Security and distribution, or should you care about merely possible losses?

Thumbnail Image
Files
Date
2018-03-01
Authors
Mintz-Woo, Kian
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Published Version
10.1080/21550085.2018.1562532
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Jonathan Herington argues that harms can occur whether or not there is actually a loss. He claims that subjectively or objectively merely being at risk of losing access to basic goods is sufficient for lowering that individual's well-being for the value of 'security'. I challenge whether losing access to basic goods is sufficient to justify the introduction of this value. I also point to some issues in his interpretation of IPCC risk categories and the social science research he relies on.
Description
Keywords
Climate change , Harms , Loss and damage , Risk , Security
Citation
Mintz-Woo, K. (2018) 'Security and Distribution, or Should You Care about Merely Possible Losses?' Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21 (3), pp. 382-386. doi: 10.1080/21550085.2018.1562532
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10468/10426
Collections
Philosophy - Journal Articles
Copyright
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.