Alex Lenferna

Oil and gas corporations and their lobbyists are increasingly appropriating the
language of racial justice, anti-imperialism, and decolonization to block climate
action and advance a polluting, extractive, and neocolonial agenda. This article
argues that these appropriations are a form of propaganda called 'undermining
demagoguery', which serves to subvert the very ideals it claims to uphold.
Shell's attempt to explore for oil and gas off the Wild Coast of South Africa is
used as a case study. The article shows how such propaganda efforts are
becoming increasingly prevalent and recommends strategies that can be used to
counteract them.

This is a proof of a piece published in the Review of African Political Economy's Special Edition on the Climate Emergency in Africa.

It critically discusses the moral  question of whether South Africa deserves climate reparations. It examines the deeply unequal and polluting nature of the South African economy, to demonstrate how claims from South Africa for climate finance and reparations are morally complex and fraught. For South Africa’s claims for climate reparations and finance to be justified, the article proposes two conditions. Firstly, that South Africa acts in line with its fair share of global climate action. Secondly, climate finance must help to transform South Africa’s deeply unjust society and bring benefits not to the rich elite, who themselves owe climate reparation, but to the majority, especially the poor, black, and working class.

Applying those two principles, the briefing asks whether the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and the accompanying Investment Plan (the JET IP) announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa meets those conditions. It argues that they potentially fail to meet both. The piece also warns that global south countries must be critical of JETP funding models, as they may be used as tools use to entrench the interests of international financiers who seek to dominate the clean energy future.  To counteract such a possibility, climate justice movements should work to ensure climate finance is a true fulfilment of climate debt owed to the global south, which works to ensure meaningful social, economic, and ecological justice.

Critics of multinational corporate power in the Southern Africa region, the world’s most unequal, are increasingly concerned with the super-exploitative sources of wealth extraction, from labor, society and nature. Historically and especially today under the influence of Corporate Social Responsibility and social engineering by philanthrocapitalists – including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – that power comes dressed up as charity. It is reflected not just in the economy but also public policy spaces – in South Africa’s context, from healthcare to agriculture to sanitation – and ultimately threatens life on earth due to the untenable implications of leading climate-control strategies. These can be identified from two high profile visits to South Africa – one in 2009 –where Bill Gates visited Durban slums and the other in 2016 where Gates received accolades from the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Pretoria. Resistance narratives against Gates’ ideas spiked at those stages, but the crises his messages addressed continued, in part because of his own orientation to profiting from ‘false solutions’ instead of promoting serious solutions.

A predominant framing within much climate literature is that the cause of climate change is free market capitalism. In this chapter, using a range of international case studies from the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluting nations, I demonstrate how rather than the working of the “free” market underpinning the climate crisis, instead fossil fuel subsidies, government protection and favourable policies prop up the fossil fuel industry against competition and drive much of the climate crisis. Instead of free market capitalism versus the climate, we have an extensive regime of fossil fuel welfare versus the climate. As such, I argue that even proponents of free market capitalism should be opposed to the current fossil fuel welfare regime. The chapter then discusses how we could create a more prosperous low carbon future at a lower cost than how much we currently subsidise fossil fuels. Studies show that by redirecting the welfare we give to the fossil fuel industry to a more socially and ecologically just future, we could greatly improve social and ecological welfare and meet the Paris Climate Agreement target of keeping warming to 1.5°C.

One of the major questions surrounding the Green New Deal (GND) regards what role a carbon price should play. The Washington Post (WP) editorial board recommends a carbon tax first approach where you “Start with carbon pricing. Then fill in the gaps” – making a carbon price the central policy lever in a GND. Here I argue that the WP’s carbon price first approach to the GND is politically misguided and that instead we should take a carbon price last approach, where we lead with positive programs that deliver benefits to people, garner support, and provide low carbon alternatives. Only after doing so should we implement a carbon price, as a carbon price is not needed to fund a GND and making it central to the GND can drag down the GNDs popularity, making it harder to pass.

In this paper l argue that in order to avoid grave, substantial and unnecessary harm, there is a collective moral responsibility to transition away from fossil fuels in line with the Paris Agreements targets of keeping global warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels with the aspiration of holding warming to 1.5°C. I use that argument as the basis for the following three distinct but reinforcing moral arguments in favour of divesting from fossil fuels: (1) investing in fossil fuels contributes to grave, substantial, and unnecessary harm and injustice; (2) divesting from fossil fuels helps fulfil our moral responsibility to promote climate action; and (3) investing in fossil fuels morally tarnishes those who do so by making them complicit in the injustices of the fossil fuel industry.

This is a draft chapter for an upcoming collection entitled Climate Justice: Economics and Philosophy, to be published in Oxford University Press, edited by Henry Shue and Ravi Kanbur

This paper tracks the development of climate justice discourse around leaving fossil fuels in the ground. It then looks forward to the questions of equity that calls for the decline of fossil fuel production raise. It argues, following the Lofoten Declaration for a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production around the World, that global distributive justice requires rich countries, who have benefited the most from fossil fuel extraction, and who have most alternative available development pathways must lead in leaving fossil fuels in the ground. However, the paper shows that equitably managing the end of the fossil fuel era is complicated by how economic efficiency or the interests
of frontline communities might at times diverge from global distributive justice. In response, the paper argues that a useful short-term strategy is to focus on how equity and economic efficiency both suggest that wealthy historically polluting countries should leave high-cost, carbon-intensive fossil fuels in the ground. Beyond that,
the paper highlights how difficult questions and trade-offs emerge at points where considerations of equity and economic efficiency diverge. Such points of divergence represent a considerable challenge for advocates of an equitable decline of fossil fuel production, and are areas of significant interest for future research and advocacy.

