Themes and Trends in Western Climate Ethics Research

I. Three Stages of Western Climate Ethics Research

一、西方气候伦理学研究的三个阶段

Western climate ethics research is inseparable from the practice of global climate governance. Western academic research on climate ethics has roughly passed through three stages: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) stage, the post-Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) stage, and the Paris Agreement stage.

西方气候伦理学研究与全球气候治理实践密不可分。西方学界对气候伦理学的研究大致经历了三个阶段：《联合国气候变化框架公约》（后文简称《公约》）阶段、后《京都议定书》（后文简称《议定书》）阶段与《巴黎协定》阶段。

(I) The Convention Stage (1992–2003)

（一）《公约》阶段（1992年—2003年）

This was the initial exploratory stage of Western climate ethics research. During this stage, Western academic research on climate ethics issues mainly revolved around the ethical principles involved in the Convention (such as the principle of equality, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and the principle of historical responsibility). Dale Jamieson and Henry Shue are two pioneers with significant influence in the field of climate ethics research; they began focusing on and publishing research results on climate ethics from the 1990s. Jamieson’s edited volume *An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy* and R. G. Frey et al.’s edited volume *An Introduction to Applied Ethics* are two of the earliest professional ethics reference works to focus on the theme of climate ethics.

这是西方气候伦理学研究的初步探索阶段。在这一阶段，西方学界对气候伦理问题的研究主要围绕《公约》所涉及的伦理原则（如平等原则、共同但有区别的责任原则、历史责任原则等）展开。戴尔·贾米森（Dale Jamieson）和亨利·苏（Henry Shue）是气候伦理研究领域具有较大影响的两个开拓者，他们从1990年代开始就关注并发表了气候伦理的研究成果。贾米森主编的《环境哲学导论》和R. G. 弗雷（R. G. Frey）等人主编的《应用伦理学导论》是两本最早关注气候伦理主题的伦理学专业工具书。

During this period, the main topics of Western climate ethics research included: (1) revealing and explaining the political, economic, cultural, and (especially) ethical consequences brought about by global warming; (2) interpreting and explaining the challenges posed by global warming to existing political systems, economic operation models, and mainstream Western values; (3) intergenerational climate ethics issues, international climate ethics issues, and ethical issues related to mitigation (as opposed to adaptation) of climate change; (4) in terms of value orientation, most scholars endorsed and defended the principles of “equality,” “common but differentiated responsibilities,” and “historical responsibility” advocated by the Convention, and supported and defended the development rights of developing countries, holding that the survival emissions of developing countries take priority over the luxury emissions of developed countries.

这一时期，西方气候伦理学研究的论题主要有：（1）揭示和阐释全球气候变暖所带来的政治、经济、文化和（尤其是）伦理后果；（2）解释和说明全球气候变暖对现存的政治制度、经济运行模式、西方主流价值观的挑战；（3）代际气候伦理问题、国际气候伦理问题，以及与减缓（相对于适应）气候变化有关的伦理问题；（4）在价值取向方面，大多数学者都赞同并维护《公约》所倡导的“平等原则”“共同但有区别的责任原则”“历史责任原则”，并支持和维护发展中国家的发展权，认为发展中国家的生存性排放优先于发达国家的奢侈性排放。

(II) The Post-Protocol Stage (2004–2014)

（二）后《议定书》阶段（2004年—2014年）

This was the period of flourishing development in Western climate ethics research. In 2004, the journals *Ethics* and *Ethics & International Affairs* respectively published two important papers by the influential American scholar Stephen Gardiner in the field of climate ethics research, marking an important sign that mainstream Western academic journals began to attach importance to the theme of climate ethics. From this year onward, the number of papers discussing climate ethics issues published in international academic journals showed a very significant and sustained upward trend. Therefore, although negotiations on international emission reduction responsibilities for the post-Protocol era officially began only at the 11th Conference of the Parties to the Convention (2005), it seems more reasonable to regard 2004 as the starting point of the flourishing development stage of Western climate ethics research.

这是西方气候伦理学研究的繁荣发展期。2004年，《伦理学》杂志和《伦理学与国际事务》杂志分别发表了气候伦理学研究领域具有较大影响力的美国学者斯蒂芬·加德纳（Stephen Gardiner）的两篇重要论文，成为西方主流学术期刊开始重视气候伦理主题的重要标志。从这一年开始，国际学术期刊上发表的讨论气候伦理问题的论文出现了十分显著的持续上升趋势。因此，尽管关于后《议定书》时代的国际减排责任的谈判是在《公约》第十一次缔约方大会（2005年）才正式开始的，但是，把2004年视为西方气候伦理学研究繁荣发展阶段的起点似乎更为合理。

During this period, a group of outstanding climate ethics scholars emerged, such as Gardiner in the United States, Simon Caney in the United Kingdom, and Darrel Moellendorf in Germany. *Climate Ethics: Essential Readings*, edited by Gardiner et al., is the first important academic work published in Western academia to include the term “climate ethics” in its title; this book centrally showcases the important achievements made in Western climate ethics research up to that point. Gardiner’s *A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change* and Jamieson’s *Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed — and What It Means for Our Future* are academic monographs of significant innovative value from this period.

这一时期涌现出了一批杰出的气候伦理学者，如美国的加德纳、英国的西蒙·卡内（Simon Caney）、德国的达雷尔·默伦多夫（Darrel Moellendorf）等。由加德纳等人主编的《气候伦理学：基本文献阅读》是西方学术界出版的第一本书名中包含“气候伦理学”这一词汇的重要学术著作，该书集中展示了到当时为止西方学术界在气候伦理学研究方面所取得的重要成果。加德纳的《典型的道德风暴：气候变化的伦理悲剧》、贾米森的《黑暗时代的理性：抗击气候变化的斗争为何失败、这对人类未来意味着什么》等则是这一时期具有重要创新价值的学术专著。

In the post-Protocol stage, Western climate ethics research had the following main characteristics: (1) climate ethics research paid closer attention to the ethical principles of international climate governance in the post-Protocol era; (2) the content and main principles of climate ethics (especially the principle of equality and the principle of historical responsibility) were studied more deeply and comprehensively; (3) climate justice became the most important research theme during this period, and climate engineering ethics began to receive attention from more scholars; (4) the research horizon and topics broadened, with issues such as climate ethics and global distributive justice, and climate ethics and individual responsibility, being explored in depth.

