and associated community event looked at barriers and strategies at the international and local levels.

Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

David Coady (University of Tasmania) addressed Two epistemic errors of many climate change sceptics. The first is the failure to recognise truth, due to the pursuit of belief or avoidance of error. The second is an independence principle, mistakenly requiring scientific conclusions to be acquired with a high degree of independence of each other. Climate sceptics are often characterised as anti-science, but rather may have a misunderstanding of science.

Richard Corry (University of Tasmania) discussed attributing responsibility for extreme weather events. In answering whether climate change caused a specific event, we may ask whether it ‘could not’ or ‘would not’ have happened without climate change. Both tests are unsatisfactory to answer the causal question. If we measure how much of a contribution the cause made, the results may show climate change as a significant cause of events. Three discussants shared their responses to the presentations.

Discussion:

Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute) highlighted the particular aspect of testimony. There may need to be better differentiation between scientific conclusions and normative judgements. James Risbey noted there is an inbuilt conservatism in science and a reluctance to talk about climate change as an alarming prospect. Mel Fitzpatrick addressed the silencing of scientists. Part of the problem is the well-funded misinformation campaign and attacks on climate scientists.

This talk was held at:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The University of Tasmania with the support of the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute hosted a multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Among the keynote speakers were Law Faculty Professors Jan McDonald and Ben Richardson. The Law Faculty's Dr Peter Lawrence co-convened the conference with Jan Linehan. The conference took place in Hobart from 8-9 Feb 2018.

Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice. Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Thierry Ngosso (University of St. Gallen, Switzerland) addressed the question Acceptable Pollution and Unacceptable Pollution: Do Burdened Societies Owe Strong Climate Obligations to their Citizens?, considering both the role of luxury and subsistence emissions, as well as what a burdened society is, and how these countries can demonstrate they are willing to become a well-ordered society and to reduce emissions. A burdened society may be defined as one that is willing to become a well-ordered society, but are not able to achieve this objective independently, as they are trapped by what can be considered as historic burdens, such as weak economic structures. The use of ‘burdened society’ terminology versus ‘developing’ terminology is important, as it is less paternalistic, and can put more weight on the individual, rather than the state. In the area of climate justice, obligations at the global level can be determined by calculating emissions, and whether the relevant emissions are luxurious emissions or subsistence emissions. Some argue that it would be unfair for wealthy countries to continue to emit luxury emissions while other countries remain poor. This is not to say that burdened societies have no obligation at all, just that they have a strong obligation to improve the lives of their own people, which often requires some level of emissions. At the same time, some emissions in burdened societies are luxury emissions, and burdened societies should have a strong climate obligation to reduce their own luxury emissions. Additionally, if burdened societies do not do whatever they can to reduce emissions, this can ultimately serve as a barrier to climate justice. A question arises as to whether emissions are luxurious or not. One way to determine this is to see which emissions are acceptable, as people need them to live a reasonable life, and which are not needed and thus unacceptable. However, using this acceptable and unacceptable distinction is more of a political than a moral decision, and it is known that most political communities have highly divided ideas. Alternatively, the simple distinction could be used of emissions that either can or cannot be avoided to live. This is less likely to be politically influenced and emphasises individual responsibility. Burdened societies should do what they can do to reduce luxury emissions. However, because of their relatively weak situation, they should be helped by well-ordered countries. This help should, in turn, be based on the burdened society seeking to become a more well-ordered society, which can be demonstrated in many ways. For example, many burdened societies rely heavily on natural resources. Reigning in natural resource use, increasing taxes, and becoming more vigilant in how taxes are used can have economic benefits while changing relationship between rulers and citizens, and making decision-making more accountable.

This talk was held at:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The University of Tasmania with the support of the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute hosted a multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Among the keynote speakers were Law Faculty Professors Jan McDonald and Ben Richardson. The Law Faculty's Dr Peter Lawrence co-convened the conference with Jan Linehan. The conference took place in Hobart from 8-9 Feb 2018.

Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice. Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Karin Hutflotz (Munich School of Philosophy) addressed How to do Justice to Each Other? Reconfiguring the Notion of Justice in Climate Change Discourse. To do justice to each other, people must work towards an intersubjective concept of justice. Currently notions of climate justice are often based on the idea of debtors and creditors. It is extremely difficult to determine who is the debtor in climate change issues, and yet people still hold on to this idea. It is difficult or even impossible to figure out costs, now or in the future. Additionally, justice is often described as abstract concepts and does not take into account social reality. Therefore, an intersubjective concept of justice should be worked towards. To work towards an intersubjective concept of justice, people could employ a 3-step program that involves sharing experiences, learning to listen to others, and asking fundamental questions in groups of high diversity, whilst meeting as equals. This would give everyone the opportunity to be a part of the discussion and hear all viewpoints. When working towards an intersubjective concept of justice, conflicts could be used as a resource. This could be the main resource of understanding and community building, and it would force people to focus on real values, and a common ground for basic human rights. It would not be necessary for people to agree on details or the content of values, but it is necessary to have a task or problem in common, to pursue a common goal, and to recognise people as equals and individuals at the same time. This is an ongoing recognition process.

