Should climate activists be optimistic or pessimistic about the climate crisis and their efforts to confront it? This paper analyses common narratives in the climate movement through the lens of the philosophical traditions of optimism and pessimism, arguing for three points. Firstly, most dominant narratives within the climate movement resemble philosophical optimism through their commitment to political progress and inherent value of climate action. Secondly, optimistic narratives within the climate movement should be rejected, as climate optimism places an overwhelming mental (...) burden on climate activists and drives the climate movement towards bad responses to the inefficacy problem. Finally, the paper sketches pessimism as a better framework that can act as a moral source for climate activists. (shrink)

Both within the climate movement and in academic circles, it has become common advice to avoid despair. Despair about the climate crisis is the opposite of hope and should be avoided on grounds of both rational aptness and pragmatic considerations. Despair about climate breakdown is only rationally apt if it is impossible for our actions to make a difference. As our actions do make a difference, despair is not a fitting response to climate change). Further, we have pragmatic reasons to (...) avoid despair as it leads to apathy and inaction about climate change. This chapter argues that despair is a rationally apt response to the climate crisis. Despair is a fitting response to the structural features of the climate crisis in terms of fragmentation of agency, making despair an accurate representation of a situation lacking agency. Despair is an important source of moral knowledge about the structure of the climate crisis, which is not automatically outweighed by pragmatic reasons and demanding to avoid despair can lead to affective injustice. The chapter closes with considerations of whether despair really does hinder moral imagination. (shrink)

Proponents of temporal neutrality have challenged the intuitive appeal of future-bias: The intuitive appeal of future-bias is limited to a set of isolated cases that involve only hedonic and self-regarding goods and harms. They suggest that we should treat future-bias as irrational in self-regarding hedonic cases too, or at least not treat the intuitive appeal as evidence for future-bias's permissibility, since hedonic and non-hedonic cases are relevantly similar. This paper defends the rationality of future-bias against this concern. Firstly, hedonic goods (...) and harms mostly concern well-being at a time, while the proposed non-hedonic goods concern lifetime goodness. This is a relevant structural difference between hedonic and non-hedonic goods and harms that warrant different attitude patterns, including the applicability of future-bias. Secondly, the degree of idealisation required to make intuitions favour temporal neutrality obscures the weight of intuitions to a level that makes it unreliable as evidence against the permissibility of future-bias. As temporal neutralists need this degree of idealisation of their cases, the argument fails. In summary, we can keep using intuitive support as evidence for future-bias's rationality, at least when it comes to hedonic goods, but to some extent for its general permissibility. (shrink)