GLOBAL JUSTICE & CLIMATE CHANGE

WE CREATED A WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN WRITE YOUR QUESTIONS

AND COMMENTS. !

WWW.GLOBAL-JUSTICE.WIX.COM/LUISS

AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION WE WILL ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS

OUR ASSUMPTIONS • CLIMATE CHANGE IS A PROBLEM

IS IT A GLOBAL ISSUE?

• ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS

• RICH vs POOR

CAUSES - EFFECTS - RISK OF A CATASTROPHE

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

THE AGENTS: !

!

• NATION STATES !

• GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS !

• INDIVIDUALS

CAN CC BE CONSIDERED AS A PROBLEM OF GLOBAL JUSTICE?

THREE FEATURES: !

•INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE !

•INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE !

•GLOBAL GOVERNANCE !

HOW TO DEAL WITH CC?

•OLD PARADIGMS HAVE FAILED

• CLIMATE CHANGE: WE NEED A NEW OUTLOOK

INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICEPAST GENERATIONS

THE QUESTION OF INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE

INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE IS ABOUT THE MORAL OBLIGATIONS PRESENTLY EXISTING MORAL AGENTS OWE TO PAST AND FUTURE GENERATIONS !• PAST GENERATIONS: SHOULD WE PAY FOR PAST GENERATIONS’ EMISSIONS?AND IF YES, WHO SHOULD PAY? !• FUTURE GENERATIONS: SHOULD THE CLIMATE SYSTEM BE PROTECTED FOR THEIR BENEFIT?

PAST GENERATIONS

TWO ISSUES: !

• DO WE HAVE TO PAY FOR HARM CAUSED BY PAST GENERATIONS?

!

•WHO PAYS WHEN THE POLLUTERS ARE NO LONGER ALIVE? !

DO WE HAVE TO PAY?

YESNO

EXCUSABLE IGNORANCE

BENEFICIARY PAYS PRINCIPLE

(BPP)

HYBRID ACCOUNT

WHO PAYS?

• BPP, INDIVIDUALS MUST PAY !

•CANEY’S OBJECTION: THE NON-IDENTITY PROBLEM !

!

• COLLECTIVE APPROACH IS MORE COHERENT BUT IT IS UNFAIR

!

!

INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICEFUTURE GENERATIONS

WHY DO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FUTURE GENERATIONS?

• DEFINITION OF S. D. , BRUNTLAND COMMISSION, 1987

• WE HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY WHO PAYS FOR THE HARM CAUSED BY CC

• IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE TO PAY TODAY BECAUSE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH AND THE RESULTS ARE IN THE FUTURE

WHY WE HAVE TO PAY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS?

SOME APPROACHES !

!

•INDIRECT RECIPROCITY !

• MUTUAL ADVANTAGE !

DUTY OF JUSTICE

• THE DUTY NOT TO HARM OTHER PEOPLE. IT IS DUE TO INDIVIDUALS

• THE INTUITION OF NEUTRALITY IS FALSE

• EXISTENTIAL RISK AND RISK OF A CATASTROPHE

PROBLEMS IN EVALUATING THE FUTURE

•EVALUATION OF FUTURE (DISCOUNT RATE)

•INCOMMENSURABILITY

!

•AGGREGATION

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICECLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL JUSTICE

UNEQUAL BURDENS

IF SOMEONE IMPOSES COST UPON OTHER PEOPLE WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THE INEQUALITY BY IMPOSING EXTRA BURDENS UPON THE PRODUCER OF THE INEQUALITY !• EXTRA BURDENS !• THE MINIMUM EXTENT OF THE COMPENSATORY BURDEN IS ENOUGH TO CORRECT THE INEQUALITY PREVIOUSLY UNILATERALLY IMPOSED

1st PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY

WHEN A PARTY HAS IN THE PAST TAKEN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF OTHERS BY IMPOSING COSTS UPON THEM WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN UNILATERALLY PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE ARE ENTITLED TO DEMAND THAT IN THE FUTURE THE OFFENDING PARTY SHOULDER BURDENS THAT ARE UNEQUAL AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN, IN ORDER TO RESTORE EQUALITY.

