The growing climate crisis is highlighting our interconnectedness; one nation's consumption is another nation's problem.
The move to grant non-human animals, and even non-organisms like rivers, legal personhood prompts reflection on our evolving conception of rights.
Debate over revenue neutral or non revenue neutral carbon taxes asks whether its is a tool for changing individual financial incentives or funding climate adaptation? What are the ethical implications? What are the political implications?
Arguments regarding the immorality of procreation are on the rise given concerns of overpopulation and humans' contribution to climate change.
Embedded in the case for protection are arguments concerning the value of our past, in-group/out-group determinations about our shared heritage, and historical injustice and marginalization.
Emphasizing consensus can motivate change, but overstating agreement undermines the public's ability to engage in policy debates. How should we proceed?
The media's treatment of recent plant-based meat rollouts fails to give the significant moral gains their due.
Climate change is caused by the individual actions of a number of different actors, but will require the collective action to mitigate. Unfortunately, motivating people to make changes to avoid a future problem is difficult when there are pressing troubles already staring us in the face.
Geoengineering is often touted as the cure for fallout due to climate change. What does it promise and what are the risks?
Should we be pairing our moral arguments with a change in financial incentive to effectively alter human behavior? Is this the way to combat problems like climate change and factory farming?