Appeals to Justice in the Environmental Debate

Arguments over issues with environmental implications are increasingly salient in the public arena, and appeals to justice are made by both those who favor and those who oppose environmental regulations. But can justice really be claimed by each side with equal plausibility? The concept of justice can be defined in different ways, which may tend to favor one side or the other. Although there is a high degree of variability among the arguments presented, the environmental crisis seems most generally to pit justice for the individual, or microjustice, against justice for a larger group, or macrojustice. The present article examines the evidence for this, and reports the results of a study examining appeals to different principles of justice. Subjects were asked to evaluate arguments based on microjustice principles, such as procedural justice, or macrojustice principles, such as equality and responsibility, by each side of the environmental debate. Although pro‐environmental arguments received stronger ratings overall, it was also found, as expected, that appeals based on procedural justice were relatively stronger when phrased in terms of an anti‐environmental stance, and other arguments were relatively stronger for the pro‐environmental position.