(Shue, 1999)

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OF DCs

1. THE LDCs HAVE ALSO BENEFITED FROM THE ENRICHMENT OF THE DCs

!2. WHATEVER ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE WAS UNINTENTIONAL !3. IT IS NOT FAIR TO HOLD THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE DAMAGE HE DID NOT DO HIMSELF

2nd PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY

AMONG A NUMBER OF PARTIES, ALL OF WHOM ARE BOUND TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOME COMMON ENDEAVOR, THE PARTIES WHO HAVE THE MOST RESOURCES NORMALLY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE THE MOST TO THE ENDEAVOR.

(Shue, 1999)

RADICAL INEQUALITY

SUCH AN INEQUALITY IS RADICAL BECAUSE THE TOTAL OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES IS SO GREAT THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE THE BEST-OFF PEOPLE TO ANYWHERE NEAR THE MINIMUM LEVEL IN ORDER TO BRING THE WORST-OFF PEOPLE UP TO THE MINIMUM.

(Nagel, 1977)

3rd PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY

WHEN SOME PEOPLE HAVE LESS THAN ENOUGH FOR A DECENT HUMAN LIFE, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH, AND THE TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE ARE SO GREAT THAT EVERYONE COULD HAVE AT LEAST ENOUGH WITHOUT PREVENTING SOME PEOPLE FROM STILL RETAINING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAT OTHERS HAVE, IT IS UNFAIR NOT TO GUARANTEE EVERYONE AT LEAST AN ADEQUATE MINIMUM.

(Shue, 1999)

OBJECTIONS

1. OVER-POPULATION !2. IT IS NOT FAIR TO EXPECT MEMBERS OF ONE SOCIETY TO HELP TO MAINTAIN A GUARANTEE OF A MINIMUM FOR MEMBERS OF ANOTHER SOCIETY

CONCLUSION

WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE BY WEALTHY INDUSTRIALIZED STATES OR BY POOR NON-INDUSTRIALIZED STATES ABOUT GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS LIKE OZONE DESTRUCTION AND GLOBAL WARMING, THE COSTS SHOULD INITIALLY BE BORNE BY THE WEALTHY INDUSTRIALIZED STATES.

(Shue, 1999)

COSTS ALLOCATIONCLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL JUSTICE

ALLOCATING THE COSTS OF PREVENTION

• IS IT FAIR TO REQUIRE SACRIFICE TO THE POOREST COUNTRIES?

TWO CHALLENGES: !• LDC MUST DEVELOP THROUGH CLEAN ENERGY

• CO2 EMISSIONS OF THE WEALTHY SHOULD BE REDUCED OF A HIGHER AMOUNT THAN THE INCREASE OF LDC

ALLOCATING THE COSTS OF COPING

TWO MISLEADING PRINCIPLES:

• TO EACH HIS OWN: EVERY NATION STATES DEALS WITH ITS OWN PROBLEMS

• WAIT AND SEE: DISCUSSING THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AFTER THEY ACTUALLY ARISE

PROVING “TO EACH HIS OWN” WRONG

• THE EFFECTS OF CC DO NOT FALL INSIDE ONE NATION STATE

• ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY IS HARD TO DETECT

• DO NATION STATES REALLY HAVE THE CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN RESOURCES?

CONFUTING THE “WAIT AND SEE” PRINCIPLE

• PREVENTION COSTS AND COPING COSTS INFLUENCE EACH OTHER

• WOULD IT BE FAIR TO ADOPT DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES RO DEAL WITH DIFFERENT SETS OF TERMS AND EXPECTING EVERY COUNTRY TO AGREE ON THE TWO IN ADVANCE?

