Climate Precaution and Producer versus Consumer Dependence on Fossil Fuels

2Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article explores the consequences of falling costs of solar and wind power for the ethics of climate change mitigation. We suggest that price competitiveness of renewables reveals a divergence of interest between fossil fuel consumers and producers: cheap renewables strengthen precautionary arguments for aggressive mitigation for consumers but threaten the economic base of producers. As existing applications of the precautionary principle to climate change do not address this issue, we develop a novel approach based on lexical utilities. Given the premise that climate catastrophe entails economic catastrophe but not vice versa, we argue that both producers and consumers should favor mitigation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Steel, D., Bartha, P., & Cripps, R. (2025). Climate Precaution and Producer versus Consumer Dependence on Fossil Fuels. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 28(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2023.2247815

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free