2021Unpublished venueOpen access

Offsetting, Denialism, and Risk

Timothy Campbell

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

In Climate Matters John Broome defends two claims. First, if you live a “normal life” in a rich country, you will probably cause significant harm by your emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG), violating a moral duty of harm-avoidance. Second, you can satisfy this duty by offsetting your emissions. Some would deny Broome’s first claim on the grounds that an individual’s emissions of GHG do no harm. Broome calls this position “IndividualDenialism” (ID) and in a recent paper he attempts to refute it. I explain how, if Broome’s refutation of ID were successful, it would undermine his claim that you can satisfy your duty of harm avoidance by offsetting. I suggest an alternative defence of the claim that you can satisfy your individual duty to reduce your carbon footprint by offsetting. This alternative defence assumes that your duty to reduce your carbon footprint derives from a duty of risk-avoidance.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In Climate Matters John Broome defends two claims. First, if you live a “normal life” in a rich country, you will probably cause significant harm by your emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG), violating a moral duty of harm-avoidance. Second, you can satisfy this duty by offsetting your emissions. Some would deny Broome’s first claim on the grounds that an individual’s emissions of GHG do no harm. Broome calls this position “IndividualDenialism” (ID) and in a recent paper he attempts to refute it. I explain how, if Broome’s refutation of ID were successful, it would undermine his claim that you can satisfy your duty of harm avoidance by offsetting. I suggest an alternative defence of the claim that you can satisfy your individual duty to reduce your carbon footprint by offsetting. This alternative defence assumes that your duty to reduce your carbon footprint derives from a duty of risk-avoidance.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In Climate Matters John Broome defends two claims. First, if you live a “normal life” in a rich country, you will probably cause significant harm by your emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG), violating a moral duty of harm-avoidance. Second, you can satisfy this duty by offsetting your emissions. Some would deny Broome’s first claim on the grounds that an individual’s emissions of GHG do no harm. Broome calls this position “IndividualDenialism” (ID) and in a recent paper he attempts to refute it. I explain how, if Broome’s refutation of ID were successful, it would undermine his claim that you can satisfy your duty of harm avoidance by offsetting. I suggest an alternative defence of the claim that you can satisfy your individual duty to reduce your carbon footprint by offsetting. This alternative defence assumes that your duty to reduce your carbon footprint derives from a duty of risk-avoidance.

Key concepts: Harm, Duty, Carbon footprint, Position (finance), Greenhouse gas, Law and economics, Economics, Natural resource economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Offsetting, Denialism, and Risk — Research Paper | ScholarLens