Philosophy
The Political Philosophy of Environmental Justice and Intergenerational Equity
Quick fact
The concept of intergenerational equity has been enshrined in legal instruments, such as the 1992 Rio Declaration, which states that the right to development must be fulfilled equitably to meet the needs of present and future generations. Yet, despite this, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, posing an ethical paradox.
Why this is interesting
We inherit the Earth from our parents, but we also borrow it from our children. Why should we care about people who don't even exist yet?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Political Philosophy of Environmental Justice and Intergenerational Equity
Environmental justice is about fairness in how environmental benefits and burdens are distributed among people. It grew from the 1980s U.S. movement that fought against the disproportionate dumping of toxic waste in poor, minority communities. The concept has two dimensions: intragenerational equity, which concerns fairness among people alive today, and intergenerational equity, which concerns fairness between present and future generations. Think of a shared pie: intragenerational equity asks how we divide the pie among those at the table now; intergenerational equity asks how much of the pie we should leave for those who will come later. The political philosophy of environmental justice and intergenerational equity combines these, arguing that a just society must not only treat its current members equitably but also consider its duties to posterity. This challenges a purely self-interested, short-term view of politics, demanding that we take into account the long-term consequences of our actions on the environment and on the welfare of future people.
A deeper explanation
The philosophical foundation of intergenerational equity lies in extending principles of distributive justice across time. John Rawls, in 'A Theory of Justice', proposed that we should design society under a 'veil of ignorance', where we don't know our generation. This thought experiment leads to a 'just savings principle', requiring each generation to save for the future, not out of benevolence but out of rational self-interest, since we don't know which generation we'd belong to. Other philosophers argue that future persons have moral status even if they don't exist yet, and our actions can harm them, creating a duty to avoid such harm. The concept also connects to human rights: the 1972 Stockholm Declaration recognized that humanity bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. Philosophically, this raises deep questions: Do future people have rights? Can we owe duties to those who don't yet exist? Proponents argue that intergenerational equity is not merely a moral ideal but a condition for long-term sustainability and justice. Critics, however, point to epistemic limitations—we don't know the preferences of future generations—and to the risk of imposing our values on them. Nonetheless, the principle is widely accepted in international environmental law, influencing frameworks like the precautionary principle, which says lack of full scientific certainty should not be used to postpone measures to prevent environmental damage.