Anna-Maria Edlinger
École Normale Supérieure Paris
Within contemporary climate ethics discourse, the concept of substitution manifests itself in various dimensions. Initially, it surfaces in economic discussions surrounding sustainability, which endeavor to assess the extent to which natural capital lost to climate change (this includes natural ressources, ecosystem services and services like insolation) can be replaced by human-made capital (manufactured capital, knowledge, skills and technology, social capital like norms and networks). Two opposing viewpoints emerge in this discourse: weak sustainability posits that natural capital can be fully or largely substituted by human-made capital, while strong sustainability contends that such substitution is untenable, advocating for the preservation of natural resources (Reijnders, 2021). This debate not only raises questions about moral responsibility for environmental degradation but also about the equitable distribution of remaining resources. Additionally, the concept of substitution extends to cultural resources lost alongside natural ones, such as traditional ways of life and a sense of belonging. While proponents of weak sustainability suggest monetary compensation for these losses, adherents of strong sustainability argue for their irreplaceability (Neumayer 2003). Thus, the notion of substitution significantly shapes our understanding of loss and informs the severity of the climate crisis.
Furthermore, substitution emerges as a political decision in climate ethics, as highlighted by Carton et al. Equivalences are drawn between current and future climate change mitigation actions, with one often deemed interchangeable with the other, irrespective of timing. This assumption, prevalent in 80% of scenarios in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C of 2018, is critiqued both scientifically, due to the risk of surpassing tipping points before carbon removal, and ethically (Carton et al., 2021).
However, the precise meaning of substitution in this context remains unclear, and could benefit from philosophical clarification. Drawing on theoretical philosophical literature, this paper aims to explore various definitions of substitution, including those rooted in logic (such as Leibniz’s law, Andrew Bacon’s substitution structures, and the debate about ersatzism in modal logic), philosophy of language (e.g., Saul’s discourse on substitution in simple sentences), and metaphysics (such as the Theseus’ ship paradox). By contextualizing the notion of substitution within climate ethics and engaging with philosophical definitions, this study seeks to contribute to a nuanced understanding of substitution in the climate crisis discourse and wants to propose a comprehensive definition.
Chair: Ryan McLaughlin
Time: September 13th, 16:00 – 16:30
Location: SR 1.007
SOPhiA 2026 