Fossil fuel divestment has become a powerful tactic in the broader movement for climate justice. This chapter offers a sympathetic yet critical appraisal of the fossil fuel divestment movement, critically surveying relevant literature to understand both the power and limitations of the movement. It argues that the divestment movement has been successful in stigmatizing and exposing the injustices of the fossil fuel industry; raising broad awareness of the financially and ecologically unsustainable nature of the fossil fuel industry business model; shifting financial norms and financial capital; elevating morality and justice in the climate change discourse; and helping build a broader more powerful climate justice movement. The piece discusses why shareholder engagement is too limited a strategy to affect the sort of change needed of the fossil fuel industry. The paper then considers some of the divestment movement’s limitations and argues that the movement can leverage the power it has built, and improve upon some of its limitations through: an increased focus on direct financiers of fossil fuels, like banks; pushing for regulations of the financial sector and the fossil fuel industry; and wielding the political power created by the divestment movement to pursue policy changes and more politically engaged activism.

In response to the Trump Administration pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the U.S. sub-national “We Are Still In” coalition emerged. It has focused predominately on reducing domestic emissions. However, the U.S. is on track to emit much more than its fair share of the carbon budget, and, as such, can only meet its fair share of action by both aggressively reducing emissions and supporting climate action in developing countries. This article argues, therefore, that sub-national U.S. efforts should help address the funding gap created by the Trump Administration reneging on the U.S. pledge to deliver an additional $2 billion to the Green Climate Fund. Beyond making up for U.S. federal government inaction, I argue that global sub-national efforts can and should play a broader role in advancing ambition on international climate finance.

Scientists at Harvard University are gearing up to begin the world's first outdoor field experiments of solar engineering. They aim to test stratospheric aerosol injection, a technique that blocks out some of the sun's incoming radiation by inserting reflective particles into the earth's stratosphere. Although their tests could potentially help us better understand stratospheric aerosol injection, their framing of solar geoengineering masks its true costs, while simultaneously overstating the barriers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In November 2016, Washington State voted on the first state-wide carbon tax ballot initiative – Initiative 732. The ballot was ultimately unsuccessful, securing 41% vote. The opposition to Washington’s initiative foreshadows a broader potential national divide regarding carbon pricing approaches, which provides useful lessons for those considering future carbon pricing initiatives.

"In this paper I aim to critically analyse the underlying moral justification of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The aim of the critique is to highlight some of the problematic areas that underpin the Declaration’s rights and in doing so to point to ways that one can begin to rectify the problems with them and the Universal Declaration itself. The paper aims to critically examine the moral justification for the Universal Declaration’s rights, which is found in the works of Thomas Berry and his commentators who use the notion of ‘subjectivity’ to justify the existence of such rights. The paper critically examines such a notion and argues that it is not strong enough to do the work required of it, and that it is too problematic to serve as a justification for the Universal Declaration’s rights, as the ethical framework it provides is too cryptic and indeterminate,
and does not provide us with an adequate action- and lawguiding
framework upon which to establish the Universal Declaration and its rights."

"A commonly held view is that giving to the poor is superogatory i.e., that while it is a good thing to do, it is not morally wrong for us not to do so. This essay sets out to show that for the affluent in the world giving to the poor is not superogatory but is rather a moral obligation. The paper critiques Singer's famous argument in ‘Famine, Affluence
and Morality’ and finds that although the argument is a cogent and powerful one, Singer, when trying to apply the argument to how we should act, somewhat skews the argument's real implications. Furthermore, it is argued that a cosmopolitan concern for the global poor is the morally correct response to have, and the author defends this
view by examining the proper effect that aspects like geographical distance, nationality, reciprocity, and the nature of the global economic system should have on our moral considerations. In conclusion, it is argued that since the way that each person utilises his/her resources is a reflection of what he/she values, then for many of us in positions of affluence, in order to be moral, much more should be done in order to help those experiencing dire, life-threatening poverty
across the globe."

This is a briefing that the author wrote exploring the connections between energy and corruption in South Africa, and how it impacts the pursuit of climate justice and human rights. It was written for an agency that has given the author permission to share it, but has asked not to be named.

A booklet written for 350Africa.org on the campaign for a Green New Eskom. The campaign aims to transform Africa's biggest polluter, Eskom, into a force for climate justice. It's central demand is for a rapid and just transition to a more socially owned, renewable energy powered economy, providing clean, safe, and affordable energy for all, with no worker and community left behind in the transition.

A climate justice analysis of major South African political party manifestos written for 350Africa.org.

Abstract: As we head to the polls here in South Africa, which party will work on equitably transforming us from the biggest carbon polluter on the continent to renewable energy superpower? And if you're a voter who wants to support a party that really cares about taking climate action, then where should you put your X on May 8th?

In June 2017, Seattle City Council unanimously passed an important resolution affirming its commitment to climate action and the Paris Climate Agreement. Among many other laudable steps, the resolution committed to “work with concerned communities, companies, local and state governments, and coalitions to ensure Seattle is participating and leading, where appropriate, the response to fulfill all United States commitments in the Paris Agreement, such as supporting the Green Climate Fund”. In this discussion document, we propose steps Seattle can take to help fulfil that commitment, focusing specifically on how it can support the Green Climate Fund and broader international climate finance.

