I mostly advocate looking at the differences in intergenerational injustice dynamics in each domain, so we can understand how they unfold on their own terms and then take the most appropriate action, rather than simply copy-pasting strategies. For example, the nuclear community seems eager to borrow from climate litigation cases, where climate protection is sued for on the grounds of future generations’ rights. I think that’s a super interesting approach, but my point is: be careful, the intergenerational justice dynamics are not the same, and these differences should be taken into account when planning legal/advocacy/policy strategies.
So, personally, I wouldn’t see my arguments leading to a conclusion that one cause should be prioritized over the other. One could perhaps argue that focusing on nuclear issues makes sense, since they may have some “catching up” to do, for instance in terms of the visibility of intergenerational implications in popular culture. But in general, I don’t think framing the two causes in competition will be helpful.
Below, I copy the policy implications I wrote up for the article:
Policy implications
While the intergenerational injustices in nuclear deterrence resemble those in climate inaction, they call for distinct approaches. Simply copy-pasting strategies from climate action falls short. Efforts must instead be tailored to the specific context, temporality, and risk trajectory in the nuclear domain—addressing risks that can suddenly escalate into catastrophic outcomes, with future victims who seem remote and hypothetical, unlike climate change, where damage is increasingly observable today.
Risks from nuclear weapons to future generations do not necessarily escalate, but they cumulate over long periods if the status quo persists. Guardianship approaches—transferring responsibility from one generation to the next without a focused, sustained commitment to disarmament—fail to address intergenerational justice concerns or prevent nuclear war in the long run.
The incentive structures underlying intergenerational nuclear injustice are deeply tied to ideology and status. Disarmament proponents should take these tenacious incentive structures seriously and focus on ways to replace or reduce their appeal. This could involve promoting research into developments in international relations or security that could render nuclear deterrence obsolete in the future, while simultaneously transitioning to effective conventional defense capabilities.
Unlike climate change, the long-term risks posed by nuclear weapons lack salience. A renewed communication effort on nuclear winter and its consequences in popular culture and media could reinforce awareness of its effects on future generations and increase the sense of urgency around safeguarding them.
What’s the upshot of this? Do you see this as informing relative prioritization between the two causes?
I mostly advocate looking at the differences in intergenerational injustice dynamics in each domain, so we can understand how they unfold on their own terms and then take the most appropriate action, rather than simply copy-pasting strategies. For example, the nuclear community seems eager to borrow from climate litigation cases, where climate protection is sued for on the grounds of future generations’ rights. I think that’s a super interesting approach, but my point is: be careful, the intergenerational justice dynamics are not the same, and these differences should be taken into account when planning legal/advocacy/policy strategies.
So, personally, I wouldn’t see my arguments leading to a conclusion that one cause should be prioritized over the other. One could perhaps argue that focusing on nuclear issues makes sense, since they may have some “catching up” to do, for instance in terms of the visibility of intergenerational implications in popular culture. But in general, I don’t think framing the two causes in competition will be helpful.
Below, I copy the policy implications I wrote up for the article:
Policy implications
While the intergenerational injustices in nuclear deterrence resemble those in climate inaction, they call for distinct approaches. Simply copy-pasting strategies from climate action falls short. Efforts must instead be tailored to the specific context, temporality, and risk trajectory in the nuclear domain—addressing risks that can suddenly escalate into catastrophic outcomes, with future victims who seem remote and hypothetical, unlike climate change, where damage is increasingly observable today.
Risks from nuclear weapons to future generations do not necessarily escalate, but they cumulate over long periods if the status quo persists. Guardianship approaches—transferring responsibility from one generation to the next without a focused, sustained commitment to disarmament—fail to address intergenerational justice concerns or prevent nuclear war in the long run.
The incentive structures underlying intergenerational nuclear injustice are deeply tied to ideology and status. Disarmament proponents should take these tenacious incentive structures seriously and focus on ways to replace or reduce their appeal. This could involve promoting research into developments in international relations or security that could render nuclear deterrence obsolete in the future, while simultaneously transitioning to effective conventional defense capabilities.
Unlike climate change, the long-term risks posed by nuclear weapons lack salience. A renewed communication effort on nuclear winter and its consequences in popular culture and media could reinforce awareness of its effects on future generations and increase the sense of urgency around safeguarding them.
Thanks for the thorough reply!