This talk was held at:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

The University of Tasmania with the support of the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute hosted a multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward. Among the keynote speakers were Law Faculty Professors Jan McDonald and Ben Richardson. The Law Faculty's Dr Peter Lawrence co-convened the conference with Jan Linehan. The conference took place in Hobart from 8-9 Feb 2018.

Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice. Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Steve Vanderheiden, University of Colorado at Boulder

With the Paris Agreement in force without the United States - and with the Trump administration's hostility toward climate science and embrace of fossil fuels - the prospects for equitable international cooperation on climate change in the near future look grim. In this talk, US-based political scientist Associate Professor Steve Vanderheiden will consider the urgency of viewing climate justice as entailing responsibilities beyond the nation state, asking: What ethical responsibilities do citizens have now to promote climate justice, in light of what their national governments are and are not doing?

This public talk was held along side:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

A multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward was held in Hobart 8-9 February 2018. Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice.

Keynote Presenters were: Robyn Eckersley, Steve Vanderheiden, Catriona McKinnon, Marcus  Düwell, Jeremy Moss, Sivan Kartha, Lavanya Rajamani, Guy Goodwin-Gill, Jack Pezzey, Nathan Bindoff, Ben Richardson and Jan McDonald. (Full list of the presenters in the final programme.)

The University of Tasmania hosted the Conference with support of its Faculty of Law, the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute, the University of Tasmania's Institute for the Study of Social Change, Asia Institute, Faculty of Medicine, the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Science (IMAS).

 Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Catriona McKinnon, University of Reading

Abstract: Catriona McKinnon discussed climate change and despair, noting that we must become ‘prisoners of hope.’ There are reasons for climate change to create emotional responses including despair. These, however, can be differentiated from despair as an attitude or dispositional orientation towards climate change. Two sources of despair towards climate change were discussed: inefficiency of one’s personal emission reductions; and/or one’s own inability to make a difference to worsening climate change through personal emissions reductions. Philosophical reflection shows that despair, as an attitude towards climate change, is not justified. Instead, to facilitate effective individual agency, and to take effective action on climate change, we must become ‘prisoners of hope.’

This talk was held at:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

A multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward was held in Hobart 8-9 February 2018. Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice.

Keynote Presenters were: Robyn Eckersley, Steve Vanderheiden, Catriona McKinnon, Marcus  Düwell, Jeremy Moss, Sivan Kartha, Lavanya Rajamani, Guy Goodwin-Gill, Jack Pezzey, Nathan Bindoff, Ben Richardson and Jan McDonald. (Full list of the presenters in the final programme.)

The University of Tasmania hosted the Conference with support of its Faculty of Law, the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute, the University of Tasmania's Institute for the Study of Social Change, Asia Institute, Faculty of Medicine, the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Science (IMAS).

Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.

Marcus Düwell, Utrecht University

Marcus Düwell discussed making sense of the topics of human dignity and climate justice from the perspective of philosophical thought. Climate justice is a challenge for human culture. Yet our current normative frameworks, which were a reaction to past threats, may not be fit to deal with the challenges climate change presents today. This situation requires a rethinking of the basis of modern and open societies in a future-oriented direction with a basis in human dignity. By imagining future generations who depend on similar life conditions to ourselves in order to have human dignity, we can create a consistent, intercultural, and compassionate understanding of ourselves, of others and of our outlooks for the future. This imagination of, and prescription for, sustainable action presupposes hope and the possibility of an open future. The results may present challenges to the post-war ideas of democracy and human rights, when the exercise of liberty rights seems responsible for many ecological challenges. Imagination is crucial for the possibility of transcending the individual perspective to find universal and intercultural understandings. Climate justice is therefore a challenge for human culture and climate projects are inherently efforts towards a shared humanity.

This talk was held at:

Imagining a Different Future

Climate Justice Conference

A multidisciplinary conference examining the barriers to responding to climate change, implementing climate justice, and proposing ways forward was held in Hobart 8-9 February 2018. Despite the Paris Agreement, there are real concerns the prevailing neoliberal economic and political model, particularly with the move to more insular, nationalistic, fragile politics, cannot respond effectively to climate change and excludes key considerations such as ethics and justice.

Keynote Presenters were: Robyn Eckersley, Steve Vanderheiden, Catriona McKinnon, Marcus  Düwell, Jeremy Moss, Sivan Kartha, Lavanya Rajamani, Guy Goodwin-Gill, Jack Pezzey, Nathan Bindoff, Ben Richardson and Jan McDonald. (Full list of the presenters in the final programme.)

The University of Tasmania hosted the Conference with support of its Faculty of Law, the University of Utrecht Ethics Institute, the University of Tasmania's Institute for the Study of Social Change, Asia Institute, Faculty of Medicine, the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Science (IMAS).

Videos and Podcasts from the conference are available on the Knowledge Hub.