As part of the University of Washington Program on Climate Change Graduate Certificate in Climate Science Capstone Project, Alex Lenferna and Karl Lapo collaborated to develop a joint presentation for general audiences, which provided an interdisciplinary approach to understanding climate change impacts and responses in Washington State. The talks aimed to connect projections of the potential future impacts of climate change in Washington State to proposed statewide efforts to mitigate climate change. The presentation was separated into two complementary sections: Karl presented on projected climate impacts in Washington State, while Alex provided an analysis of the need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and discussed Washington's proposed carbon tax initiative (Initiative 732). The presentation was aimed at a general audience and was delivered at community colleges, universities and other public venues. Summary of Content As the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) highlights, " The Northwest's climatic, ecological, and socioeconomic diversity set the stage for a diverse array of climate impacts, many of which will be united by their dependence on availability of water and other natural resources " (Dalton, Mote, Snover, & [Eds.], 2013). Karl's portion of the presentation drew on his own research, that of the CIG, and broader literature to present the physical impacts of climate change on Washington State. As Karl aims to highlight, the actual impacts that will be felt most in the region will be from changing hydrology (e.g., earlier snowmelt, more winter rain), rising sea levels, and disturbances to forests. These impacts on physical systems are likely to translate to substantial impacts on climate sensitive systems and populations. Moving from a more scientific perspective on the potential impacts on climate change, Alex's presentation summarized broader socioeconomic estimates of the potential impacts of climate change on Washington State, showing the difference between business-as-usual estimates and potential avoided impacts if global greenhouse gas emissions are reduced significantly. Following this, Alex highlighted some of the potential steps that Washington can take to help mitigate future impacts of climate change, focusing particularly on Washington's carbon tax ballot initiative, and providing estimates of potential greenhouse gas emission reductions of the initiative, as well as examining the impacts that the policy might have on Washington's economy and people, including co-benefits from acting on climate change.

As part of the campaign to get the Gates Foundation divested from fossil fuels, this report was drawn up to make the case for divestment. It examines the financial, political, and moral case for divestment.  It was co-authored by Alec Connon and Alex Lenferna

On May 14th 2015 the University of Washington divested from thermal coal, making us (at the time) the richest and largest public university to make a fossil fuel divestment commitment. This document shares the research reports which formed the foundation of our case for divestment.

NEPC (out of Boston) is the investment consultant to the Seattle City Employees Retirement System (SCERS). They were tasked with analyzing the impacts that a range of fossil fuel divestment options might have on the SCERS portfolio. However, the initial report was inadequate in a number of ways, but principally because it did not address the City's core request, and presented only a single scenario of immediate and total divestment. As a result of this, the SCERS board voted to request additional research into the original question of how fossil fuel divestment might be sequenced over five years. In response, NEPC produced a second report, which the authors of this analysis believe to be equally flawed. In summary, not an exhaustive list, what follows are elements of the divestment memos that are weak or may be confusing or misconstrued.

This report serves to aid the city of Seattle's Employees Retirement System (SCERS) in deliberations as to whether it will be the first pension fund in the US to divest from fossil fuels. It provides an overview of the growing literature on fossil fuel divestment, and concludes that divestment can be consistent with fiduciary duty as fossil fuels are becoming an increasingly financially and ethically irresponsible investment for a number of different yet reinforcing reasons. Those include but are not limited to considerations of the carbon bubble, the rapid decrease of alternative energy costs, increasing costs of fossil fuel extraction, increases in energy efficiency, changing social norms, increased environmental regulation, and suppressed growth in key economies.

An opinion piece exploring why it is vital for civil society to reject the South African government's proposed energy plan - the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy's draft Integrated Resources Plan of 2023. The plan would make South Africa's energy more expensive, polluting and unreliable, compared to a more renewable energy heavy plan. In addition, it's failure to invest in renewables coupled with the privatisation of energy generation in South Africa, is creating deep inequalities in who can access and benefit from renewable energy.

An opinion piece exploring how both the United Nations Climate Conferences and the South African government have been captured by fossil fuel lobbyists and those with vested interests in the industry. The piece speaks to the need to build movements that are powerful enough to undo the capture of these spaces and build climate justice on energy democracy.

An opinion piece exploring how South Africa’s experience in piloting a new type of climate finance vehicle - the Just Energy Transition Partnership - can inform debates about how to fund a just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy

Op-ed critiquing the Masterclass on Energy Transition Leadership delivered by Minister Gwede Mantashe.
In what may be the most tone-deaf event of the year, the Wits Business School decided to host "an Energy Transition Leadership Masterclass" delivered by none other than Gwede Mantashe. Judging by the responses online, it was received poorly by South Africans living through a devastating energy crisis. A crisis for which fewer people are more responsible than Minister Mantashe himself. Mantashe, in his usual style, used the public platform provided to him to spread a litany of half-truths, falsehoods, and misinformation to deflect blame from him and his government's failures. He also used it to promote his usual false solutions to the energy crisis, which would line the pockets of the few, while making our energy more expensive, polluting, and unreliable.

An opinion piece on African Energy Week, which saw a flurry of coal, oil and gas lobbyists, executives, and fossil fuel friendly government officials gather, supposedly in the name of "Making Energy Poverty History by 2030". In reality, it seems more about extracting the resources of Africa for foreign fossil fuel interests, while leaving behind those it claims to care about.

An opinion piece written as part of delivering an open letter to South Africa's Minister of Electricity from the Climate Justice Coalition Secretariat. The piece that to effectively deliver on a just energy transition, the minister will need to push back against deep-seated corruption and powerful lobbies who aim to lock us into an expensive, polluting and privatised future.

