Do We Owe the Future a Livable Planet?

“Future people cannot vote, negotiate, or protect themselves from our decisions today. The asymmetry of power — we choose, they inherit — is the most compelling argument for a binding present obligation. We would not accept a contract that authorized us to harm people without their consent simply because they didn't exist yet to object.”

“The 1.5°C window is closing. Every year of delay locks in decades of additional warming; what looks like economic cost today is the price of avoiding catastrophic, irreversible harm that no future wealth can undo. Tipping points — ice sheet collapse, permafrost feedback, Amazon dieback — are not linear problems that can be solved later with more money.”

“Future people will be richer than us. Economic growth compounds over decades; a world 5x wealthier in 2100 can adapt to climate change far more effectively than today's world can prevent it at great cost. Prioritizing present development over future climate costs is not callous — it is rational, according to standard welfare economics applied consistently across generations.”

“The discount rate problem is real: a dollar of climate benefit in 2150 is not worth the same as a dollar of poverty reduction today. Prioritizing present development over future climate costs, when those costs fall on people who will be far wealthier, is not callous — it is rational. The Stern Review's critics include Nobel laureates, not climate deniers.”