EJIL: Debate!

• Lawrence, Peter

Abstract

Stephen Humphreys in his article ‘Against Future Generations’ in this journal argues against intergenerational framings in the climate context, claiming that such framings work against future generations by carrying forward today’s structural inequalities into the future. He contends that those using such framings tend to subordinate global intra-generational equity to local intergenerational equity, glossing over very significant differences in power and wealth amongst those impacted by climate change. This response to Humphreys’ article argues that Humphreys has set up a false dichotomy: it is not only developed countries that care about future generations – developing countries are concerned about addressing poverty now and their own future generations. Humphreys’ claim that climate litigation has and should limit itself to harms to persons alive now is also unconvincing. Most climate litigation involving children or young people to date has included claims brought by them both in relation to their own interests (now and in the future) and on behalf of future generations. The response points to cases where, contrary to Humphreys’ position – harms extending to future generations have made a substantive difference in legal outcomes.