This article offers a critical examination of emissions sufficientarianism – the view that individuals or societies should be permitted only as many carbon emissions as needed to meet a threshold of survival or decency. While this position has gained traction in climate ethics, I argue that it suffers from deep moral and political shortcomings. First, it is geophysically inadequate: dangerous climate change can no longer be avoided through emissions reductions alone. Second, it is politically implausible: a normative framework built on permanent material restraint is unlikely to command democratic support or endure institutional stress. Third, and more subtly, it is morally regressive. By foregrounding behavioural limits in the present, emissions sufficientarianism risks foreclosing more inclusive and emancipatory futures – especially in a world of structural inequality and incomplete globalization. As an alternative, I defend a form of ecomodernist ethics grounded in human fallibility, scientific curiosity, and cosmopolitan justice. This perspective affirms the importance of intergenerational responsibility but rejects moralism and austerity as the dominant lens for climate action. Instead, it calls for building the political, technological, and institutional capacities needed to support a high-energy, decarbonized, and pluralist future.