在后《议定书》阶段，西方气候伦理学的研究主要有以下特征：（1）气候伦理的研究更加紧密地关注后《议定书》时代国际气候治理的伦理原则；（2）对气候伦理的内容和主要原则（尤其是平等原则与历史责任原则）进行了更为深入和全面的研究；（3）气候正义成为这一时期最为重要的研究主题，气候工程伦理开始得到更多学者的关注；（4）研究的视野和论题更为宽广，气候伦理与全球分配正义、气候伦理与个人责任等问题得到了深入的探讨。

(III) The Paris Agreement Stage (2015–present)

（三）《巴黎协定》阶段（2015年至今）

With the signing of the Paris Agreement, international academic research on climate ethics issues entered a stage of systematic review, comprehensive summary, in-depth reflection, and deepened development. The main characteristics of this stage are: First, the research team in climate ethics has continued to expand, with a large number of climate ethics researchers possessing an international perspective successively stepping onto the international academic stage, such as Catriona McKinnon in the United Kingdom, Megan Blomfield in the United Kingdom, and Lukas Meyer in Austria; an increasing number of academic journals have opened columns or special issues themed on “climate ethics”; works summarizing and refining the achievements of climate ethics research have gradually increased, such as *Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice* edited by Tahseen Jafry and *The Philosophy of Climate Change: A Guide* edited by Gianfranco Pellegrino et al. Second, climate justice is the core research theme of this period, while geoengineering ethics has gradually risen to become the research theme second only to climate justice. Third, the research field of climate ethics continues to expand, with some emerging topics gradually entering researchers’视野, such as climate migration and climate refugees, non-anthropocentric climate ethics, and the methodology of climate ethics research. Fourth, greater emphasis is placed on the connection between climate ethics and the practice of addressing climate change, with particular attention to ethical issues related to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

随着《巴黎协定》的签署，国际学术界对气候伦理问题的研究进入了系统梳理、全面总结、深入反思和深化发展阶段。这一阶段的研究特点主要有：第一，气候伦理学的研究队伍持续扩大，一大批具有国际视野的气候伦理学研究者陆续登上国际学术舞台，如英国的卡特里奥那·麦金农（Catriona McKinnon）、梅甘·布洛姆菲尔德（Megan Blomfield）和奥地利的卢卡斯·迈耶（Lukas Meyer）；越来越多的学术期刊开设了以“气候伦理”为主题的专栏或专刊；总结和提炼气候伦理研究成果的著作逐渐增多，如，塔赫辛·加法里（Tahseen Jafry）主编的《劳特里奇气候正义导论》、詹弗兰科·佩莱格里诺（Gianfranco Pellegrino）等人主编的《气候变化哲学指南》。第二，气候正义是这一时期的核心研究主题，而地球工程伦理则逐渐上升为仅次于气候正义的研究主题。第三，气候伦理的研究领域持续扩展，一些新兴议题逐渐进入研究者的视野，如气候移民与气候难民问题、非人类中心主义的气候伦理、气候伦理研究的方法论等。第四，更加注重气候伦理与应对气候变化实践之间的联系，尤其关注与《巴黎协定》的落地生根有关的伦理问题。

II. Important Themes in Western Climate Ethics Research

二、西方气候伦理学研究的重要主题

From the brief review of the three stages of Western climate ethics research, it can be seen that the issues and themes involved in Western climate ethics research are quite numerous. Due to space limitations, this article focuses only on four themes that are overarching and have been the subject of considerable scholarly debate, namely: the general theory of climate ethics, climate justice, geoengineering ethics, and climate responsibility ethics.

从对西方气候伦理学研究三个阶段的简要梳理可以看出，西方气候伦理学研究所涉及的问题和主题比较多。限于篇幅，本文仅关注四个具有全局性且学者们争论较多的主题，即气候伦理学的一般理论、气候正义、地球工程伦理以及气候责任伦理。

(I) The General Theory of Climate Ethics

（一）气候伦理学的一般理论

The general theory of climate ethics involves fundamental issues such as the research object of climate ethics, the theoretical foundation and practical basis of climate ethics, the essence of climate ethics problems, the research methods of climate ethics, the basic principles of climate ethics, the value orientation of climate ethics, and the function and role of climate ethics.

气候伦理学的一般理论涉及气候伦理学的研究对象、气候伦理学的理论基础与现实根据、气候伦理问题的实质、气候伦理的研究方法、气候伦理的基本原则、气候伦理的价值指向、气候伦理的功能与作用等基本问题。

1. The Research Object of Climate Ethics

1.气候伦理学的研究对象

According to the梳理 of Jamieson, Damian Bridge, and others, the research object of climate ethics mainly includes: (1) revealing and explaining the ethical problems brought about by climate change; (2) the issue of responsibility for climate change (such as individual responsibility, international responsibility, and intergenerational responsibility); (3) ethical principles for sharing the burdens of addressing climate change (especially international burdens); (4) ethical issues of geoengineering; (5) political ethics issues related to climate governance; (6) economic ethics issues related to climate governance; (7) social ethics issues related to climate governance (such as climate refugee ethics, climate migration ethics, and climate population ethics); (8) environmental ethics issues related to climate governance.

根据贾米森、达米安·布里奇（Damian Bridge）等人的梳理，气候伦理学的研究对象主要包括：（1）揭示和说明气候变化所带来的伦理问题；（2）气候变化的责任问题（如个人责任问题、国际责任问题、代际责任问题）；（3）分担应对气候变化之负担（尤其是国际负担）的伦理原则；（4）地球工程的伦理问题；（5）与气候治理有关的政治伦理问题；（6）与气候治理有关的经济伦理问题；（7）与气候治理有关的社会伦理问题（如气候难民伦理、气候移民伦理、气候人口伦理）；（8）与气候治理有关的环境伦理问题。

2. The Ethical Implications of Climate Change Issues

2.气候变化问题的伦理意涵

In the 1990s, most scientists and economists regarded the issue of climate governance as a scientific or economic problem. An important task of Western climate ethics research (especially in the 1990s) was to clarify that climate change is an ethical problem. In the view of Jamieson, Gardiner, and others, the impacts of climate change on humanity are so extensive, profound, diverse, and uncertain that traditional economic models (especially cost-benefit analysis models) are fundamentally incapable of grasping the essence of the climate change problem. As one scholar has pointed out: "The climate problem is a problem of values, not a problem of efficiency."

1990年代，大多数科学家和经济学家都把气候治理问题视为一个科学问题或经济学问题。西方气候伦理学研究（尤其是1990年代）的一个重要任务就是阐明气候变化是一个伦理问题。在贾米森、加德纳等人看来，气候变化给人类带来的影响是如此广泛、深远、多样和不确定，以至于传统的经济学模型（尤其是成本收益分析模型）根本无法把握气候变化问题的实质。正如有学者指出的：“气候问题是一个价值问题，而不是效率问题。”

Gardiner characterizes the challenge that climate change poses to humanity as a "perfect moral storm." In his view, the dominant Western theories (especially political and economic theories) cannot provide sufficient wisdom and resources for contemporary people to resolve fundamental issues related to climate change, such as scientific uncertainty, global justice, intergenerational equity, and human obligations toward nature. Jamieson also points out that our failure to respond to and prevent global warming reflects the poverty of our worldview and values, the rigidity of our political institutions, and the limits of our cognitive and emotional capacities.

