Periodic Reporting for period 1 - ClimActiv (Climate Activism and Harm to Innocents)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2021-07-01 do 2023-06-30
The project aimed at morally assessing forms of climate activism that risk harming innocents. Climate activism was defined broadly, encompassing any attempt by an individual or group to push for climate-change mitigation policies. Climate activism ultimately aims at preventing serious climate harms. Such activism, however, often risks imposing economic, democratic, and other costs on people. The research focused on two forms of activism: climate direct action, and corporate climate lobbying.
The project first produced a review article that documents the main ethical debates around the most prominent forms of climate activism. This includes debates on whether there is a duty to become a climate activist, and debates on whether climate activism is adequately inclusive, democratic, and non-violent.
The project then produced a paper on whether certain forms of climate direct action (such as power plant occupations and cruise ship sabotage) that aim at directly stopping greenhouse gas emissions can be justified as an act of self-defense.
Finally, the project produced a paper on whether corporate lobbying that aims at pushing in favour of climate policies can be justified despite being undemocratic.
The project results were disseminated in 3 academic events at the LSE and the University of Manchester, and an expert panel at the LSE aimed at the general public. The events featured leading academic experts such as Simon Caney and Elizabeth Cripps, and leading civil society practitioners such as Edward Collins (InfluenceMap) and Clare Richards (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change).
The results were also disseminated in opinion notes on the LSE Government blog, newspaper, radio, and NGO websites.
The project then produced a paper on whether certain forms of climate direct action (such as power plant occupations and cruise ship sabotage) that aim at directly stopping greenhouse gas emissions can be justified as an act of self-defense.
Finally, the project produced a paper on whether corporate lobbying that aims at pushing in favour of climate policies can be justified despite being undemocratic.
The project results were disseminated in 3 academic events at the LSE and the University of Manchester, and an expert panel at the LSE aimed at the general public. The events featured leading academic experts such as Simon Caney and Elizabeth Cripps, and leading civil society practitioners such as Edward Collins (InfluenceMap) and Clare Richards (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change).
The results were also disseminated in opinion notes on the LSE Government blog, newspaper, radio, and NGO websites.
The project made progress beyond the state-of-the-art in three main ways. First, it produced the first review article on the ethics of climate activism. Secondly, the project produced the first paper to systematically apply the self-defense philosophical framework to the ethics of climate direct action, showing that this action can sometimes be justified as a form of necessary and proportionate other-defense. Thirdly, the project developed a novel view on corporate lobbying’s democratic credentials, and showed that corporate lobbying in favour of ambitious climate policies can be justified despite being undemocratic in important senses.
The results can help shape European policy and public discourse. Regarding climate corporate lobbying, the results suggest ways in which corporations can improve the democratic credentials of their lobbying for climate policy, and suggest ways in which governments can improve lobbying regulation so as to make it more democratic. Regarding activism, the results suggest reasons why governments should tolerate disruptive forms of activism, given their potential for significant influence on climate-related goals.
The results can help shape European policy and public discourse. Regarding climate corporate lobbying, the results suggest ways in which corporations can improve the democratic credentials of their lobbying for climate policy, and suggest ways in which governments can improve lobbying regulation so as to make it more democratic. Regarding activism, the results suggest reasons why governments should tolerate disruptive forms of activism, given their potential for significant influence on climate-related goals.