IntroI am a Lecturer in Global Ethics in the Centre for the Study of Global Ethics at the University of Birmingham (UK).
I am working in the areas of global ethics and political philosophy. My research focusses specifically on climate ethics, environmental sustainability, and global justice. |
|
|
For policymakers: I am happy to contribute to policy consultations in the following areas:
Please use the navigation at the top of this page to find out more about me, my research, and my public engagement activities. You can find the latest news below. |
News
6 AUGUST 2019
NEW PUBLICATION: CLIMATE ETHICS WITH AN ETHNOGRAPHIC SENSIBILITY
This paper, led by Derek Bell and Jo Swaffield and published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, starts from the observation that there are limits to what we can reasonably demand from individuals in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, but that these limits have not yet been systematically explored in climate ethics. Rather than using hypothetical cases to analyse this, we use qualitative social science methods to collect the experiences of real individuals. Normative analysis of real-life cases can help us to develop a more systematic understanding of the role that different contextual factors should play in determining individual climate responsibilities.
This is a link to the article.
NEW PUBLICATION: CLIMATE ETHICS WITH AN ETHNOGRAPHIC SENSIBILITY
This paper, led by Derek Bell and Jo Swaffield and published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, starts from the observation that there are limits to what we can reasonably demand from individuals in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, but that these limits have not yet been systematically explored in climate ethics. Rather than using hypothetical cases to analyse this, we use qualitative social science methods to collect the experiences of real individuals. Normative analysis of real-life cases can help us to develop a more systematic understanding of the role that different contextual factors should play in determining individual climate responsibilities.
This is a link to the article.
6 AUGUST 2019
OPINION PIECE FOR VRT NWS (IN DUTCH)
The opinion piece argues that individual actions to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, and responds to some objections against this view. It's in Dutch, though, so please navigate to "Publiek engagement (Dutch)" for more information.
OPINION PIECE FOR VRT NWS (IN DUTCH)
The opinion piece argues that individual actions to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, and responds to some objections against this view. It's in Dutch, though, so please navigate to "Publiek engagement (Dutch)" for more information.
27 JULY 2019
NEW PUBLICATION: HOW NEW ARE NEW HARMS REALLY - CLIMATE CHANGE, HISTORICAL REASONING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
I wrote this paper together with Derek Bell and Jo Swaffield, and it is now published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Often, climate change and other contemporary problems are depicted as New Harms, because hey seem to constitute unprecedented challenges. We argue that the premises underlying this New Harms Discourse are empirically inaccurate, and that the conclusion that climate change is a unique social challenge that requires radically new moral thinking distracts attention from the valuable lessons we can draw from humanity's successes and failures in dealing with past harms. Rejecting the New Harms Discourse is therefore not only empirically justified, it also gives cause for optimism, because it opens up the possibility to draw upon the past to face problems in the present and future.
The article is Open Access, just click on this link to access it
NEW PUBLICATION: HOW NEW ARE NEW HARMS REALLY - CLIMATE CHANGE, HISTORICAL REASONING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
I wrote this paper together with Derek Bell and Jo Swaffield, and it is now published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Often, climate change and other contemporary problems are depicted as New Harms, because hey seem to constitute unprecedented challenges. We argue that the premises underlying this New Harms Discourse are empirically inaccurate, and that the conclusion that climate change is a unique social challenge that requires radically new moral thinking distracts attention from the valuable lessons we can draw from humanity's successes and failures in dealing with past harms. Rejecting the New Harms Discourse is therefore not only empirically justified, it also gives cause for optimism, because it opens up the possibility to draw upon the past to face problems in the present and future.
The article is Open Access, just click on this link to access it