加德纳把气候变化给人类带来的挑战称为“典型的道德风暴”（perfect moral storm）。在他看来，占主流地位的西方理论（尤其是政治与经济理论）无法为当代人解决与气候变化有关的科学不确定性、全球正义、代际平等、人对自然的义务等根本性问题提供足够的智慧和资源。贾米森亦指出，我们在应对和阻止气候变暖方面的失败，反映了我们的世界观和价值观的贫乏、我们的政治制度的僵化以及我们的认知与情感能力的极限。

Although both Jamieson and Gardiner believe that humanity's failure to respond to climate change is a "fundamental ethical failure," Gardiner argues that this failure does not stem from our lack of correct values, but from our "moral corruption"—that is, due to selfishness, apathy, or ignorance, we have failed to act in accordance with moral requirements. Jamieson, on the other hand, argues that this failure stems from our lack of a correct set of values. To truly succeed in meeting the enormous challenge of climate change, we must undergo a profound transformation in values. The ultimate reason why climate change is an ethical problem lies precisely here.

虽然贾米森和加德纳都认为，人类在应对气候变化方面的失败是一种“根本性的伦理失败”，但是，加德纳认为，这种失败不是源于我们缺乏正确的价值观，而是源于我们的“道德腐败”，即由于自私、麻木或无知，我们未能根据道德的要求而采取行动。贾米森则认为，这种失败是源于我们缺乏一套正确的价值观。要真正成功地应对气候变化的巨大挑战，我们就必须在价值观上实现一场深刻的变革。气候变化问题之所以是一个伦理问题，其终极原因正在于此。

3. Research Methods in Climate Ethics

3.气候伦理学的研究方法

In addition to conventional ethical research methods, Western climate ethics research particularly emphasizes "interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary methods" and the combination of ideal theory with "non-ideal theory." Furthermore, in discussions of climate justice, Western academia features debates among the isolationist approach (treating climate justice issues separately from other justice issues), the integrationist approach (considering climate justice issues together with other justice issues), and the holistic approach (distributing responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation to climate change according to the same principles of justice).

除了常规的伦理学研究方法，西方气候伦理学研究还特别强调“跨学科与交叉学科方法”、理想理论与“非理想理论”相结合的方法。此外，在讨论气候正义问题时，西方学界还存在孤立主义方法（把气候正义问题与其他正义问题分开来处理）、融合主义方法（把气候正义问题与其他正义问题结合起来考虑）与整体主义方法（依据相同的正义原则来分配减缓和适应气候变化的责任）之争。

(II) Climate Justice

（二）气候正义

Climate justice is the most important theme in Western climate ethics research. The study of climate justice not only runs through all three stages of Western climate ethics research but is also the theme that scholars have focused on most and produced the most academic output on.

气候正义是西方气候伦理学研究中最为重要的主题。对气候正义的研究不仅贯穿西方气候伦理研究的三个阶段，也是学者们最为关注、发表学术成果最多的主题。

1. The Basic Meaning of Climate Justice and Its Theoretical Foundations

1.气候正义的基本含义及其理论基础

The vast majority of scholars studying climate ethics acknowledge that climate change involves issues of climate justice, especially global climate justice and intergenerational climate justice. This is mainly because: (1) the emission behavior of greenhouse gas emitters can affect or even harm others (especially those beyond national borders); (2) global warming has the most severe catastrophic impacts on the poorest and most vulnerable groups (especially ethnic minorities, women, children, and future generations) or countries (developing countries, less developed countries, and least developed countries), yet these groups or countries have the smallest "contribution" to global warming, the weakest capacity to respond to climate change, benefit the least from current policies and measures to address climate change, and have the weakest voice in international climate negotiations; (3) no single individual, country, or generation can solve the problem of global warming alone. Global climate governance requires cooperative measures between countries and between generations, thus necessitating a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of global climate governance among different individuals, countries, and generations.

研究气候伦理的绝大多数学者都承认，气候变化涉及气候正义问题，尤其是全球气候正义与代际气候正义问题。这主要是由于：（1）温室气体排放者的排放行为能够影响甚至伤害其他人（尤其是国界之外的其他人）；（2）全球气候变暖给那些最贫穷、最弱势的群体（尤其是少数族裔、妇女、儿童和后代人）或国家（发展中国家、欠发达国家和最不发达国家）带来的灾难性影响最为明显，但是这些群体或国家对全球气候变暖的“贡献”最小，应对气候变化的能力最弱，从目前应对气候变化的政策和措施中获益最小，在国际气候谈判中的声音最微弱；（3）任何一个人、一个国家、一代人都不能独自解决全球气候变暖问题。全球气候治理需要在国家之间、代际之间采取合作措施，因而需要在不同的个人、国家与世代之间公平地分配全球气候治理的负担与利益。

Although different scholars express the specific meaning of climate justice differently, most scholars believe that climate justice primarily concerns the fair distribution of burdens and benefits related to global climate governance. Shue points out that global climate justice involves four basic issues: (1) how to distribute the costs of preventing global warming; (2) how to distribute responsibility for the social consequences caused by global warming; (3) who bears the above responsibilities; (4) how to fairly distribute greenhouse gas emission allowances. It is generally believed that climate justice mainly includes two forms: procedural climate justice and substantive climate justice. However, some scholars argue that climate justice includes three forms: distributive justice, recognition justice, and participatory justice.

虽然不同学者对气候正义具体含义的表述不同，但大多数学者都认为，气候正义关注的主要是与全球气候治理有关的负担与利益的公平分配。苏指出，全球气候正义涉及四个基本问题：（1）如何分配防止全球变暖的成本；（2）如何分配全球变暖导致的社会后果的责任；（3）承担以上责任的主体；（4）如何公平地分配温室气体的排放量。一般认为，气候正义主要包括气候程序正义与气候实体正义两种形态。但也有学者认为，气候正义包括分配正义、承认正义、参与正义等三种形态。

Regarding the foundations of climate justice, there are three main views in Western academia. The relational view of climate justice holds that climate change interconnects the fates and interests of people in different countries, forming a genuine relationship of mutual dependence, thereby enabling the application of a Rawlsian concept of justice to the planning of international cooperation in global climate governance. The non-relational view of justice holds that we owe obligations of justice to others simply because they are human beings, possessing the same humanity as we do. The non-relational view of climate justice manifests in two different forms: egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Caney is an important advocate of the egalitarian view of climate justice. He argues that every person affected by climate change should receive equal moral consideration, and the burdens and benefits related to global climate governance should be distributed equally among all people. The prioritarian view of climate justice, on the other hand, holds that when distributing the burdens and costs of global climate governance, priority should be given to ensuring the right to sustainable development of every country, or priority should be given to ensuring that all people have the capacity to lead a minimally decent life.