BACKGROUND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND FAIR BARGAINING

• NEGOTIATING BOTH SETS OF TERMS IN A COMPLEMENTARY WAY PREVENTS UNFAIR TERMS OF COPING

MORALLY ACCEPTABLE BARGAINS DEPEND UPON INITIAL HOLDINGS THAT ARE NOT MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE- NOT, FOR ONE THING, SO OUTRAGEOUSLY UNEQUAL THAT SOME PARTIES ARE AT THE MERCY OF OTHERS.

(Shue, 1993)

ALLOCATING EMISSIONS : TRANSITION AND GOAL

• PROGRESSIVELY DECLINING CEILING SHOULD BE PLACED UPON TOTAL EMISSIONS

• IF THE PREVIOUS ISSUES CONCERNED MONEY, THE LAST ONE CONCERNS CO2 ITSELF

WHO SHOULD BEAR THE BURDENS OF GLOBAL CC?

THE HYBRID SOLUTION OF CANEY

METHODOLOGY 1/2

THEORIES OF JUSTICE USUALLY TEND TO FOCUS ON HOW INCOME AND WEALTH ARE DISTRIBUTED

METHODOLOGY 2/2

BUT: !•IT IS HARD TO VALUE ENVIRONMENT (INCOMMENSURABILITY) •GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION VS INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION •INTERGENERATIONAL PROBLEM

RESPONSIBILITY 1/2

• TYPICAL JUSTICE: WHO CAUSES THE HARM PAYS THE BILL !• POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

WHO IS WHO?

• SHUE: STATES !!• CANEY: MIX OF INDIVIDUALS, ECONOMIC CORPORATIONS,

STATES, INTERNATIONAL REGIMES AND INSTITUTIONS

RESPONSIBILITY 2/2

PPP CANNOT COPE WITH THREE KINDS OF GHGS, THOSE CAUSED BY:

!• EARLIER GENERATIONS (CANNOT PAY) !• THOSE WHO ARE EXCUSABLY IGNORANT (SHOULD NOT BE

EXPECTED TO PAY) !• THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR DUTY NOT TO

EMIT EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF GHGS (WILL NOT PAY)

HYBRID SOLUTION-ASSUMPTIONS 1/3

A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO X WHEN X IS A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST THAT IS WEIGHTY ENOUGH TO GENERATE OBLIGATION ON OTHERS.

(Caney, 2005)

HYBRID SOLUTION-ASSUMPTIONS 2/3

PERSONS HAVE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS IN NOT SUFFERING FROM:

!• DROUGHT AND CROP FAILURE • HEATSTROKE • INFECTIOUS DISEASES • FLOODING • ENFORCED RELOCATION • RAPID, UNPREDICTABLE AND DRAMATIC CHANGES TO THEIR

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WORLD* !*THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT OF IPCC CLAIMS THAT THESE EFFECTS ARE GENERATED BY

CLIMATE CHANGE.

HYBRID SOLUTION-ASSUMPTIONS 2/3

• THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-INDUCED.

!!• THE DUTIES THAT FOLLOWS THE RIGHT OF NOT SUFFERING

FROM THE EFFECTS OF CC ARE NOT MITIGATION RELATED BUT ADAPTATION RELATED.

SOLUTIONWE ASSIGN THE COSTS NO MATTER WHO HOLDS THE RESPONSIBILITY BUT ACCORDING TO TWO INDEPENDENT PRINCIPLES:

• THOSE WHO EXCEED THEIR QUOTA (SINCE 1990) HAVE TO COMPENSATE OTHERS (VERSION OF PPP)

!• THE MOST ADVANTAGED HAVE TO REDUCE THEIR

EMISSION OR PAY ADAPTATION COSTS TO COMPENSATE THE INCOMPLETENESS OF PPP. ACCORDING TO AN ABILITY TO PAY PRINCIPLE AND MAKING AN EFFORT TO ENHACT INSTITUTIONS WHICH GRANT COMPLIANCE

CRITICISM- WHY SHOULD THEY DO IT?

