Andrew Light and Gwynne Taraska (2014) argue that problems of adaptation to climate change intensify traditional arguments in favor of state-to-state aid for development, arguments which appeal to beneficence, rights, obligations created by complicity in harm, self-interest and globalization. Climate change, they argue, involves a relationship of harm between wealthy nations, which contribute disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, and poorer nations, a relationship which, though not strictly causal, gives each of the traditional arguments greater weight. But do problems of adapting to climate change also attenuate arguments against state-to-state aid? 

Enter the metaphor of the lifeboat, and Garrett Hardin’s variably effective arguments against unconditional state-to-state food aid to address problems of hunger in the face of population growth, which he maintains can lead only to a redistribution of misery across ever-increasing numbers of people. His arguments turn in part on his use of the ecological concept of carrying capacity. While problems of climate adaptation are intertwined with population growth, the context is quite different and not all of Hardin’s various arguments land with the same force. 

Nevertheless, recasting Hardin’s ecological pragmatism in terms of the adaptive capacity of human systems in relation to the carrying capacity of local and regional environments has much to teach about the conditions under which state-to-state aid for climate adaptation may do more harm than good. In the end, climate change may attenuate some of Hardin’s arguments, but others of his arguments retain enough of their force to merit further consideration.