Morality, justice, and collective climate action

This review synthesizes literature on the moral arguments of those who engage in collective action to promote climate reform, as well as the moral arguments of those who engage in collective action to oppose mitigation efforts. Although these groups have competing goals, we make the case that their moral arguments cluster around similar themes: the need to avoid harm, the need to preserve fairness, and the need to maintain environmental purity. We describe reasons why expressing moral arguments can amplify and polarize intergroup contests between supporters and opponents of climate action. We finish by making recommendations for how moralized polarization around climate change can be managed in a way that reduces gridlock and facilitates constructive dialogue. • Both supporters and opponents of climate mitigation engage in collective action. • Both sides of the climate change debate use moral arguments for collective action. • Moral arguments cluster around themes of harm, justice and purity. • Moralized arguments can amplify and polarize intergroup contests. • Communication strategies exist that can reduce the polarization dilemma.