Our Take...
Climate activists like to argue each generation owes a debt to the next, one that can only be paid by imposing sacrifices on individuals to prevent the planet from warming.
The doctrine goes by various labels, such as Intergenerational Climate Justice (ICJ) or Intergenerational Equity. Whatever the name, the logic is the same—we are morally obligated to leave the world in better condition than we found it, even if it means lowering our own standard of living.
ICJ may sound noble and altruistic, but it’s based on a series of fallacies and confusions that need to be exposed and challenged. To wit, we offer the following thought experiment involving two men, born a century apart.
Here goes...
Man No. 1 is born in 1900, with a life expectancy of 48 yrs. He grows up and works as a farmer after buying a plot of land and a diesel-powered tractor to cultivate it. The tractor increases his productivity and income. This extends his life span by two years, as he can afford better food, clothing, and shelter. He dies at the age of 50, having earned an average annual income of $10,000 in real terms over his lifetime.
Man No. 2 is born 100 years later, in 2000. His life expectancy is 77 years. He also purchases a plot of land and a tractor, which runs on diesel. Having benefited from a century of technological progress, his tractor enables him to produce more food, enjoy more comforts, and access more opportunities than Man No. 1 ever dreamed. Man No 2 earns an average annual income of $200,000 over his lifetime.
However, because of the effects of global warming caused by the emissions from Man No. 1’s tractor, Man No. 2 (unknowingly) loses one month of his life span. He dies at the age of 78 and 11 months, one month shy of his 79th birthday.
According to advocates of ICJ, Man No. 1 has committed a grave injustice against Man No. 2, depriving him of a month of life. They claim Man No. 1 should have refrained from using the tractor, and instead accepted a lower standard of living and a shorter life span.
The argument is absurd. Clearly, Man No. 2 owes much of his prosperity to Man No. 1 and his generation, who created the conditions for his survival and well-being. Without these, Man No. 2 would have lived a poorer and harsher life.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that Man No. 2 is vastly better off than Man No. 1, even after accounting for the loss of one month life. Man No. 2 enjoys a 20x higher income, a 29-year longer life span, and a higher quality of life than Man No. 1 ever did. To say Man No. 2 has a reasonable complaint against Man No. 1 is to ignore reality.
In short, how is it possibly the responsibility of relatively poorer, less prosperous and shorter-lived generations to sacrifice their lifespans and living standards in order to maximize those of wealthier, longer-lived generations in the future? We'd argue it's obvious there is no such obligation. Are we wrong?