Our habitual practices are causing harm and manipulations to market forces can't produce lasting change. What are we to do?
The Coastal GasLink pipeline standoff highlights a number of concerns of legitimacy and puts pressure on different entities' claim to the right to rule.
The Washington Post's recent profile of the "Anti-Greta" raises concerns over journalistic ethics. Does giving space to fringe beliefs always run afoul of the duty to avoid false equivalence?
What is the proper metric to use in deciding another species' fate? What do we need to know in order to justify extinction?
Are local initiatives really a feasible substitute for large-scale regulation when it comes to environmental issues like air pollution?
How can we balance accuracy against alarmism? How can we avoid defeatism and instead inspire action? What does scientific accuracy demand?
Individual incentives are at odds with collective rationality. How might models like the Prisoner's Dilemma illuminate our current predicament?
The situation in Australia is further complicated by the climate change politics at play. It may not have caused the fires, but climate change isn't only in the minds of "raving inner-city lefties" either.
Is addiction a useful framework for explaining inaction regarding global heating? Or does it simply excuse bad behavior?
Is our duty to combat global heating grounded in responsibility, justice, or humanitarian concern? Why might this distinction matter?