!• CHARITY?

IF THE CHOICE IS EITHER ASCRIBING DUTIES TO THE POOR OR ALLOWING SERIOUS HARM TO BEFALL PEOPLE OR ASCRIBING DUTIES TO THE MOST ADVANTAGED, IT WOULD SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO GO FOR THAT THIRD OPTION !

(Caney, 2005)

EXCLUDENDO:

GLOBAL GOVERNANCECLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL JUSTICE

WHY GLOBAL?

• CLIMATE CHANGE IS A GLOBAL THREAT THAT REQUIRES A COORDINATED GLOBAL SOLUTION (The Hartwell Paper, 2010)

• JUST GOVERNMENTS CAN FIX “CC” (Sinnot-Armstrong, 2010)

WHY GLOBAL?

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A PROBLEM WITH GLOBAL CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES. A COORDINATED INTERNATIONAL EFFORT IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE COST EFFECTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION POLICIES.  

(Held - Hervey, 2009)

FROM RIO TO COPENHAGEN

1992. THE “RIO EARTH SUMMIT”

1997. KYOTO’S PROTOCOL

2009. COPENHAGEN “CC” CONFERENCE

RESULTS?

“THE WRONG TROUSERS”

(Prins - Rayner, 2007)

WHY DID IT FAIL?

• THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS OF CONCEPTUALIZING THE PROBLEM

• CLIMATE CHANGE IS A “WICKED” PROBLEM

(Jamieson - Di Paola, 2014)

(Prins - Rayner, 2007)

WHY DID IT FAIL?in addition..

• CLIMATE CHANGE IS SUBORDINATED TO NATIONAL INTERESTS AND OTHER POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS

•MORE ACTORS INVOLVED

(Jamieson - Di Paola, 2014)

(Held - Hervey, 2009)

OUTCOME

• AFTER 20y OF CLIMATE DIPLOMACY, THE UNDENIABLE FACT IS THAT THE MAIN FACTORS THAT HAVE REDUCED GHGs EMISSIONS ARE NOT TRACEABLE TO ANY FEAT OF GLOBAL COOPERATION (...)

(Jamieson - Di Paola, 2014)

WHAT’S NEXT?

• COLLECTION OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES ADOPTED BY PARTICULAR COUNTRIES

(Jamieson - Di Paola, 2014)

THESE POLICIES WILL REFLECT A MIX OF SELF-INTEREST AND ETHICAL IDEALS CONSTRUCTED IN DIFFERENT WAYS BY DIFFERENT PEOPLES

OUR THESIS GLOBAL JUSTICE INTO SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT

OLD PARADIGM

• TRADITIONALLY CC WAS SEEN ESSENTIALLY AS A PROBLEM OF JUSTICE BETWEEN STATES

• INJUSTICE FROM RICH TO POOR

• THE AGENTS ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NATIONS STATES

CC IS NOT A CLASSICAL PROBLEM OF GLOBAL JUSTICE

FOUR FEATURES: !

• IGNORANCE !

• UNINTENTIONAL !

• DISPERSION !

• URGENCY & CATASTROPHE !

COMMUNITY RATHER THAN STATES

GLOBAL JUSTICE INTO THE WIDER PERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

!

COMMUNITY (NAGEL) !

FROM LOCALISM TO GLOCALISM !

!

CRITICS•ECONOMIC SYSTEM - MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND

GROUP OF INTERESTS

•LONG-TERM EFFECTS

• NEED OF DEMOCRACY AND AWARENESS

WE START FROM NOW, LET’S FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE!

WE START FROM NOW, LET’S FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE!

NOW, IT’S YOUR TURNLET’S GO TO

!

WWW.GLOBAL-JUSTICE.WIX.COM/LUISS !

AND JOIN THE CHALLENGE!!

THANK YOU!