ABSTRACT
If ethical obligation to future people cannot provide enough impetus to make us change the ways of life that are causing climate change, what could? Suppose we accept the argument of the book up to this point: we are always liable, both as individuals and collectively, to be floating our standards for discharging difficult duties framed over such a long time-span. Consequently we will always tend to find ourselves slipping back from their more exacting demands. The sustainability goal, conceived like this, will always have that mirage-like quality of receding from us as we try to advance towards it. So what alternative understanding of what we are doing might help to prevent this?
