Contenido

La equidad intergeneracional a menudo se menciona en contextos ambientales, ya que las cohortes más jóvenes experimentarán de manera desproporcionada las consecuencias negativas del daño ambiental. Por ejemplo, se estima que los niños nacidos en 2020 (la llamada Generación Alfa) experimentará de 2 a 7 eventos meteorológicos extremos durante su vida, en particular olas de calor, en comparación con las personas nacidas en 1960, según los compromisos de política climática actuales.[15]​[16]​ Además, en promedio, los adultos jugaron "un papel de liderazgo en el aumento de las emisiones de GEI en la última década y están en camino de convertirse en el mayor contribuyente" debido a factores como la transición demográfica, baja preocupación informada sobre el cambio climático y alto gasto en productos intensivos en carbono como la energía utilizada, entre otras cosas, para calentar habitaciones y transporte privado.[17]​[18]​.

Ethical perspectives on improvement

Two perspectives have been proposed on what needs to be done to improve intergenerational environmental equity: the “weak sustainability” perspective and the “strong sustainability” perspective. From the “weak” perspective, intergenerational equity would be achieved if losses to the environment faced by future generations were offset by gains in economic progress (as measured by contemporary mechanisms/metrics). From the "strong" perspective, no amount of economic progress (or as measured by contemporary metrics) can justify leaving future generations with a degraded environment. According to Professor Sharon Beder, the "weak" perspective is undermined by a lack of knowledge of the future, since we do not know which intrinsically valuable resources cannot be replaced by technology.[19] We also do not know the extent to which environmental damage is irreversible. Furthermore, further damage to many species of plants and animals cannot be avoided.[19] Other scholars dispute Beder's view. Professor Wilfred Beckerman insists that "strong sustainability" is "morally repugnant", particularly when it overrides other moral concerns about those living today.[20] Beckerman insists that the optimal choice for society is to prioritize the well-being of current generations, although, depending on, for example, life expectancy, they too are affected by unsustainability, over future generations. He suggests placing a discount rate on outcomes for future generations when accounting for generational equity.[20]​ Beckerman is widely criticized by Brian Barry[21]​ and Nicholas Vrousalis.[22]​.

Climate-related lawsuit

In September 2015, a group of young environmental activists filed a lawsuit against the United States federal government for failing to sufficiently protect against climate change: Juliana v. United States. Their statement emphasized the disproportionate cost of climate-related damages that younger generations would bear:[23]​ "The young plaintiffs represent the youngest living generation, beneficiaries of the public trust. The young plaintiffs have a substantial, direct and immediate interest in protecting the atmosphere, other vital natural resources, their quality of life, their property interests and their liberties. They also have an interest in ensuring that the climate system remains stable enough to secure their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, rights that depend on a livable Future."[24] The case was allowed to go to trial in November 2016 after United States District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the case. In her opinion and order, she said: "Exercising my 'reasoned judgment,' I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and orderly society."[25] As of April 2017, the trial was halted with a stay. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the stay in November 2017 in its subsequent ruling that "the development and oversight of a plan to mitigate anthropogenic climate change would exceed the Article III Court's remedial powers."[26]

Debates about intergenerational equity regarding living standards refer to the differences between people of different ages or different generations. Rice, Temple and McDonald have distinguished two perspectives on intergenerational equity in living standards:[27]​.

d'Albis, Badji, El Mekkaoui and Navaux have proposed three indicators of intergenerational equity in economic flows, such as income:[28]​.

In Australia, there has been remarkable equality in the standard of living, as measured by consumption, among people aged 20 to 75 years. However, there are important inequalities between different generations, with older generations having a lower standard of living in real terms at certain ages than younger generations. One way to illustrate these inequalities is to look at how long it took different generations to reach a consumption level of $30,000 a year (2009-10 Australian dollars). At one extreme, people born in 1935 reached this level of consumption when they were about 50 years old, on average. At the other extreme, Millennials born in 1995 had reached this level of consumption when they were about 10 years old.[27]​.

Considerations such as these have led some scholars to argue that living standards have tended to rise generation after generation in most countries, as development and technology have progressed. Taking this into account, younger generations may have inherent privileges over older generations, which may offset the redistribution of wealth toward older generations.[29]​.

The cultural decline of the norm of adult children caring for aging parents is seen by some scholars as an issue of intergenerational equity. The older generation had to take care of their parents as well as their own children, while the younger generation only has to take care of their children. This is especially true in countries with weak social security systems. Professor Sang-Hyop Lee describes this phenomenon in South Korea and explains that today's elderly have the highest poverty rate of all developed countries. He notes that it is particularly frustrating because the elderly often invest a lot in their children's education and now feel betrayed.[30]​.

Other scholars express different opinions about which generation is disadvantaged by elder care. Professor Steven Wisensale describes the burden borne by working-age adults in developed economies, who must care for their parents and older relatives for a longer period of time. This problem is exacerbated by the increasing participation of women in the workforce and the falling fertility rate, which leaves the burden of caring for parents, as well as aunts, uncles, and grandparents, on fewer sons and daughters.[31]​.

Conversations about intergenerational equity are also relevant to areas of social justice, where issues such as healthcare[32]​ are of equal importance to youth rights and the voice of youth is compelling and urgent. There is strong interest within the legal community toward the application of intergenerational equity in the law.[33]​.

