Climate Change Justice

Papua, Indonesia, says that if other countries are concerned about global warming, they should pay Papua not to cut down its forests. For Papua, short-term development is more important than the long-term cost of global warming. China has made a similar argument. Global warming is a serious problem but China has a “right to development,” and until hundreds of millions of Chinese make more than $1 per day, China is right to avoid being entangled in international climate control commitments. If the rich countries want to avoid being swamped by rising seas, they will have to pay China to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Many people are willing to give Papua and maybe even China a free pass. But doesn’t the logic apply to the United States as well? Although it is true that the United States would be a net gainer from modest global warming abatement programs, the United States would be worse off if it agreed to the more ambitious targets proposed by European countries. So while the United States ought to contribute to global warming abatement, it is not clear that that it should cut back as much as the Europeans want it to—unless they are willing to pay the United States to do so. The arguments for and against this position are complex. For an academic discussion, a paper is available here (abstract below).

Climate Change Justice

ERIC A. POSNER University of Chicago Law School; University of Chicago Press CASS R. SUNSTEIN University of Chicago - Law School

Abstract:      Greenhouse gas reductions would cost some nations much more than others, and benefit some nations far less than others. Significant reductions would impose especially large costs on the United States, and recent projections suggest that the United States has relatively less to lose from climate change. In these circumstances, what does justice require the United States to do? Many people believe that the United States is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point that is justified by its own self-interest, simply because the United States is wealthy, and because the nations most at risk from climate change are poor. This argument from distributive justice is complemented by an argument from corrective justice: The existing “stock” of greenhouse gas emissions owes a great deal to the past actions of the United States, and many people think that the United States should do a great deal to reduce a problem for which it is largely responsible. But there are serious difficulties with both of these arguments. Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations might well be desirable, but if so, expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor. The argument from corrective justice runs into the standard problems that arise when collectivities, such as nations, are treated as moral agents: Many people who have not acted wrongfully end up being forced to provide a remedy to many people who have not been victimized. The conclusion is that while a suitably designed climate change agreement is in the interest of the world, a widely held view is wrong: Arguments from distributive and corrective justice fail to provide strong justifications for imposing special obligations for greenhouse gas reductions on the United States. These arguments have general implications for thinking about both distributive justice and corrective justice arguments in the context of international law and international agreements.

Comments

[jimbino]

And not just countries! I am a non-breeder and it is clearly not in my interest to pay taxes to clean up air polluted by the children of breeders for the benefit of the grandchildren of breeders! Let the breeders clean up their own messes.

[Roach]

This callous dismissal of children, future generations and, implicitly, your own parents is kind of striking. It is so strident, it seems like a joke. Do you believe the human race should continue or not? and if it should, how does your "anti-breeder" ideology square with that?

[jimbino]

I think I expressed what I think about future generations by my decision to be a non-breeder. I suppose you think non-golfers should be forced to contribute to the maintenance of the turf or rationalists to the maintenance of cemeteries?

Breeders of the world, clean up your own messes!

[Erasmussimo]

I have read the cited paper, and I have a few comments. The paper is made complex by the fact that it addresses multiple arguments in favor of multiple policies. It does a good job of dismissing many of those arguments and many of those policies. However, it should be noted that nothing in this paper argues against a worldwide carbon tax. It refers several times to such a tax, but never directly rejects it, and the justifying arguments that it refutes are not necessary to justifying a worldwide carbon tax. I think that the authors would have done the readers a service by explicitly pointing out this distinction.

[Fein]

The link to the full paper doesn't seem to work. Is the problem on my end, or is the link incorrect?

[UChicagoLaw]

Fein,

The link appears to be correct. If you are having issues downloading the paper, please see the following info from the Social Science Research Network Document Delivery System:

"The following information will solve most downloading issues. If, after following these directions, you still have problems, please see the information at the end of this message for further directions.

1. DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT

Click the download button located toward the bottom of the page.

To download a document, it is necessary to log into SSRN. If not a registered member, click the link for free registration.

If the document does not download or you encounter an error, try one of two ways of acquiring the paper:

1. Left-click on the download button, select the "Save" option, save the document to your hard drive and then open it from there, OR
2. Right-click on the download button, select the "Save as" option, save the document to your hard drive and then open it from there.

2. EMAIL THE DOCUMENT TO YOURSELF

Click the "Email Abstract or Full Text Paper" button to have the file emailed to you. This avoids all browser issues and is faster for large files. Please note, many "free" email services such as Hotmail, Yahoo and similar accounts will not allow large attachments.

When requesting email delivery, it is necessary to log into SSRN. If not a registered member, click the link for free registration.

Enter the email address you would like the paper sent to, double check the address for accuracy, and click "Send Email". You will receive an email within a few minutes with the document attached as a PDF file, which will require Acrobat Reader 6.0 or newer to open.

3. OBTAIN THE CORRECT VERSION OF ACROBAT READER

You must have Acrobat Reader 6.0 or newer. You can get it (free) by going to

http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html#reader.

4. CONFIGURE YOUR BROWSER TO DISPLAY PDF FILES

Configuring Internet Explorer or AOL to Use Adobe Reader or Acrobat as a Helper Application (Acrobat 7.0, Adobe Reader 7.0 on Windows)

If you want the browser to open PDF files in a separate Acrobat window, configure the browser to use Acrobat or Adobe Reader as a helper application. Then, when you select a PDF file in Internet Explorer or AOL, the browser opens the PDF file in an Acrobat window instead of the browser window.