关于气候正义的基础，西方学界主要有三种观点。关系论的气候正义观认为，气候变化使得不同国家的人们之间的命运和利益相互联系在一起，彼此之间形成了真正的相互依赖关系，从而能够把某种罗尔斯式的正义概念应用于谋划全球气候治理的国际合作。非关系论的正义观认为，我们之所以对其他人负有正义的义务，仅仅是由于他们是人，拥有与我们相同的人性。非关系论的气候正义观表现为两种不同的形式：平等主义与优先主义。卡内是平等主义气候正义观的重要倡导者。他认为，受气候变化影响的每一个人都应获得平等的道德关怀，与全球气候治理有关的负担与利益应当在所有人之间平等地加以分配。优先主义的气候正义观则认为，在分配全球气候治理的负担与成本时，应优先确保每一个国家的可持续发展权利，或优先确保所有人都拥有过上最低限度体面生活的能力。

2. Principles of Climate Justice

2.气候正义的原则

In Western academia, the specific requirements, theoretical justifications, and theoretical and practical advantages and limitations of principles such as the intergenerational justice principle, the historical baseline principle, the polluter pays principle, the beneficiary pays principle, the ability to pay principle, the egalitarian principle, the utilitarian principle, the sufficientarian principle, and the prioritarian principle have been discussed quite thoroughly. Among these, most Western scholars advocate a composite view of climate justice based on egalitarian principles (especially Rawlsian egalitarian principles) and composed of multiple ethical principles. The historical baseline principle is one that has received more criticism, while the historical responsibility principle is one that has been more debated.

在西方学界，代际正义原则、历史基数原则、污染者付费原则、受益者付费原则、有能力者付款原则、平等主义原则、功利主义原则、充足主义原则、优先主义原则的具体要求、理论依据、理论和实践方面的优势与局限等问题得到了较为充分的讨论。其中，大部分西方学者都主张一种以平等主义原则（尤其是罗尔斯式的平等主义原则）为基础、由多个伦理原则构成的复合型气候正义观。历史基数原则是受到批判较多的原则，而历史责任原则则是争论较多的原则。

The core content of the historical responsibility principle is that the vast majority of greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere have been emitted by Western industrialized countries; therefore, developed countries and their people bear the primary responsibility for global warming. In the global cooperation plan for global climate governance, developed countries and their people must assume a greater share of greenhouse gas emission reductions and climate governance responsibilities. The main rationales supporting the historical responsibility principle include: fault-based responsibility theory, ability to pay theory, fair responsibility theory, and equal opportunity theory. Some scholars also hold a skeptical attitude toward the historical responsibility principle. Their main reasons include: ignorance excuses from guilt theory, first-come-first-served theory, non-retroactivity theory, and lack of international consensus theory.

历史责任原则的核心内容是，累积在大气层中的温室气体的绝大部分都是由西方工业化国家排放的，因此，发达国家及其人民要为全球气候变暖承担主要责任。在全球气候治理的全球合作计划中，发达国家及其人民要承担更多的温室气体减排份额和气候治理责任。支撑历史责任原则的主要理据有：过错责任论、支付能力论、公平责任论、机会平等论。也有一些学者对历史责任原则持质疑态度。他们的理由主要有：不知者无罪论、先到先得论、不溯及过往论、缺乏国际共识论。

(III) Geoengineering Ethics

（三）地球工程伦理

"Geoengineering," also known as "climate engineering" or "climate geoengineering," refers to large-scale deliberate human intervention in the Earth's climate system to address climate change. Geoengineering is mainly divided into two types: solar radiation management engineering and carbon dioxide reduction engineering. Geoengineering ethics primarily discusses the ethical issues of the first type. Western academic research on geoengineering ethics mainly revolves around the following two themes.

“地球工程”（geoengineering）又被称为“气候工程”（climate engineering）或“气候地球工程”（climate geoengineering），是指为了应对气候变化而大规模地人为干预地球气候系统的行动。地球工程主要分为两类：太阳辐射管理（solar radiation management）工程与碳移除（carbon dioxide reduction）工程。地球工程伦理探讨的主要是第一种工程的伦理问题。西方学界对地球工程伦理的研究主要围绕以下两个主题展开。

1. The Theoretical Logic of Choosing Geoengineering

1.选择地球工程的理论逻辑

Most scholars support the theoretical logic of geoengineering: if emissions reduction measures cannot achieve substantive progress, humanity will have no choice but to select a method with relatively minor negative impacts (i.e., geoengineering) to address climate change. Gardiner questions this logic from five aspects: (1) whether the impacts caused by climate change have truly reached an uncontrollable level; (2) whether there are other methods besides geoengineering to address climate change; (3) whether geoengineering will affect the living space of future generations; (4) whether people can bear the political costs of geoengineering; (5) whether geoengineering signals that humanity has already become morally corrupt. Gardiner also refutes the “insurance argument” and the “self-defense argument” of geoengineering supporters. In his view, the logical path by which geoengineering can be established is: first, confirm the subject implementing geoengineering; second, determine the goals of geoengineering; finally, formulate an ethical framework for geoengineering, so that geoengineering does not become “another extreme form of domination.” Jamieson believes that implementing geoengineering must satisfy four conditions: (1) technical feasibility; (2) the consequences and impacts of the project are predictable; (3) the economic impact is better than other options; (4) it does not violate generally accepted ethical principles. However, in Jamieson’s view, these conditions are not yet present.