Contenido

La equidad intergeneracional a menudo se menciona en contextos ambientales, ya que las cohortes más jóvenes experimentarán de manera desproporcionada las consecuencias negativas del daño ambiental. Por ejemplo, se estima que los niños nacidos en 2020 (la llamada Generación Alfa) experimentará de 2 a 7 eventos meteorológicos extremos durante su vida, en particular olas de calor, en comparación con las personas nacidas en 1960, según los compromisos de política climática actuales.[15]​[16]​ Además, en promedio, los adultos jugaron "un papel de liderazgo en el aumento de las emisiones de GEI en la última década y están en camino de convertirse en el mayor contribuyente" debido a factores como la transición demográfica, baja preocupación informada sobre el cambio climático y alto gasto en productos intensivos en carbono como la energía utilizada, entre otras cosas, para calentar habitaciones y transporte privado.[17]​[18]​.

Ethical perspectives on improvement

Two perspectives have been proposed on what needs to be done to improve intergenerational environmental equity: the “weak sustainability” perspective and the “strong sustainability” perspective. From the “weak” perspective, intergenerational equity would be achieved if losses to the environment faced by future generations were offset by gains in economic progress (as measured by contemporary mechanisms/metrics). From the "strong" perspective, no amount of economic progress (or as measured by contemporary metrics) can justify leaving future generations with a degraded environment. According to Professor Sharon Beder, the "weak" perspective is undermined by a lack of knowledge of the future, since we do not know which intrinsically valuable resources cannot be replaced by technology.[19] We also do not know the extent to which environmental damage is irreversible. Furthermore, further damage to many species of plants and animals cannot be avoided.[19] Other scholars dispute Beder's view. Professor Wilfred Beckerman insists that "strong sustainability" is "morally repugnant", particularly when it overrides other moral concerns about those living today.[20] Beckerman insists that the optimal choice for society is to prioritize the well-being of current generations, although, depending on, for example, life expectancy, they too are affected by unsustainability, over future generations. He suggests placing a discount rate on outcomes for future generations when accounting for generational equity.[20]​ Beckerman is widely criticized by Brian Barry[21]​ and Nicholas Vrousalis.[22]​.

Climate-related lawsuit

In September 2015, a group of young environmental activists filed a lawsuit against the United States federal government for failing to sufficiently protect against climate change: Juliana v. United States. Their statement emphasized the disproportionate cost of climate-related damages that younger generations would bear:[23]​ "The young plaintiffs represent the youngest living generation, beneficiaries of the public trust. The young plaintiffs have a substantial, direct and immediate interest in protecting the atmosphere, other vital natural resources, their quality of life, their property interests and their liberties. They also have an interest in ensuring that the climate system remains stable enough to secure their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, rights that depend on a livable Future."[24] The case was allowed to go to trial in November 2016 after United States District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the case. In her opinion and order, she said: "Exercising my 'reasoned judgment,' I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and orderly society."[25] As of April 2017, the trial was halted with a stay. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the stay in November 2017 in its subsequent ruling that "the development and oversight of a plan to mitigate anthropogenic climate change would exceed the Article III Court's remedial powers."[26]

Debates about intergenerational equity regarding living standards refer to the differences between people of different ages or different generations. Rice, Temple and McDonald have distinguished two perspectives on intergenerational equity in living standards:[27]​.

d'Albis, Badji, El Mekkaoui and Navaux have proposed three indicators of intergenerational equity in economic flows, such as income:[28]​.

In Australia, there has been remarkable equality in the standard of living, as measured by consumption, among people aged 20 to 75 years. However, there are important inequalities between different generations, with older generations having a lower standard of living in real terms at certain ages than younger generations. One way to illustrate these inequalities is to look at how long it took different generations to reach a consumption level of $30,000 a year (2009-10 Australian dollars). At one extreme, people born in 1935 reached this level of consumption when they were about 50 years old, on average. At the other extreme, Millennials born in 1995 had reached this level of consumption when they were about 10 years old.[27]​.

Considerations such as these have led some scholars to argue that living standards have tended to rise generation after generation in most countries, as development and technology have progressed. Taking this into account, younger generations may have inherent privileges over older generations, which may offset the redistribution of wealth toward older generations.[29]​.

The cultural decline of the norm of adult children caring for aging parents is seen by some scholars as an issue of intergenerational equity. The older generation had to take care of their parents as well as their own children, while the younger generation only has to take care of their children. This is especially true in countries with weak social security systems. Professor Sang-Hyop Lee describes this phenomenon in South Korea and explains that today's elderly have the highest poverty rate of all developed countries. He notes that it is particularly frustrating because the elderly often invest a lot in their children's education and now feel betrayed.[30]​.

Other scholars express different opinions about which generation is disadvantaged by elder care. Professor Steven Wisensale describes the burden borne by working-age adults in developed economies, who must care for their parents and older relatives for a longer period of time. This problem is exacerbated by the increasing participation of women in the workforce and the falling fertility rate, which leaves the burden of caring for parents, as well as aunts, uncles, and grandparents, on fewer sons and daughters.[31]​.

Conversations about intergenerational equity are also relevant to areas of social justice, where issues such as healthcare[32]​ are of equal importance to youth rights and the voice of youth is compelling and urgent. There is strong interest within the legal community toward the application of intergenerational equity in the law.[33]​.