A satirical piece published in the Daily Maverick on May 17 th 2023. It responds to public comments by South Africa's Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy. Minister Mantashe said that environmentalists are foreign funded forces trying to block South Africa's development and that South Africa must introduce legislation to curtail their activities. This piece calls out the absurdity of Mantashe's claims, given that it is the ANC itself, which is in bed with a host of rapacious foreign and multinational corporations.

An opinion piece published in News 24 examining why the Economic Freedom Fighters offer false solutions to South Africa's energy crisis. They advocate for policies and approaches that would make South Africa's energy more expensive and polluting, while enriching a few.

An analysis piece exploring the moral question of whether South Africa deserves climate reparations. The piece examines the deeply unequal and polluting nature of the South African economy, to demonstrate how claims from South Africa for climate finance and reparations are morally complex and fraught. For South Africa’s claims for climate reparations and finance to be justified, I propose two conditions: 1) that South Africa acts in line with it’s fair share of global climate action; and 2) climate finance must help to transform South Africa’s deeply unjust country and bring benefits not to the rich elite, but to the majority, especially the poor, black and working class. Based on this analysis, the piece would do a critical analysis of whether the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) Investment Plan announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa meets those conditions. I argue that it potentially fails to meet both.

An opinion piece published in News 24, written by the general and deputy secretary of the South African Climate Justice Coalition. It describes why during COP 27 they are Marching for Jobs, Clean Energy and Climate Justice. It provides a critique of the South African government's inadequate climate agenda, characterised by austerity, privatisation and more fossil fuels. It also critiques how the Just Energy Transition Partnership has been negotiated in relative secrecy without meaningful civil society participation.

A long-form piece published in Jacobin exploring the disastrous state of South Africa's energy system. The piece explores how South Africa got into this ruinous state and how the energy crisis is being used to drive a privatization agenda. It explores how the left in South Africa is historically weak and will need to mobilise to push for alternative more just energy futures, such as the campaign for a Green New Eskom.

An opinion piece in Daily Maverick, exploring how South Africa's load shedding crisis is going to get even worse unless we implement an emergency plan to roll out renewable energy and storage, and put in place a new energy minister capable of delivering. It is co-authored with Cleopatra Shezi.

An opinion piece in News 24 exploring how the Climate Justice Coalition is working to remove the biggest obstacles to ensuring a just transition to renewable energy. That has meant a significant focus on removing those from power who deny the severity of the climate crisis in word or in action.

An opinion piece in Finance 24 exploring how Eskom has put out a code red and urgently needs new energy supply. It's ability to bring new energy online is being constrained by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, which is slowing down the uptake of renewable energy - the fastest, most affordable and cleanest solution to load shedding.

This piece was written in advance of Shell returning to defend their exploration for oil and gas on South Africa's Wild Coast. In Shell's defense, South Africa's minister of mineral resources and enegy, Gwede Mantashe, claims the case against Shell is the Eastern Cape's second Nongqawuse moment. He is referring to the prophecy of Nongqawuse who said the Xhosa should slaughter their cattle and in return they would see prosperity and overcome the British. The result was instead a devastating famine that weakened the amaXhosa. The piece argues that Mantashe is kind of right that this is like the second Nongqawuse moment, but misunderstands his role. It is him who is the false prophet of oil & gas prosperity set to plunge us into famine.

An opinion piece published in Mail & Guardian critiquing Minister Mantashe and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy's plans to lock South Africa into polluting, expensive and volatile fossil gas.  The original title was "Mantashe embraces the 'imperialist' energy agenda", because the piece also critiques Mantashe’s hypocritical, selective and self-serving anti-imperialism. It was published in Mail & Guardian under the title, "Gwede Mantashe embraces more hot air".

An opinion piece debunking the spurious conspiracy theory by South African Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Mantashe that those who are protesting him and his department's polluting agenda are "foreign forces". It shows how on the contrary it is Minister Mantashe who is often working on behalf of "foreign forces" in the form of polluting and rapacious Western multinational corporations.

An opinion piece supporting the case for boycotting Shell in response to their plans to do seismic testing in pursuit of oil and gas on South Africa's Wild Coast. The piece also responds to charges of hypocrisy that have been levelled against those calling for the boycott against Shell.

An opinion piece in Amandla Magazine describing the #UprootTheDMRE mobilisations that took place in South Africa under the leadership of the Climate Justice Coalition. The mobilisations targeted the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy under Minister Mantashe. They challenged the harmful mineral energy complex and called for transformation at the DMRE including for the minister to step down from his position, given his failures to ensure a just energy and mining future.

At the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, the South African government announced a major R130 billion deal with the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France and the European Union. The climate-finance agreement aims to invest in a just transition to renewable energy and away from coal for South Africa. This piece provides a critical analysis of the deal, both deconstructing bad faith critiques of it, and also raising some critical concerns surrounding the deal.

Minister Mantashe is opposing what might be Eskom's only chance to save itself - a plan to secure international climate finance to reduce Eskom's debt to a sustainable level, and accelerate a just transition to renewable energy. By doing so, Mantashe may be dooming South Africa to devastating economic impacts, widening energy injustice, and deepening dysfunction.