大部分学者支持地球工程的理论逻辑是：如果减排措施无法取得实质性进展，人类就只得选择一种消极影响较小的方法（即地球工程）来应对气候变化。加德纳从五个方面对这种逻辑提出了质疑：（1）气候变化造成的影响是否真的到了已经无法控制的地步；（2）除了地球工程，是否还有其他应对气候变化的方法；（3）地球工程是否会影响后代人的生存空间；（4）人们能否承受地球工程的政治代价；（5）地球工程是否预示着人类在道德方面已经败坏。加德纳还对地球工程支持者的“保险论理据”和“自卫论理据”进行了反驳。在他看来，地球工程能够成立的逻辑理路是：首先确认实施地球工程的主体，其次确定地球工程的目标，最后制定地球工程的伦理框架，以便地球工程不会成为“另一种极端形式的统治”。贾米森认为，实施地球工程必须满足四个条件：（1）技术上可行；（2）工程带来的后果与影响是可预知的；（3）对经济的影响好于其他选择；（4）不违背人们普遍接受的伦理原则。但是，在贾米森看来，这些条件目前尚不具备。

2. Ethical Issues Raised by Geoengineering

2.地球工程引发的伦理问题

Whether in the research and development stage or the implementation stage, geoengineering raises a series of ethical issues. The ethical issues raised by geoengineering in the R&D stage mainly include: (1) moral hazard: once geoengineering is regarded as an insurance measure against climate change, it diverts people’s attention, making them unwilling to take necessary but difficult measures to reduce emissions; excessive trust in the benefits of geoengineering may also tempt people to abandon emissions reduction efforts. (2) Slippery slope: once geoengineering R&D begins, we will ultimately use it; however, we have very important moral reasons (such as the various uncertainties and possible harms brought by geoengineering, and embarking on the irreversible path of “geoengineering technology lock-in”) to prove that geoengineering should not be implemented, and therefore geoengineering technology should not be researched and developed.

不论是在研发阶段还是在实施阶段，地球工程都会引发一系列伦理问题。地球工程在研发阶段引发的伦理问题主要有：（1）道德风险（moral hazard）：一旦把地球工程视为应对气候变化的保险措施，它就会转移人们的注意力，使人们不愿意采取必要但艰难的措施来减少排放；过分信赖地球工程的好处，还会诱使人们放弃减排的努力。（2）滑坡谬误（slippery slope）：一旦开始进行地球工程研发，我们最终就会使用它，但是，我们有非常重要的道德理由（如地球工程带来的各种不确定性以及可能的伤害、走上“地球工程技术锁定”的不归路）来证明不应该实施地球工程，进而不应该研发地球工程技术。

The ethical issues raised by geoengineering in the implementation stage mainly include: (1) procedural justice issues, i.e., who decides and how to decide whether, when, and in which countries or regions we implement geoengineering; (2) substantive justice issues, i.e., how to fairly distribute the costs and benefits of geoengineering. Daniel Callies believes that, according to the principle of causal responsibility, the principle of beneficiary responsibility, and the principle of capacity, the costs of implementing geoengineering should be borne primarily by those populations and countries that bear the most important causal responsibility for global warming, benefit the most from climate change, and have the greatest capacity to bear the costs of climate engineering, while the benefits of climate engineering should be shared by present and future generations; (3) geoengineering will harm intra-generational solidarity and inter-generational solidarity among humanity.

地球工程实施阶段引发的伦理问题主要有：（1）程序正义问题，即由谁来决定以及如何决定我们是否实施、何时实施、在哪些国家或地区实施地球工程；（2）实质正义问题，即如何公平地分配地球工程的成本与好处，丹尼尔·卡利斯（Daniel Callies）认为，根据因果责任原则、受益人责任原则与能力原则，实施地球工程的成本应当主要由那些对全球气候变暖负有最重要因果责任、从气候变化中获益最多、最有能力承担气候工程成本的人群和国家来承担，而气候工程的好处应当由当代人与后代人共享；（3）地球工程会损害人类的代内团结与代际团结。

Implementing geoengineering also raises other external ethical issues, mainly including: (1) implementing geoengineering will bring various negative consequences, potential harms, and uncertainties and risks, especially “known-unknowns” (we know what uncertainties and risks will arise) and “unknown-unknowns” (we do not know what uncertainties and risks will arise); (2) implementing geoengineering will bring global security and legal issues, such as some organizations or countries unilaterally implementing geoengineering to gain strategic advantages or for military, economic, and commercial purposes, thereby endangering the stability of the international order.

实施地球工程还会引发其他的外在伦理问题，主要包括：（1）实施地球工程会带来各种消极后果、潜在伤害以及不确定性与风险，尤其是“知道的无知”（known-unknowns，我们知道会带来哪些不确定性与风险）与“不知道的无知”（unknown-unknowns，我们不知道会带来哪些不确定性与风险）；（2）实施地球工程会带来全球安全与法律问题，如一些组织或国家会为了获得战略优势或出于军事的、经济的和商业的目的而单方面实施地球工程，从而危及国际秩序的稳定。

(4) Ethics of Climate Responsibility

（四）气候责任伦理

The causes of rising global temperatures are very complex. Taken individually, no single person’s greenhouse gas emissions cause the global temperature to rise. This asymmetry between the harmless emissions of a single individual and the overall harmful results of everyone’s emissions is called the “problem of inconsequentialism.” The problem of inconsequentialism has led to a debate in Western academia between collectivist and individualist approaches to understanding responsibility for climate change (including responsibility for mitigation and adaptation).

导致全球气温升高的原因是非常复杂的。分开来看，任何一个人的温室气体排放行为都不会导致全球气温的升高。单个人的无害排放与所有人排放的总体有害结果之间的这种不对称性，被称为个人无害排放与总体有害结果的“非后果主义问题”（problem of inconsequentialism）。非后果主义问题导致西方学界在如何理解气候变化的责任（包括减缓与适应气候变化的责任）问题上出现了集体主义方法与个体主义方法之争。

1. Collectivist Approach

1.集体主义方法

Garrett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” theory is a very important theory used to explain the causes of global warming. According to this theory, the seemingly harmless emissions of a single individual collectively lead to the greenhouse effect. At the same time, even if one person unilaterally reduces emissions while others continue to emit, that person’s unilateral reduction will not change the overall result of continuously rising global temperatures. Some scholars believe that the three elements of the tragedy of the commons (depletable resources, independent actors, and collective harm) also exist in the climate change situation. In this case, we cannot reasonably expect that an individual’s unilateral reduction of their emissions can achieve the overall goal of preventing global warming. Therefore, we cannot understand responsibility for climate change from an individualist perspective; rather, we must explain people’s responsibility for climate change from a collectivist perspective. If individual emissions cause harm only in the sense of the overall result, and individual emissions do not bring any direct, identifiable harm to any specific person, then as individuals, people have no personal moral obligation to unilaterally reduce emissions on their own, because the overall harm of climate change is not something individuals can control. Regardless of whether specific individuals emit or not, the overall harm will occur.

