I take the human costs of global poverty to demand serious political reflection. I argue for a diverse consensus among theories of justice on a set of obligations toward the global poor that we, sadly, fail to fulfill. I analyze this moral failure, developing an account of it that highlights structural flaws in the flow of information relevant to our moral relations with the global poor. I conclude that proper attention to the flow of information within global society is an (...) imperative of global justice. (shrink)

What if we fail to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and so face its more severe impacts? I argue that asking this question reveals a new obligation of climate justice: contingency planning for severe climate change. Surprisingly, such plans are already being drafted. But the politics behind them is neoliberal and militarist. I identify the epistemology of futurity motivating contingency planning—possibilism—and argue that we can and should dissociate it from, and redeploy it against, neoliberal militarism.

Ongoing inaction on mitigation and adaptation has turned climate justice debates toward non-ideal theory, where the demand for action-guidance is foregrounded. Some theorists have adopted an understanding of the problem of action-guidance toward climate justice as a “pathway problem.” I argue that this theoretical framework’s assumptions, including a reliance on probabilistic feasibility assessments, makes it inappropriate to guide action toward climate justice.