Opinion piece in the Sunday Times discussing the South African #UprootTheDMRE protests and why they are calling for Minister Mantashe to step aside, and for the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to be transformed. 
Authors:
Sarah Robyn Farrell is an environmental communicator, organiser, and volunteer action & advocacy coordinator with the youth-led grassroots organisation African Climate Alliance
Mametlwe Sebei is president of the General Industries Workers Union of South Africa and works in the environmental justice programme at Lawyers for Human Rights.
Cleopatra Shezi is treasurer of United Front JHB and an energy and climate justice activist with Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee.
Dr Alex Lenferna is a climate justice campaigner with 350Africa.org and serves as secretary of South Africa’s Climate Justice Coalition.

An analysis piece written in New Frame exploring why South Africa's Department of Mineral Resources and Energy under the leadership of Minister Gwede Mantashe is driving a polluting, corrupt energy and mining agenda, which serves the interests of big corporations over the health and well being of communities, workers and the environment.

An op-ed exploring why South Africa's draft Nationally Determined Contribution is too weak. In sum, SA's target is far too weak, continues to make the climate crisis worse for decades to come, and makes "an unjust and high-stakes gamble" on unproven geoengineering schemes.

An opinion piece in response to South African student protests around fees, showing that the country is enacting a form of selective austerity where it grossly subsidizing polluting corporations while enacting austerity in places like education budgets.

An opinion piece exploring how Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Mantashe is enactign tax and rate-payer funded socialism for the wealthy coal, oil and gas corporations polluting our planet, and harsh austerity for the impoverished, who are left in the cold and the dark.

Opinion piece written in partnership with the Climate Justice Coalition announcing our Green New Eskom campaign. Co-authors: with Mametlwe Sebei, Cleo Shezi & Rehad Desai

Abstract: As we attempt to recover from the economic and public-health effects of Covid-19, we must also address one of the great challenges facing South Africa, namely, the future of Eskom. That is why today, on World Environment Day, we as the Climate Justice Coalition are launching a Green New Eskom campaign. We are demanding a rapid and just transition to a renewable-energy-powered, zero-carbon economy, providing clean, safe and affordable energy for all, with no worker or community left behind. We must be honest: Eskom's reliance on expensive, unreliable and polluting coal is killing us. Electricity tariff increases and load-shedding are crippling the South African economy and hurting the poor. Eskom's unsustainable debt levels are draining tens of billions of rands in taxpayer money and driving austerity. Its power is literally killing our people through air and water pollution. Furthermore, as the biggest climate polluter in Africa, it is causing death and devastation across the world through climate change. A better Eskom and a more just energy future is possible though, if we pursue a swift transition to renewable energy that benefits all South Africans. Renewable energy is now South Africa's cheapest form of energy. And it is creating jobs. Research shows that compared to sticking to our polluting system, a 100% renewable-energy future can create 200 000 more jobs by 2030 and one million more by 2050.

This dissertation makes the moral case for equitably transitioning away from fossil fuels in line with the Paris Climate Agreement’s more stringent target of keeping global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It argues that we should do so while relying as little as possible on risky and uncertain negative emissions and geoengineering technologies, so as to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the fossil fuel era and posing grave potential costs both to the present and future generations. The dissertation addresses a central objection to the moral imperative to transition away from fossil fuels, namely that it will detrimentally impact the poor and vulnerable. It argues in response that protecting the interests of the poor and vulnerable can be best achieved through a rapid yet just transition away from fossil fuels. Additionally, based on the moral case to transition away from fossil fuels in line with 1.5°C, the dissertation also explores what personal moral responsibility agents have to reduce fossil fuel usage and act on climate change more broadly. It situates our moral responsibility in the context of what the author argues is an emergency situation where we need to rapidly and comprehensively move away from fossil fuels to avert catastrophic climate change and the substantial, widespread and unnecessary harms associated with continued fossil fuel dependence. Based on the development of an Anti-Pollution Principle, the author concludes that in the face of this emergency we do have morally demanding moral responsibilities to act on climate change and reducing fossil fuel dependence. The author argues that while we do have some responsibilities to reduce our personal emissions and consumption, the more important task which can often outweigh the need to reduce personal emissions, is the need to push collectively for deep, rapid, and comprehensive structural change.

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of an MA in Philosophy at the University of Washington

Anthropogenic climate change is set to have major impacts on people across the globe, including significantly increasing the number of people who are displaced and/or who cannot adequately meet their basic needs in their home countries. Many such impacts are already upon us and are becoming more pronounced as anthropogenic climate worsens. This changing global reality arguably calls for us to rethink what it means to create a just and fair global migration regime as traditional ideas of what constitutes a just global response to migration may be inadequate in circumscribing the concerns of justice posed by our changing climate and global community. The need for careful reconsideration is underscored by the fact that many of the impacts of climate change will fall on the poorest people who are also those least responsible for causing anthropogenic climate change. Thus, a critical reflection upon our theories of justice is important to help inform what a just and fair migration regime might look like in our changing climate and world.
Such work has been done to a certain extent by Matthias Risse who uses his theory of the common ownership of the Earth to provide an account of what a just migratory regime might look like for climate change displaced persons (CCDPs).  According to Risse, we are all common owners of the earth, and thus we have rights to natural resources which are needed to satisfy our basic needs. Furthermore, states have the responsibility to take in migrants-in-need in proportion to how much natural resources the state has relative to other states. In this paper I provide a critical appraisal of the theory of the common ownership of the earth and argue that it is an important theory of justice, which can help us to better understand what justice for climate change displaced persons and global migration might entail. However, while I believe that common ownership is a strong position, I argue that Matthias Risse’s conception of common ownership of the Earth is too narrow as it focuses only on untouched natural resources. I argue that in order for us to truly instantiate what common ownership of the earth means and properly recognize our obligations to CCDPs and other migrants who cannot meet their basic needs, that common ownership claims needs to be expanded to include not only natural resources, but also humanity’s broader legacy which includes man-made and human capital. In doing so, common ownership can serve as a more robust theory of justice, and better recognize what it means to treat all individuals as equals.

