Here’s a recent paper I don’t think I mentioned here yet. It’s called “Climate Change and Moral Outrage”, and it appears in Human Ecology Review 17.2. You can read it here. It’s a little loud, but it argues for consistency in our thinking about state responses to climate change and our own, individual responses in the course of an ordinary human life. It’s another try at getting around the thought that one’s consequences are tiny, so why try to change one’s carbon footprint. It connects thoughts about large state emissions, which can seem obviously wrong, to individual emissions, which seem to make no difference. Secretly, it’s an attempt to think through the old thought that we should think globally and act locally. In the end, I don’t think it’s entirely persuasive, but it is one more thought to be added to others about action on climate change.