Basic Compensation for the Victims of Climate Change

Abstract

current estimate is that a doubling of CO 2 from preindustrial levels would result in a temperature increase between 1.5'C and 4.5'C (2.7'F to 8.1"F) by the end of this century. 3 For this reason, even in the best-case scenario, we will be faced with a number of adverse impacts from climate change-and indeed, we are already experiencing them: [M]any of the climate impacts identified by IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] are likely to occur regardless of the nature of the international policy response. In fact, the IPCC has recently concluded that regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, have already affected a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the world. Examples of observed changes caused by human releases of GHG include shrinkage of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, later freezing and earlier break-up of ice on rivers and lakes, lengthening of mid-to [sic] high-latitude growing seasons, poleward and altitudinal shifts of plants and animal ranges, declines of some plant and animal populations, and earlier flowering of trees, emerging of insects, and egg-laying in birds. 4 Designing a fair and efficient system of compensation for climate change damage poses great challenges. In this Article, my goal is only to start the process of thinking through these issues. In particular, I will try to show how certain kinds of injuries could be the subject of a workable compensation system. These injuries-involving changes in were adopted. Even if all nations could have stabilized emissions in the year 2002, the concentrations of GHGs would continue to rise and would approach 500 ppm by the year 2100. After that, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere would continue to rise for several hundred years before stabilization would be achieved. Even to stabilize CO 2 at 1,000 ppm will require reductions of emissions below current levels.

The Roles and Use of Law in Green Criminology

“…This can be particularly difficult given the typically longer timescale of environmentally destructive activities and their consequent impacts compared with most traditional forms of criminality. The problem has prompted Farber (2007) to argue that criminal justice is unlikely to be flexible enough to encompass the possibility of future harm to the environment as a whole or to humans and animals specifically as a result of environmental harms occurring in the present, and that the better solution is likely to be an administrative system based on risk (see below). Furthermore, as noted by Bell and McGillivray (2008), the extended range of perpetrators of environmental crime can seem hopelessly wide:…”

Climate change and fossil fuel: An examination of risks for the energy industry and producer states

“…Basis for claims extends from compensation for weather damage to property or rising insurance premiums, to broader liability over lost land use, damage to national economies and public health. [86][87][88]90 Expectation of intensifying climate regulation in the future increases the probability of lawsuits. 89 Suits could be brought by individuals, class-action groups, businesses, or governments; potential targets include single firms, industry groups, and governments.…”

Toward a Sustainable and Resilient Future

“…It seems that efforts to assign responsibility will emerge as an issue for both governments and courts at a range of scales (Farber, 2007).…”