"This thesis aims to provide a critical reconstruction of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth and its underlying moral justification and in doing so provide a stronger and improved version of both.

In Chapter 1 I explore what sort of moral justification is necessary to establish the Universal Declaration on firm grounds and explore its relation to environmental ethics and rights discourse. I argue that a non-anthropocentric perspective is necessary to justify the Universal Declaration’s rights. In Chapter 2 I explore the underlying justification of the Universal Declaration as discovered in the works of Cormac Cullinan and Father Thomas Berry. I argue that their ethical framework is indeterminate, has many ambiguities and uncertainties, and, among other problems, it does not provide a clear action-guiding framework. In Chapter 3 I develop an alternative justification for the Universal Declaration. I argue against many predominant moral theories, that in light of our best scientific and moral understanding we should expand the realm of moral concern to include all living beings, a moral theory I call Life’s Imperative. In Chapter 4 I illustrate that Life’s Imperative is a much stronger, more coherent justification for the Universal Declaration, one that coheres with both our best understanding of the natural world and our relation to it, and to an environmental ethic reflective of that relationship. Unfortunately many of the weaknesses in the current implicit justification of the Universal Declaration have also led to the Declaration enshrining rights that are themselves problematic. In order to address these issues, I revise the Declaration's rights to accord with the stronger justification that I established in Chapter 3. The end result of doing so is a revised version of the Universal Declaration."

This is a syllabus from an undergraduate course on environmental ethics I taught in the Fall of 2018 at the University of Washington, which was co-listed in the environmental studies and philosophy departments.
Here's the summary description:
We live in a time of unprecedented environmental change, with multiple global environmental challenges unfolding simultaneously from climate change, air and water pollution, ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and ocean change. How we respond to these interconnected problems raises important questions of ethics, values, justice and fairness. In this course, we will develop philosophical skills and theories to explore how to identify, articulate and think critically about the ethical dimensions of such environmental challenges. We will ask questions such as: What is the extent and nature of our individual and collective moral responsibility to act on environmental challenges? How do we integrate questions of justice and concern for the most vulnerable into environmental work? What moral responsibilities do we have to future generations, distant others, nonhuman animals, plants and ecosystems? What are the benefits and limitations of economic considerations in environmental policy making?

One of the central questions in global climate negotiations is determining what temperature targets the global community should keeping global warming to. How we go about determining what levels of climate change are acceptable versus what is too dangerous, involves complex questions of science, economics, politics, values, and more. Within the climate ethics literature and policy spheres there has been significant disagreement and contestation about what the global warming target should be. While there are some, particularly within the fossil fuel industry, who seem satisfied to put the world onto a path of 3°C or more above-preindustrial levels, within the climate policy and climate ethics literature such levels of warming are widely regarded as prohibitively dangerous. The debate in such arenas instead typically centers around whether we should adopt a more stringent 1.5°C target, or less stringently keep warming below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In this paper, I aim to argue in favor of the 1.5°C target and show that if we are attempting to elevate the interests of the global poor that we should aim as best as possible for the 1.5°C target.
To frame my argument in favor of the 1.5°C target I give particular focus on a recent argument by Darrell Moellendorf in his book: The moral challenge of dangerous climate change: values, poverty, and policy.  I argue contrary to Moellendorf that the 2°C is not supported by science as the safe limit for climate change. Rather I argue that the 2°C is a product of politics and power, particularly from the global north who are both more significant polluters than the global south, and who are also less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. I argue that if we look to the science that far from 2°C being a safe target, already at 1°C we are seeing dangerous climate change, and as such, to best avoid dangerous climate change and respect the voices of the global south, 1.5°C should be our target not 2°C. I show how in Moellendorf’s arguments in favor of 2°C different forms of epistemic injustice serve to marginalize the voice and interests of those most impacted by climate change, particularly voices from the global south who have long called for the more stringent 1.5°C target.
I then go on to argue that contrary to Moellendorf, that aiming for 1.5°C would not lead to an economic recession, which will leave the global poor in the dark, without energy access. Instead, I argue that a clean energy revolution in alignment with the 1.5°C could create more energy access, economic growth and prosperity compared to the 2°C target. However, I argue that in order to ensure this happens, there is a significant moral responsibility on behalf of rich and developed nations to contribute financially to developing and least developed nations to assist them to finance the transition to a clean energy future, as well as to deal with impacts of the harmful climate change already locked in. The responsibility is grounded both in the fact that rich and developed nations have used up much more than their fair share of the global carbon budget, and through doing so they have contributed to harmful impacts which fall disproportionately on developing nations.

This paper attempts to develop and apply a theory of global justice grounded in common ownership of the Earth to questions of global migration, with a particular emphasis on how climate change will reshape questions of global justice and migration. The paper critiques and adapts Matthias Risse's common ownership of the Earth  position to include refugees having a right not only to their fair share of natural resources in order to meet their basic, but also of humanity's legacy.