加勒特·哈丁（Garrett Hardin）的“公地悲剧”理论是用来解释全球气候变暖原因的一种非常重要的理论。根据该理论，单个人看似无害的排放行为在总体上却导致了温室效应的出现。同时，即使一个人单方面地减少排放，而其他人继续排放，那么他的单方面减排行为并不会改变全球气温持续升高的总体结果。一些学者认为，公地悲剧的三个要素（可减损的资源、独立的行为者、集合性的伤害）同样存在于气候变化的情形中。在这种情况下，我们无法合理地期待个人单方面减少其排放量的行为能够实现防止全球气候变暖的总体目标。因此，我们不能从个体主义的角度来理解气候变暖的责任，而应从集体主义的角度来说明人们在气候变化方面的责任。如果个体的排放行为只是在总体结果的意义上才带来伤害，个体的排放行为并没有给任何具体的个人带来任何直接的、可辨认的伤害，那么作为个体，人们就没有个人的道德义务去独自单方面地减少排放，因为气候变暖的总体伤害不是个人能够控制的。不管具体的个人是否排放，总体上的伤害都会发生。

According to scholars who favor the collectivist approach, it is humanity’s collective behavior that has caused global warming; to mitigate global warming, people must take collective action. Although people do not bear the individual obligation to unilaterally reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their daily lives, they still bear the collective obligation to take joint action with others to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Regarding climate change, the primary obligation of individuals is not to reduce emissions in their daily lives, but to create and maintain just institutions, and to achieve climate governance goals through just institutions. Elizabeth Cripps calls this obligation borne by individuals a “promotional duty,” and justifies this duty based on the principle of collective benefit and the principle of collective harm. In Cripps’s view, if individuals fulfill their promotional duty, then individuals cannot be morally condemned or bear moral guilt because their emissions have led to overall climate injustice. Maintaining climate justice is the primary obligation of governments and other relevant institutions. Some climate collectivists even argue that requiring people to reduce emissions in their daily lives is too high a moral demand. We should not apply the “do no harm” principle to carbon emissions; otherwise, our life prospects would become very bleak, because that would mean we could not fly, drive cars, use air conditioning, or other electrical appliances.

在赞成集体主义方法的学者看来，是人类的集体行为导致了全球气候变暖；要减缓全球气候变暖，人们就必须采取集体行动。人们虽然不负有在其日常生活中单方面地减少温室气体排放的个人义务，但仍然负有与其他人采取共同行动来减缓和适应气候变化的集体义务。就气候变化而言，个人负有的首要义务不是在其日常生活中减少排放，而是创建和维护正义的制度，并通过正义的制度实现气候治理的目标。伊丽莎白·克里普斯（Elizabeth Cripps）把个人负有的这种义务称为“推动型义务”（promotional duty），并依据集体受益原则与集体伤害原则来证明这种义务。在克里普斯看来，如果个人履行了其推动型义务，那么个人就不能因为其排放行为导致了总体上的气候不正义而遭受道德谴责或背负道德负疚感。维护气候正义是政府和其他相关机构的首要义务。有的气候集体主义者甚至认为，要求人们在其日常生活中减少排放是一种太高的道德要求。我们不应该把“不伤害”原则应用于碳排放行为，否则我们的生活前景将变得非常惨淡，因为那意味着我们将不能乘坐飞机、开车、使用空调等电器。

2. Individualist Approach

2.个体主义方法

Unlike climate collectivists, climate individualists believe that people not only have an obligation to mitigate and adapt to climate change through collective action, but also bear the personal obligation in their daily lives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and choose a green, low-carbon lifestyle.

与气候集体主义者不同，气候个体主义者认为，人们不仅有义务通过集体行动来减缓并适应气候变化，而且在其日常生活中也负有减少温室气体排放、选择绿色低碳生活方式的个人义务。

Climate individualists point out that the explanatory model of the tragedy of the commons does not apply to the situation of climate change. The theory of the tragedy of the commons presupposes such premises: individuals are independent of each other; there is no social force that can use law to constrain individual consumption; people’s actions do not affect each other, and people do not resort to collective action to cooperate with one another. But people living in the real world are not such people. Climate collectivists’ understanding of “non-consequentialist issues” is also one-sided, the result of erroneous “moral calculation.” In a globalized world, although the harm caused by individual behavior becomes increasingly difficult to calculate, we cannot, by falling into hasty ethical arithmetic, neglect subtle or imperceptible harm. The impact of individual actions may spread to many people or many places, to the point of becoming inconspicuous. Yet this does not mean that these tiny and dispersed interests or harms are morally irrelevant. Some scholars also rely on empirical data to prove that the harm caused by individual emissions behavior is identifiable and calculable.

气候个体主义者指出，公地悲剧的解释模型并不适用于气候变化的情形。公地悲剧理论预设了这样一些前提：个人是彼此独立的；不存在可用法律来约束个人消费的社会力量；人们之间的行为不会相互影响，人们也不会诉诸共同行动来彼此合作。但是生活在真实世界中的人并不是这样的人。气候集体主义对“非后果主义问题”的理解也是片面的，是基于错误的“道德计算”的结果。在全球化的世界中，个体行为所带来的伤害虽然变得越来越难以计算，但是，我们却不能因陷入草率的伦理算术而忽略了细微的或难以觉察的伤害。个人行为的影响可能会扩散到很多人或很多地方，以至于变得不引人注意。然而，这并不意味着这些微小而分散的利益或伤害在道德上就无关紧要。一些学者还依据经验数据来证明，个人的排放行为所带来的伤害是可以辨认、可以计算的。

In the view of climate individualists, people bear an individual moral obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and unilateral emissions reduction by individuals can change the overall outcome of harm. They also defend this individual climate responsibility from the perspectives of virtue ethics, fair share, the categorical imperative, indirect reciprocity, and so on.

在气候个体主义者看来，人们负有减少温室气体排放的个体道德义务，个人单方面的减排行为可以改变总体的伤害结果。他们还从美德伦理、公平份额、绝对命令、间接互惠等角度为个人负有的这种气候责任加以辩护。

III. Trends and Directions in Western Climate Ethics Research

三、西方气候伦理学研究的趋势和动向

Since the Paris Climate Conference, Western academic research on climate ethics has shown trends emphasizing the philosophical foundations, intellectual resources, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary perspectives of climate ethics research, the ethical challenges of global climate governance under the nationally determined contributions model, and climate governance and territorial sovereignty. Among these, non-anthropocentric climate ethics, climate migration ethics, and climate population ethics are three noteworthy new research directions.

巴黎气候大会以来，西方学界对气候伦理的研究出现了强调气候伦理研究的哲学基础、思想资源、跨学科与交叉学科视角、国家自主贡献模式下全球气候治理面临的伦理挑战、气候治理与领土主权等研究动向。其中，非人类中心主义的气候伦理、气候移民伦理、气候人口伦理是三个值得关注的研究新动向。

(I) Non-Anthropocentric Climate Ethics

（一）非人类中心主义的气候伦理

As early as the first stage of Western climate ethics research, the preliminary exploration stage, Jamieson advocated a value system that respects nature. Robin Attfield also argued that the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere should be regarded as the common property of all species; humanity should determine total greenhouse gas emissions as a trustee for other species; and emissions policy formulation must avoid endangering relevant species, regardless of whether those species can enhance human welfare.

