Can't Opt Out: Rawls and Climate Denialists

This post was inspired by the DQ: What would John Rawls say about climate denialists whose position is "core to his or her identity?"

Before answering the question, allow me to give you a brief overview of John Rawls' ideology (Note: all citations for Rawls can be found here on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Essentially, Rawls strives for reflective equilibrium, or the idea that each belief held by an individual must cohere with the rests.  There is a trickle-down effect where abstract interpretations of the world determine our convictions, which, in turn, determine our judgements/actions.  The traditional example (given by the Encyclopedia) is that the abstract belief that "all citizens are free and equal" leads to the conviction of "all citizens have basic rights," which leads one to believe that "slavery is bad."  Each idea is compatible and coherent with the rest.  

Appalachian Trail somewhere along the TN/NC border

A friendly reminder that the world is still beautiful

Stemming from this background, Rawls assumes that all individuals are rational and reasonable (since each individual would be employing rigorous intellectual activity necessary to reach reflective equilibrium).  He argues that if each individual was able to set aside their personality/beliefs/experience and operate from behind a "Veil of Ignorance" we would be able to agree upon certain principals.  Essentially, humanity would be able to construct a concept of justice that is both freestanding and compatible with each individual's belief.  The basic justification he offers is that assuming that we did not know what our life would look like--we could be a prince or a pauper--we would strive to make life as favorable as possible to as many people as possible out of self-interest.  For example, whenever my mother made brownies, whoever cut the brownies picked their piece last.  My siblings and I always sought to make the pieces as even as possible.  If the cutter made one massive piece, they were not likely to get that piece--not only had they not gotten the biggest piece, they had also short-changed themselves into smaller pieces.  Out of rational self-interest we were inclined to divvy up the brownies as equally as possible.  Rawls utilizes a similar mechanism that requires individuals to compromise and find common ground.  For example, a die-hard Yankees fan and a die-hard Red Sox fan can both agree that baseball is their favorite sport.  A die-hard Marvel fan and a die-hard DC fan can both agree that the comic book medium is their favorite genre.  

With a basic understanding of Rawls, we can look at how he would respond to climate denialists.  Ironically, the climate change issue is not the first time diverse personal beliefs have clashed with Rawls' liberalism.  If you want an interesting case study, I would point to Mozert v. Hawkins (1986) where religious fundamentalists objected to various programs in the local schools--most notably, the assigned reading.  Specifically, the families argued that the readings were unbalanced religiously and asked if their kids could be allowed to opt out. PLEASE NOTE: Rawls' theories do not inherently pit "science" against "faith," the Mozert case illustrates an instance where individuals protesting a public initiative because it infringed upon their individual beliefs--don't miss the forest for the trees.  The Mozert case has become a central feature in debates about how far liberal policies may extend.  One faction has argued that the religious opt-out feature violates basic liberal features of reasonable accommodation (by option out, it has been argued that kids are more likely to contribute the ongoing cycle of  religious partisanship).  Others have argued that the religious opt-out is innocent and sends a welcoming message to religious individuals.  

The climate issue can be framed in a similar fashion; however, unlike middle school reading programs, you cannot "opt out" of the environment. According to my understanding of Rawls, he would draw the line between what is optional versus mandatory based upon the distinction of John Locke's harm principle (essentially individuals are free to commit self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts are subject to regulatory oversight).  Certain individuals have beliefs/lifestyles they hold near and dear.  Environmental activists and scientists have accurately identified a crisis and have pushed for public initiatives.  Rawls pushes for accommodations, but we have two factions that are unwilling to give any ground.  Extreme Right Wing conservatives have argued that renewable energy is a trojan horse for UN political agendas.  In contrasts, we have Left Wing activists actively pushing for straws to be banned.  If we are to find common ground that we can build a public initiative compatible, both sides must give in a bit.  

I know this seems counter intuitive since the underlying assumption (at least from what I have seen in this class) has been the environment is dire straights and we need to act now.  No quarter can be given when the future of humanity itself is at stake.  However, has one read through the text of the Green New Deal?  In addition to the drastic environmental/economic initiatives, the GND proposes to fix the following: Stop systemic oppression of marginalized communities (p.6, limes 8-17), overhauling financial investments (p.11, line 1-11), prohibitions against monopolies (p.14, line 8-11), and guaranteeing free health care for all Americans (p. 14, line 12-14).  Each of these policies is commendable, but if the Democrats want the resolution to pass, they will need to pick their battles.  Rebuilding the United State's economy in 10 years will require bipartisan efforts, and Democrats must strategically prioritize a platform that can appeal to all citizens.

In conclusion, what would Rawls say to climate denialists (and climate activists by extension)?  Easy: "get over yourself!"  Big government will be just as ineffectual as big corporations.  If we truly want to whether the storm, we must works towards building a better world the bottom up.  Each individual is entitled to their personal beliefs and convictions.  But as soon as those ideas and convictions move from the realm of self-regarding actions to other-regarding actions, those ideas must be filtered through the Veil of Ignorance to determine whether they are mutually agreeable.