Individual expectations and climate risk

Guest author: Marco Faccenda

Shifting focus on risk imposition: individual expectations and procedural climate justice 

The risks associated with climate change are pervasive and well-documented. The idea that the potential outcomes of climate change are risky is widely accepted in the literature. The dominant idea in any paper on climate justice related to risk imposition is that of fair risk-sharing. Specifically, it is argued that victims of the materialization of risks should be compensated and that this compensation should be borne by those who have benefited from imposing the risk. In the literature, this principle is referred to as the Beneficiary Pays Principle (BPP). So, the key question concerns how the burden of these risks should be shared, However, while the question of how to equitably distribute the burden of risk is crucial, this blog shifts the focus to a preceding issue that plays a critical role in shaping decisions under risk: the legitimacy of individual expectations.

Understanding individual expectations—how they are formed, and how they guide decisions under risk—is essential for any procedural (which focuses on procedures rather than outcomes) theory of justice, especially when addressing climate risks. In this context, the legitimacy of expectations becomes a central concern for both current and future generations. Here I want to argue that procedural climate justice, which focuses on the fairness of decision-making processes, offers a robust framework for assessing the legitimacy of individual expectations in the face of climate risk.

The role of individual expectations in climate risk

If we argue that a theory of climate justice must be procedural, i.e., focusing on decision-making processes rather than outcomes, individual expectations undoubtedly play a fundamental role. The fact that individuals have expectations about the future carries significant normative weight. Expectations guide long-term decisions, and since emissions or environmental impacts are inherent to all human activities, emissions are, in a sense, ubiquitous (Meyer and Sanklecha, 2014). In addition, individual expectations shape an agent’s risk aversion, making them more or less risk-averse. In this blog, I use the term individual expectations as to refer to the anticipations that people form about their future entitlements and actions—particularly their ability to emit greenhouse gases or their actions that contribute to climate change.

In the context of climate change, individuals form expectations about how much they will be able to emit in the future, based on current policies, historical practices, and broader social norms (Cai, 2023). That is to say that we need to examine when individual expectations regarding climate change are considered just or unjust. For example, is it fair for an individual to expect to emit at a certain level in the future, and more importantly, will they be permitted to do so? This raises the issue of substantive disagreement in procedural climate justice theory (Meyer and Sanklecha, 2014). The reason why we tackle expectation from the substantive disagreement point of view may not be trivial. Expectations, indeed, are not formed in an isolated way. Instead, they are formed based on others’ actions and expectations. In cases where it is possible and does not raise disagreement, the adaptation of one’s expectation becomes crucial. The case of climate change may be a case in which disagreements raise. This requires the individual to “justify” her expectations, i.e. by justifying certain actions—such as consuming fossil fuels or engaging in carbon-intensive activities—under the assumption that such actions will continue to be permissible in the future.

However, as climate risks become more severe and the need to reduce emissions becomes more urgent, the legitimacy of these individual expectations comes into question. Moreover, this question leads us to a more concerning one: what determines the legitimacy of individual expectations, particularly in the context of climate justice?

Why procedural climate justice?

One might ask why a procedural view of climate justice is better suited to address the issue of individual expectations compared to a substantive view. A substantive theory of justice focuses on outcomes—such as achieving a specific reduction in emissions or ensuring that the burdens of climate change are distributed fairly across populations. While this is undoubtedly important, a purely substantive focus risks overlooking the complexities involved in decision-making processes and the formation of expectations.

In contrast, a procedural approach recognizes that fairness in decision-making processes is critical to the legitimacy of outcomes. By ensuring that decisions are made through fair procedures—ones that consider the perspectives and rights of all affected parties, including future generations—procedural justice provides a framework for assessing not only whether expectations are legitimate but also whether the process through which they were formed was fair. This is particularly important in the context of climate change, where decisions made today have long-lasting implications for the future.

Moreover, procedural climate justice allows for flexibility in addressing disagreements about principles of justice. As Meyer and Sanklecha argue, when there is political disagreement over which justice principles to follow, fair procedural principles should be applied to ensure that decisions are legitimate. This procedural focus shifts the emphasis from finding one universally accepted principle of justice to ensuring that the decision-making process is inclusive, fair, and respects the rights of all parties involved.

Assessing the legitimacy of expectations

A procedural approach to climate justice offers a way to assess the legitimacy of individual expectations. Procedural justice, in contrast to substantive justice, is concerned with the fairness of decision-making processes rather than the outcomes of those processes. In this framework, individual expectations are assessed based on whether they have been formed through fair procedures and whether they align with principles of justice that govern the distribution of risks and responsibilities (Cai, 2023).

According to theorists like Meyer and Sanklecha (2014), the legitimacy of individual expectations in the context of climate justice can be determined by two key consistency requirements. First, expectations must align with the broader principles of justice that govern emissions and risk-bearing actions. This means that individuals cannot form expectations about their future emissions without considering the rights and entitlements of others—particularly future generations. Second, expectations must be consistent across time, meaning that they must account for both present-day responsibilities and long-term obligations toward the environment and future populations.

For example, an individual may expect to continue emitting greenhouse gases at their current level because their past behavior has been based on this assumption. However, if broader principles of climate justice demand that emissions be reduced to prevent catastrophic outcomes, then the legitimacy of this expectation is called into question. A procedural framework allows us to assess whether the expectation was formed fairly and whether it is consistent with the need to protect the rights of future generations.

Conclusion

The main argument of this work can be summarized as follows: the legitimacy of individual expectations associated with climate change risks stands from a procedural approach which offers a valuable framework for assessing the fairness of these expectations and of the decision making process. By ensuring that decisions about emissions and risk-bearing actions are made through fair procedures, we can better determine which expectations are legitimate and which are not, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions both today and in the future.

References

Cai, Y. (2023). Risk and justice: an account of just risk imposition and fair risk sharing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford).

Meyer, Lukas H., and Pranay Sanklecha. How legitimate expectations matter in climate justice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13.4 (2014): 369-393.