Book contents
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment
- 2 Historical Responsibility and Climate Change
- 3 Historical Emissions
- 4 How Legal Systems Deal with Issues of Responsibility for Past Harmful Behavior
- 5 Asking Beneficiaries to Pay for Past Pollution
- 6 Benefiting from Unjust Acts and Benefiting from Injustice
- 7 A Luck-Based Moral Defense of Grandfathering
- 8 In Defense of Emissions Egalitarianism?
- 9 In the Name of Political Possibility
- 10 Right to Development and Historical Emissions
- Index
- References
9 - In the Name of Political Possibility
A New Proposal for Thinking About the Role and Relevance of Historical Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2017
Book contents
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment
- 2 Historical Responsibility and Climate Change
- 3 Historical Emissions
- 4 How Legal Systems Deal with Issues of Responsibility for Past Harmful Behavior
- 5 Asking Beneficiaries to Pay for Past Pollution
- 6 Benefiting from Unjust Acts and Benefiting from Injustice
- 7 A Luck-Based Moral Defense of Grandfathering
- 8 In Defense of Emissions Egalitarianism?
- 9 In the Name of Political Possibility
- 10 Right to Development and Historical Emissions
- Index
- References
Summary
Global climate change (GCC) is a complex political and moral phenomenon, as concerns of international justice, intra-national justice, and intergenerational all need to be identified and addressed. Central to these concerns is determining to what extent a nation’s historical contribution to GCC should inform its obligations going forward; this is the question that I will focus on in this essay. I begin by detailing some of the arguments that arise on the policy front when policymakers negotiate over the importance of historical contributions to GCC, and I show that there is a notable gap between what political philosophers talk about and what is presently possible to bring about through negotiations. Given this context, I propose that what is needed is a morally defensible solution that is informed by the virtue of political feasibility. I show that a proposal that allocates partial responsibility to historical emitters is very likely feasible and reflects some important moral values in ways that other options fail to do. As such, I argue that the partial responsibility proposals are the ones that policymakers and philosophers should pursue going forward.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions , pp. 198 - 218Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Brennan, G., and Pettit, P. (2007). The Feasibility Issue. In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, ed. Jackson, F. and Smith, M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 258–79.Google Scholar
Caney, S. (2006). Environmental Degradation, Reparations, and the Moral Significance of History. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37(3), 464–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. (2011). Human Nature and the Limits (if Any) of Political Philosophy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39(3), 207–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farelly, C. (2007). Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation. Political Studies, 55(4), 844–64.Google Scholar
Germain, T. (2014). The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus: 113th Edition. Climate Progress, 10 April. URL: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/.Google Scholar
Gilabert, P. (2012). Comparative Assessments of Justice, Political Feasibility, and Ideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, P., and Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration. Political Studies, 60, 809–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosseries, A. (2004). Historical Emissions and Free-Riding. Ethical Perspectives, 11(1), 36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenehan, S. (2014). Rawls, Rectification, and Global Climate Change. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(2), 252–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawford-Smith, H. (2013). Understanding Political Feasibility. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(3), 243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. et al. (2015). Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes, March 2015. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. H., and Roser, D. (2010). Climate Justice and Historical Emissions. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 229–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (2007). National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (2008a). Global Justice and Climate Change: How Should Responsibilities be Distributed? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Tsinghua University, Beijing, March 24–25. URL: http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/m/Miller_08.pdf.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (2008b). Political Philosophy for Earthlings. In Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, ed. Leopold, D. and Stears, M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, L., Blodgett, J., and Yacobucci, B. D. (2011). U.S. Global Climate Change Policy: Evolving Views on Cost, Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Shue, H. (1999). Global Environment and International Inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shue, H. (2010). Deadly Delays, Saving Opportunities: Creating a More Dangerous World? In Climate Ethics, ed. Gardiner, S. M., Caney, S., Jamieson, D. and Shue, H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146–62.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (2002). One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. (2002). Fair Chore Division for Climate Change. Social Theory and Practice, 28, 101–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC Ad hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (May 30, 1997). Implementation of the Berlin Mandate: Additional Proposals from Parties. Bonn.Google Scholar
UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (August 15, 2012). Report on the Workshop on Equitable Access to Sustainable Development. Doha.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (2013). National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for the Period 1990–2011. Warsaw.Google Scholar
von Platz, J., and Reidy, D. (2006). The Structural Diversity of Historical Injustices. The Journal of Social Philosophy, 37(3), 360–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Working Group I to the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change, Climate Change (1990). The IPCC Scientific Assessment: Policymakers Summary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Working Group II to the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change, Climate Change (1990). Impacts Assessment of Climate Change. In Policymakers Summary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change, Climate Change (2007). Synthesis Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, Climate Change (2007). Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change, Climate Change (2013). The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by