Abstract

The Half-Earth proposal (or ‘Nature Needs Half’) was put forward as an answer to the current sixth mass extinction crisis on Earth and sparked a debate with disagreement on empirical and normative questions. In this paper I focus on the so far undertheorised normative debate and will provide some conditions that would need to be fulfilled in order for the Half-Earth proposal to serve justice. As I will illustrate, to even begin with situating the Half-Earth proposal within an account of justice rests on an extensive rebuilding of our understanding of justice and many dimensions of justice have to be addressed before it is possible to determine whether the proposal could be regarded as all-things-considered just. I will start by focusing on the question of what would constitute a just global distribution of habitat by introducing the conceptual framework of distributive ecological justice – i.e., the notion that also nonhuman beings can have justice claims to certain ‘goods’ – and put it into conversation with considerations of environmental justice between humans. The upshot is that if a range of empirical and normative conditions are fulfilled, then the proposal can embody a distributively just compromise between ecological and environmental justice.