早在西方气候伦理学研究的第一阶段即初步探索阶段，贾米森就倡导一种尊重自然的价值观。罗宾·阿特菲尔德（Robin Attfield）亦认为，要把大气的吸纳能力当作所有物种的共同财产来看待；人类要作为其他物种的托管人来确定温室气体的排放总量；排放政策的制定要避免危及相关的物种，不管这些物种能否增进人类的福祉。

In the second stage of Western climate ethics research, the stage of flourishing development, non-anthropocentric climate ethics has gained attention from an increasing number of scholars. In the view of these scholars, non-anthropocentric climate ethics rests on three assumptions: global climate has indeed changed; humanity bears moral responsibility for climate change; and the non-human world deserves moral consideration, whether or not it brings benefits to humans. Species, ecosystems, non-conscious life forms, and animals are the four types of moral consideration objects of non-anthropocentric climate ethics. The policy implications of non-anthropocentric climate ethics differ from those of anthropocentric climate ethics; it tends more toward “mitigation” rather than “adaptation” to climate change, and it rejects the common practice in public policy formulation of converting harm or benefit into economic value.

在西方气候伦理研究的第二阶段即繁荣发展阶段，非人类中心主义的气候伦理得到越来越多学者的关注。在这些学者看来，非人类中心主义的气候伦理建立在三个假设之上：全球气候确实发生了变化；人类对气候变化负有道德上的责任；无论是否给人类带来利益，非人类世界都应当获得道德关怀。物种、生态系统、无意识的生命体和动物是非人类中心主义气候伦理的四种道德关怀对象。非人类中心主义气候伦理的政策意蕴不同于人类中心主义气候伦理，它更倾向于“缓解”而非“适应”气候变化，并拒绝公共政策制定中普遍存在的将危害或利益转化为经济价值的做法。

In fact, the Second Assessment Report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1995 already pointed out that species, biodiversity, and ecosystems possess intrinsic value. Therefore, in the view of scholars advocating non-anthropocentric climate ethics, assessing the impact of climate change solely from an economic perspective cannot capture the intrinsic value of species, biodiversity, and ecosystems. Some scholars attempt to construct a concept of “multi-species climate justice” that transcends anthropocentrism. In their view, mainstream concepts of climate justice fail to adequately attend to the interests of other species, and also fail to question (and even implicitly condone) human exceptionalism and human violence against other species. The concept of multi-species climate justice transcends mainstream concepts of climate justice in two ways: first, by expanding the scope of obligation to include all life affected by climate change as objects of climate justice concern; second, by shifting the focus of climate justice concern from individual humans to the interaction between humans and nature, and to ecosystems as a whole. Multi-species climate justice is multi-dimensional, inclusive and open, sensitive to other species, and emphasizes the reconstruction of a new cosmopolitan politics that attends to all species and is based on a community of Earth life. The 14 papers collected in *Climate Change Ethics and the Non-Human World*, edited by Brian Henning and Zack Walsh, explore many important themes of non-anthropocentric climate ethics from the perspectives of philosophical foundations, intellectual resources, methodology, value orientation, practical norms, and policy implications. It is a concentrated display of non-anthropocentric climate ethics research, providing a new horizon for the academic community to further expand and deepen research on non-anthropocentric climate ethics.

事实上，政府间气候变化专门委员会于1995年发布的第二次评估报告就已经指出，物种、生物多样性和生态系统拥有内在价值，因此，在主张非人类中心主义气候伦理学的学者看来，仅仅从经济的角度来评估气候变化的影响，并不能把握物种、生物多样性和生态系统的内在价值。一些学者尝试建构一种超越人类中心主义的“多物种气候正义”（multi-species climate justice）理念。在他们看来，主流的气候正义理念未能充分关注其他物种的利益，也未能质疑（甚至还潜在地纵容）人类例外论，以及人类对其他物种的暴力。多物种气候正义概念通过两种方式来超越主流的气候正义概念：一是扩展义务关切的范围，把受到气候变化影响的所有生命都视为气候正义的关怀对象；二是把气候正义的关怀重点从个体的人扩展到人与自然的互动，以及作为整体的生态系统。多物种气候正义是多维视野的、包容开放的、对其他物种敏感的，强调重建一种关注所有物种、以地球生命共同体为基础的新世界主义政治。布莱恩·亨宁（Brian Henning）和扎克·沃尔什（Zack Walsh）主编的《气候变化伦理学与非人类世界》收录的14篇论文分别从哲学基础、思想资源、方法论、价值取向、实践规范、政策意蕴等角度探讨了非人类中心主义气候伦理学的许多重要主题，是非人类中心主义气候伦理研究的一次集中展示，为学界进一步拓展和深化非人类中心主义气候伦理的研究提供了全新的视野。

(II) Climate Migration (Refugee) Ethics

（二）气候移民（难民）伦理

Global warming has destroyed the homes of millions of people or rendered them uninhabitable. According to World Bank projections, if the rate of global warming is not controlled, by 2050, 143 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America alone will be displaced. A 2017 study by Columbia University in the United States also pointed out that by 2100, 450,000 climate refugees will flow to Europe each year. Therefore, over the past decade, the ethical issues of climate migration and climate refugees have gradually become an important research theme in Western climate ethics circles.

气候变暖导致数百万人的家园被毁或不适宜人居。据世界银行预测，如果全球变暖的速度得不到控制，到2050年，仅撒哈拉以南非洲、南亚与拉丁美洲就会有1.43亿人流离失所。美国哥伦比亚大学2017年的一项研究也指出，到2100年，每年将有45万气候难民流向欧洲。因此，近10年来，气候移民与气候难民的伦理问题逐渐成为西方气候伦理学界的一个重要研究主题。

In a broad sense, “climate refugee” (climate refugee) generally refers to individuals or groups forced to migrate due to climate change (drought, desertification, sea inundation, etc.) and other environmental factors, whether the migration occurs within or across national borders, and whether it is temporary or permanent. Climate ethics focuses mainly on those individuals or groups whose basic needs cannot be met domestically due to climate change and who are thus forced to migrate permanently to other countries. This category of people is broadly referred to as “climate migrant” (climate migrant). Most scholars advocate treating climate refugees as a special subcategory within “climate migrants.” The migration of this category of people raises relatively complex ethical issues, and the international community has not yet reached a legal consensus on how to resettle them.