1. Quit Internet Explorer or AOL
2. Start Acrobat or Adobe Reader
3. Choose Edit > Preferences
4. Select Internet in the list on the left
5. Deselect Display PDF in Browser, and click OK
6. Restart Internet Explorer or AOL

Configuring Internet Explorer to Use Adobe Reader or Acrobat as a Helper Application (Acrobat 6.0-7.0, Adobe Reader 6.0-7.0 on Mac OS X)

If you configure Internet Explorer to use Adobe Reader or Acrobat as a helper application, Internet Explorer starts the application and displays the PDF files within the Adobe Reader or Acrobat window.

1. Start Internet Explorer, and choose Explorer > Preferences
2. Under Receiving Files, click File Helpers
3. In the File Helper Settings pane, select Portable Document Format, click Change, and then click OK
4. If Portable Document Format isn't listed, click Add, and then proceed with the following steps:

1. In the File Type text box, type PDF and type a space after the "F"
2. In the Creator text box, type CARO
3. In the Encoding section, select the following options:

* Select Binary
* Use For Incoming
* Use For Outgoing

4. In the Download Destination section, choose the location in which to save PDF files from the Download menu
5. In the Handling Section, choose View with Application from the How to Handle menu
6. If the Acrobat product name doesn't appear next to Application, click Browse, select the Acrobat application file, and then click Open
7. Click OK

5. Restart Internet Explorer

Visit Adobe's support web site to for further configuration help: http://www.adobe.com/support/main.html.

5. SEARCH FOR THE PAPER ON THE SSRN ELECTRONIC LIBRARY at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayAbstractSearch.cfm or by clicking the "Search" button from the home page, http://www.ssrn.com. You may search by author name, title, keywords, and abstract content. You may also choose to search by journal, topic or JEL topic list.

If the full text paper is available, there will be a "paper icon" directly to the left of the title on the search results list. To view the abstract click on the title. If the full text paper is available to download, there will be a red download button toward the bottom of the page (or an "Add to Shopping Cart" button, if part of our charging collection).

6. FURTHER HELP

Many times it helps to clear all cache files or temporary Internet files from your computer if you have been doing many searches.

For specific error messages and other problems please use Adobe's searchable database located at http://www.adobe.com/support/main.html.

If, after following the above suggestions, you still have problems, please email the following information to [email protected]:

1. The name of the article
2. Exact error message you receive, if applicable
3. Platform information
4. Browser type and version, Acrobat version
5. An alternate email address (in case your account rejects the file)"

[hipotecas & prestamos]

Climatic Change is Not a Problem of the Future

The diagnosis of the future of the planet cannot be gloomier. To the numerous elements that damage the environment, we must now add others, like the direct consequences of turning food into fuel, established as the economic policy guideline of the United States, designed and defended at all costs by the US president.

The issue has been presented on many occasions as a warning of the potential danger that, if continued, will affect the indispensable conditions for the life on the planet. Evidently at the service of the large transnationals, which produce 25 percent of the contaminating gas emissions, the White House has justified its position and has systematically refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The inhabitants of the planet are required to act urgently. Maybe it's not too late.

Carlos Menéndez
http://www.creditomagazine.es

[Vivian]

Jimbino
You then, as one of the "children of breeders" (your words), admit that you are polluting the air and should pay taxes to help clean up the environment. It is difficult for me to think of any of us as pollution or polluters- even though we are organic life forms. I like to think we have intangible assets to counter that idea. Full disclosure- I'm a child and a parent.

When the world needs to act, could not corrective, redistributive, cosumptive and individual nations' own luck-of-geography measures all mesh together for initial attempts at a solution?
A formula with factors representing an individual country's percent of responsibility for existing greenhouse gas up to a certain date in time, then after that set date, a 'pollution' tax for all fuels sold or consumed by any/all nations- no matter where the fuel originated could help. And getting further out there- possibly adding into that model a credit for the percent of a nation's land mass lost (possibly)to rising sea levels, and lattitude handicaps due to heating or cooling needs. I think its going to be either very complex or nothing will be done for a long time. I really don't like the idea of all 192 or (193-Vatican) nations voting with equal weight on some simple, fixed answer. If there is a formula or solution, I hope it is thoughtfully complex, and the 192-193 do things with consensus. Things will need to be readjusted year to year given new, and possibly declining development in different nations. I'm willing to live with less.

[D]

I am not sure I understand the implications of the arguments made, placing developing and developed countries on the same plane:

1. Is the right to development a continuing right, meaning that all countries are entitled to an equal right to development?

2.Regarding the issue of distributive justice, the Asteroid example differs from that of climate change simply because no one put the asteroids up there...it was THERE! So, the consequences that follow is less troubling in terms of responsibility v. pure altruism.

3. Lets confine the distributive justice argument to the national level--some States have high emissions levels and others low, would you extend the same "wealthy" people v. "poor" people argument, as opposed to the "nation," argument?

Also, some Northern parts of USA may benefit, but not some Southern parts. Would you then act as one nation or divide it into pieces of cities, municipalities and rich v. poor people, for clarity in terms of administration?

In other words, can the limits of distributive justice serve as a legitimate reason for shirking responsibility?

[Joan A. Conway]

Anyone's responsibility is like anyone's responsibility. If you are unhappy about the outcome, you take responsibility for it. If you are not, you see no responsibility until someone points it out to you, or makes you own up to it! Hardly anyone I known goes about looking for more responsibility, unless they are 'the Pitts.'