Security and distribution, or should you care about merely possible losses?
Taylor & Francis
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.
Climate change , Harms , Loss and damage , Risk , Security
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
© 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.