Geoengineering is often seen as being able to fix the problem of global warming and for a rather small price tag, at least when compared to the deeply expensive alternative of investing in clean energy, or so the frame goes. However, this type of framing is representative of a problematically short-sighted and narrowly defined analysis of the problem, whereby consideration is only given to the short-term costs of reducing global surface temperatures. What such a framing fails to include is the broader context of the various strategies and all of the costs benefits and risks associated with them. In response to the problematic framing I argue that clean energy and rapid emission reductions is a deeply preferable strategy to stratospheric sulfate injection on multiple grounds including saved fuel costs, reduced climate impacts, and reduced costs from expensive and risky forms of geoengineering.

Increasing evidence indicates that human activity is causing both slow onset climate-related harms and extreme weather events across much of the globe.  These harms are especially pressing for many of the least developed countries (LDCs) – which, in general, bear little responsibility for contributing to climate change and are often the most vulnerable to its effects.  As the toll of ‘loss and damage’  from climate change rises, vulnerable countries and communities have begun to explore ways to seek compensation for the harms wrought by climate change. However, significant uncertainty exists as to what extent we can attribute these harms to anthropogenic climate change and support claims of compensation. In this paper I explain how despite the complex causal pathway of climate harms and  inherent uncertainty in computational models of climate change, that computational models can nonetheless serve as sufficient evidence in support of the claim that corporations and governments, particularly in the developed world, can be seen to be morally responsible for loss and damage due to climate change.

Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly becoming one of the major drivers of migration, both forced and otherwise. The effects of anthropogenic climate change already being linked to increased migration and projections of future climate change, driven predominately by greenhouse gas emissions, predict that climate change will contribute significantly to an increase in the number of people seeking to migrate, with estimates ranging from 25 million to 2 billion climate change displaced persons by 2050 (Gómez, 2013; McAdam, 2012; Solomon & Koko, 2013).  The effects of climate change and the ways that it will lead to increases in migration are both myriad and complex. Not only will people be forcibly displaced by natural disasters and other slow onset effects of climate change, but furthermore climate change’s more subtle effects which ripples throughout our ecosystem, societies and economies will likely deprive increasingly large numbers of people of the socio-economic and ecological opportunities needed to live a decent human life. 
Currently, climate change displaced persons fall into a large legal protection gap, such that, to borrow Hannah Arendt’s words, it is “not that they are not equally before the law, but that no law exists for them” (1979, pp. 296–7).  Thus, as Tracy Skillington points out, “in lacking a fully legal identity, the climate displaced are pushed into spaces beyond adequate legal protection where their ‘irregular’ status forms the basis of a routine and publicly legitimated legal violence against them” (2015, p. 8). In the face of this legal gap, many, such as Matthew Lister (2014) and Frank Biermann and Ingrid Boas (2010), have argued that we need to expand the UN Refugee Convention to include those forcedly displaced by climate change or create a new convention for climate change displace persons altogether. However, both proposals face the challenge that, as the UNHCR (2012) reports, the current refugee system is already overburdened and is in short supply of durable solutions for even the limited number of people who currently qualify as refugees. Given this reality, allowing climate or environmental migrants who are forcibly displaced to also qualify as refugees may add further strain to an already burdened system. This raises difficult questions about how we incorporate legal protection for climate change displaced persons into our current legal system. Making such a decision even more difficult is the fact that climate change displaced persons are not the only displaced persons in falling into a legal gap and in need of protection. There is a much broader gap in our protection of displaced persons consisting of what Alexander Betts refers to as survival migrants, consisting of those “outside their country of origin because of an existential threat to which they have no access to a domestic remedy or resolution” (2010, p. 362).  This broader gap leaves many more than just climate change displaced persons in need of protection. 
Thus in this paper I argue that while expanding the Refugee Convention to include some form of Climate Refugee could be an important step to assist those most negatively affected by climate change, that much broader action needs to be taken in order to ensure: firstly, that the refugee system is able to take on increasing numbers of refugees; and secondly, that to be normatively consistent the international protection regime should also work to fix the protection gap not only of those negatively affected by climate change but also those migrants whose basic rights are being diminished through other means and who are in need of migratory solutions. This paper aims to provide an initial exploration of some of the normative and practical issues associated with responding to the growing problem of climate change displaced persons (CCDPs). I do not propose a policy solution, as it is beyond the scope of the paper and the expertise of the author to do so. Rather, the paper highlights the difficult and complexity of the issues underpinning considerations of CCDPS in order to illustrate some of the considerations that any proposed policy solution should take into account.

Institutions considering whether to divest from fossil fuel companies are faced with a seemingly difficult moral and financial choice. In order to unpack the elements of this choice this paper  explores the prospective decision of whether to divest from the perspective of a university endowment fund. In order to attempt to artificially separate the questions of ethics and economics, I provide two separate analyses of the choice faced by universities considering whether to divest. One analysis shall be strictly economic and shall assume that university endowment funds can be legitimately considered to driven solely by the pursuit of profit. The second analyses will focus on the university endowment as an institution answerable to the dictates of morality, and will argue that if we see an endowment as such that it has a moral responsibility to divest in order to: ensure its integrity as an institution; show moral leadership; and prevent harm caused as a result of its investment policies.  I draw substantially from rational choice theory, game theory and discussions of the tragedy of the commons, in order to provide an ethical and economic analysis of the choice faced by universities.

Many, both from within the Roman Catholic Church and outside thereof, have argued that, from the standpoint of natural law ethics, homosexual sexual engagement is morally wrong. This conclusion drawn by supposed natural law ethicists has been a crucial factor contributing towards increased intolerance and condemnation of the homosexual community across the globe. Through exploring the natural law position this paper exposes such a conclusion to be an erroneous misunderstanding of the natural law position. I build my natural law position on the foundation of an explication of the metaphysics underpinning natural law ethics.  Having established the natural law ethics position, the paper then goes on to show that many of the arguments claiming homosexuality to be immoral do not sit well with the natural law ethics position, and many stem from a misunderstanding or a misapplication of natural law ethics.