广义上的气候难民（climate refugee）通常是指因气候变化（干旱、荒漠化、海水淹没等）和其他环境因素而被迫迁徙的个人或群体，不管这种迁徙是发生在国境内还是国境外，是暂时的还是永久性的。气候伦理学关注的主要是那些因气候变化而导致其基本需求在国内无法得到满足而被迫永久性地迁徙到其他国家的个人或群体。这类人群被称为广义上的气候移民（climate migrant）。大多数学者主张把气候难民当作“气候移民”中的一个特殊类别来对待。这类人群的迁徙引发的伦理问题比较复杂，国际社会在如何安置这类人群的问题上尚未达成法律共识。

The harms caused by climate change to climate migrants mainly include: loss of economic interests; threats to the rights to health, security, life, and production; and, accompanying the loss of homeland, the disappearance of the right to national self-determination, the dissolution of the political community, the loss of cultural identity, and the extinction of national culture. These harms suffered by climate migrants are all caused by the greenhouse gas emissions behavior of others, which raises the ethical question of how to compensate these climate migrants.

气候变化给气候移民造成的损害主要有：经济利益的损失；健康权、安全权、生命权、生产权受到的威胁；伴随家园丧失而来的民族自决权的消失、政治共同体的消失、文化认同感的丧失和民族文化的消亡。气候移民所遭受的这些伤害都是由其他人排放温室气体的行为导致的，这就引出了如何对这些气候移民进行补偿的伦理问题。

The main ethical issues involved in climate migration ethics include what rights climate migrants possess, who should bear responsibility for the situation of climate migrants, and on what principles compensation and reparation should be provided to climate migrants. Most scholars believe that developed countries bear primary responsibility for the current predicament of climate migrants and have the responsibility and obligation to provide reparation and compensation to climate migrants. In the view of these scholars, developed countries have not only an obligation of reparation toward climate migrants but also an obligation of compensation. The obligation of compensation is an obligation of justice. Western scholars remain divided on whether to require developed countries to bear the obligation of compensation based on the polluter pays principle, the beneficiary pays principle, or the ability to pay principle. Regarding the method of providing compensation to climate migrants, some scholars advocate primarily providing economic assistance, others advocate primarily providing migration opportunities, and still others advocate primarily providing land and territory.

气候移民伦理涉及的主要伦理问题包括气候移民拥有哪些权利、谁应当为气候移民的处境承担责任、应当依据何种原则对气候移民提供补偿和赔偿等。大多数学者都认为，发达国家要为气候移民的当前困境承担主要责任，并有责任和义务为气候移民提供赔偿和补偿。在这些学者看来，发达国家对气候移民不仅负有赔偿的义务，还负有补偿的义务。补偿义务是一种正义义务。在究竟是依据污染者付费原则、受益者付费原则，还是有能力者付费原则来要求发达国家承担补偿义务的问题上，西方学者还存在分歧。关于给气候移民提供补偿的方式，有学者主张以提供经济援助为主，也有学者主张以提供移民机会为主，还有学者主张以提供土地和领土为主。

(III) Climate Population Ethics

（三）气候人口伦理

According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, economic development and population growth remain the two most important factors driving the increase in carbon emissions. Population growth brings about a global rise in the overall demand for natural resources. Therefore, climate governance cannot be separated from the management of population size, and climate ethics is inseparable from population ethics.

根据政府间气候变化专门委员会的第五次评估报告，经济发展和人口增长仍然是导致碳排放增加的两个最重要的因素。人口增长带来的是全球范围内对自然资源需求量的整体上升。因此，气候治理离不开对人口数量的管理，气候伦理与人口伦理密不可分。

Relevant research shows a positive correlation between low fertility rates and the mitigation of climate change. Maintaining a low fertility rate (an average of 0.5 children per woman) could reduce global carbon emissions by 5.1 billion tons by 2100. Hence, Sarah Conly argues that a couple should have at most one child. Kanne criticizes Conly’s “restrictionist” population policy, arguing that it suffers from ethical defects such as arbitrariness, uniformity, and pseudo-egalitarianism. Kanne advocates an “eco-liberal” population policy, which buffers the demand for birth restriction by allowing a balance among more rights. Some scholars argue that limited reproductive rights should be protected, and that when a balance is struck between reducing per capita emissions and restricting births, priority should be given to restricting emissions (rather than restricting births), because those emissions do not contribute to the important goal of raising children.

相关研究显示，低生育率与减缓气候变化之间存在正相关关系。在保持低生育率（每个妇女平均生育0.5个孩子）的情况下，可以使全球碳排放量到2100年时减少51亿吨。因此，萨拉·康利（Sarah Conly）认为，一对夫妻最多只能生育一个孩子。卡内对康利的这种“限制主义”的人口政策提出了批评，认为该政策存在任意性、单一性、伪平均主义等伦理缺陷。卡内倡导一种“生态自由主义”的人口政策，该政策通过允许在更多权利之间进行平衡来缓冲限制生育的要求。一些学者认为，有限的生育权应当受到保护，当降低人均排放量与限制生育之间取得平衡时，应优先考虑限制排放（而非限制生育），因为这些排放对实现育儿这个重要目标并无帮助。

Population policy primarily involves ethical issues such as reproductive ethics, reproductive justice, regional (national) equality, and women’s rights. Some scholars argue that the problem of “overpopulation” should be viewed in light of regional realities. For Africa, population means productive forces, wealth, and honor. Therefore, the so-called “lifeboat metaphor” of the Western developed countries should not be used to consider the population problems of less developed countries (regions). The harm of overpopulation obliges all countries in the world to bear the responsibility of limiting birth rates, but at present this responsibility falls mainly on less developed countries (regions). This situation should be changed: the responsibility for lowering birth rates should be borne more by developed countries. Against the background of global warming and the increasing scarcity of natural resources, the impact of population growth on the contemporary and future world cannot be ignored. The formulation of population policy must consider both the basic rights of the present generation and the well-being of future generations. How to formulate population policy scientifically and make it acceptable to more interest groups is an important issue that climate ethics needs to study further.

人口政策主要涉及生育伦理、生殖正义、地区（国家）平等、女性权利等伦理问题。一些学者认为，要结合地区实际情况来看待“人口过剩”的问题。对于非洲地区来说，人口意味着生产力、财富和荣誉。因此，不能用西方发达国家所谓的“救生艇隐喻”来考虑欠发达国家（地区）的人口问题。人口过剩的危害促使世界各国都负有限制出生率的责任，但是现阶段这种责任却主要由欠发达国家（地区）承担。这种状况应当加以改变，降低出生率的责任应当更多地由发达国家来承担。在全球气候变暖和自然资源日渐紧缺的情况下，人口增长对于当代和未来世界的影响不可忽视。人口政策的制定既要考虑当代人的基本权利，也要考虑未来世代的福祉。如何科学地制定人口政策，并使其被更多利益群体所接受，是气候伦理学需要进一步研究的重要问题。

(About the authors: Yang Tongjin, Gu Yueming: School of Marxism, Guangxi University)

（作者简介：杨通进、古月铭：广西大学马克思主义学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心