Firstly, I briefly dismiss the view that because homosexual sex is outside of a biological norm it is thus immoral. I then move on to dismiss Bradshaw’s view that homosexuality entails a violation of the body’s moral space by showing that his argument misunderstands natural law ethics and relies on vagaries and intuition-pumping rhetoric. Moving from there I engage the claim that homosexual sex is immoral on the grounds that the partners involved utilise each other instrumentally. Both Finnis and George argue for this claim and I attempt to show that neither of their arguments holds any water. The paper also refutes two other arguments against the morality of homosexuality: the first that because homosexual sexual engagement cannot take part in the all-level union of a reproductive marriage that it cannot be moral; the other argues that homosexual sexual engagement is subversive to the understanding of a society and is thus immoral.

In conclusion I claim that none of the arguments that the paper considers give us a justifiable reason for believing that homosexual sex is immoral, and that in many cases it may even be considered moral due to it’s ability to contribute to the partners overall flourishing: the telos of natural law ethics.

Intelligent Design Theory and Darwinism are competing answers to the same question: how did living organisms, in all their diversity and splendour, come to exist on Earth? The theories stand opposed to each other both philosophically and scientifically, and on either side of the divide stand qualified proponents who defend their theory’s verity with a tenacious veracity. In 2005 Judge E. Jones ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District  that the teaching of Intelligent Design Theory (ID) in public schools was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional. In this essay I shall argue against this decision and show, not only that the teaching of ID is not unconstitutional, but also that ruling out ID as teachable in public schools is itself a violation of the Establishment Clause. I shall argue that if we are to honour the value of a good liberal education as well as the Establishment Clause’s commitment to religious neutrality, that ID should not only be allowed to be taught, but should be encouraged to be taught in classrooms.

The holding of the US District Court gave two reasons as to why ID would not be allowed into public education: firstly, because it is a form of creationism that cannot uncouple itself from its religious antecedents; and secondly, because it was not science. In my paper I show the first reason to be an erroneous conflation of two very different views, and argue furthermore that whatever religious connotations the ID view might have, they are not sufficient to render it’s teaching unconstitutional. Against the second claim I argue that both ID and Darwinian Evolution are scientific inferences to the best explanation, and that the strength of both inferences are influenced by prior metaphysical commitments. Therefore, I argue, that either both should be included, or both excluded. Finally, delving into the philosophy of education and the nature of the historical debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design, I argue that the inclusion of both theories into the curriculum is more conducive to a liberal education, which values critical thinking, than the exclusion of both theories or the inclusion of only one theory would be.

The aesthetic appreciation of nature has a profound role in the lives of many, myself included. For many, however, what is actually involved in an aesthetic appreciation of nature, both in itself and as opposed to an aesthetic appreciation of art, is quite unclear, and many who have tried to elucidate what our aesthetic appreciation of nature consists of have, in my opinion, failed to provide a proper account of what it actually consists of. Thus, in an attempt to address this situation, in this essay I aim to elucidate what I take the aesthetic appreciation of nature to consist of as well as show why properly aesthetically appreciating nature is important for developing a respect for nature. The paper argues for a moderate formalist framework for the appreciation of nature is both the best framework through which to understand nature and develop an appreciation for it.

The aesthetic appreciation of nature has a profound role in the lives of many, myself included. For many, however, what is actually involved in an aesthetic appreciation of nature, both in itself and as opposed to an aesthetic appreciation of art, is quite unclear, and many who have tried to elucidate what our aesthetic appreciation of nature consists of have, in my opinion, failed to provide a proper account of what it actually consists of. Thus, in an attempt to address this situation, in this essay I aim to elucidate what I take the aesthetic appreciation of nature to consist of as well as show why properly aesthetically appreciating nature is important for developing a respect for nature. The paper argues for a moderate formalist framework for the appreciation of nature is both the best framework through which to understand nature and develop an appreciation for it.

This paper argues that putting in place a carbon tax in the United States adheres to conservative principles, and will also help to promote equitable economic growth and tackle problems of social inequality, poverty and climate change among other societal problems – hence why it is also appreciated by democrats.

Piece on how Seattle is one of the first cities to commit to help finance the Green Climate Fund in the wake of Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreements. The piece cites me as I served as a co-author on the resolution, and inserted the piece on the Green Climate Fund.

Scientists the world over are warning about the climate emergency that’s been unleashed by burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels, and how little time we have left to reverse course. This election season voters here in Washington state will not only have the opportunity to weigh in on who should occupy the Oval Office, but they may also cast the deciding votes for a powerful new climate policy that some say could serve as a model for the rest of the nation. Initiative 732 is a grassroots, bipartisan effort to put a science-based price on carbon emissions.  And there’s a reason many Millennials support it

Youth activists and bloggers from around the world are stimulating the public debate in the lead-up to the climate summit in Paris, shadowing negotiators, co-ordinating fossil fuel divestment campaigns at universities and exploring the links between social and environmental problems. Some are students and others work as journalists or community organisers. Here are the ones to read and follow.

Former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn runs a podcast on Kiro Radio entitled 'You, Me, Us, Now', which is all about people trying to change the world and their fascinating stories. This installment of the podcast interviewed Alex Lenferna and discussed the work he is doing leading the fossil fuel divestment movement.