Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment

Heyd, David; Meyer, Lukas H.; Sanklecha, Pranay

doi:10.1017/9781107706835.002

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Should countries with high historical emissions be awarded smaller future emissions entitlements even though many of these emissions were caused by people who are already dead (Berkey, 2017; Caney, 2005, 2006, 2009; Gosseries, 2004; Meyer, 2013; Meyer & Roser, 2010; Morrow, 2016; Moss & Kath, 2019; Shue, 2015)? And what about the emissions from those times when people where blamelessly ignorant concerning the harmful consequences of emitting (Bell, 2011; Butt, 2017; Caney, 2005, 2009; Gosseries, 2004; Heyd, 2017; Meyer, 2013; Meyer & Roser, 2010; Morrow, 2016; Moss & Kath, 2019; Page, 2011; Shue, 2015)?…”

Section: Emissions Egalitarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been intense debate on these complications, pointing out, for example, continued benefits from past emissions as a reason for diminished future emissions entitlements or resource transfers (Baatz, 2013; Bell, 2011; Gosseries, 2004; Heyd, 2017; Lawford‐Smith, 2014; Meyer, 2013; Page, 2008, 2012; Shue, 1999, 2015; Shue, 2019). But for the debate surrounding emissions egalitarianism the most important insight is this: these complications may limit the scope of history's relevance, but they are not suited to deny its relevance altogether.…”

Section: Emissions Egalitarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distributive justice and the global emissions budget

Schulan

Tank

Baatz

2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order not to significantly overshoot maximum levels of warming like the 1.5 and 2°C target we must stay within a fixed emissions budget. How to fairly distribute the entitlements to emit within such a budget is perhaps the most intensely discussed question in all of climate justice. In our review we discuss the most prominent proposals in moral and political philosophy on how to solve this question and put a special emphasis on scholarly contributions from the last decade. We canvass the arguments for and against emissions egalitarianism, emissions sufficientarianism, and emissions grandfathering as well as the debates surrounding them. These are how to deal with non‐compliance, how to split emissions between producers and consumers, how to best account for terrestrial carbon sinks, and whether emissions from having children should be subtracted from parents' emissions budgets. From the viewpoint of justice, it matters not only that we act against climate change but also how we do so. This review aims to elucidate one of the major ways in which our reaction to climate change could be just or unjust.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change

show abstract

Section: Emissions Egalitarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Emissions Egalitarianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive justice and the global emissions budget

Schulan

Tank

Baatz

2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conclusions I present here are valid for both understandings of the principle. 9 The version of the principle I present here combines both the 'unjust enrichment BPP' and the 'wrongful enrichment BPP' (Page 2012;Heyd 2017), both of which have been discussed in the literature. The first does not require that perpetrators are culpable, whereas the second requires that the actions triggering the original injustice or undeserved harm were committed under culpable conditions.…”

Section: The Beneficiary Pays Principle and Some Intuitive Reactions ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, I focus on two objections: the causation objection (CO) and the excusable ignorance objection (EIO). 3 Various scholars have argued that the BPP does not encounter at least one of these objections, which provides a reason to prefer the BPP over the PPP (Gosseries 2004 ; Meyer and Roser 2010 ; Caney 2010 ; Bell 2011 ; Page 2012 ; Meyer 2013 ; Baatz 2013 ; Duus-Otterström 2014 ; Heyd 2017 ). Here, I challenge that underlying assumption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Backward-Looking Principles of Climate Justice: The Unjustified Move from the Polluter Pays Principle to the Beneficiary Pays Principle

Portela

2022

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change involves changes in the climate system caused by polluting human activities and the social and natural effects of these changes. The historical and anthropogenic grounds of climate change play an important role in climate justice claims. Many climate justice scholars believe that principles of climate justice should account for the historical and anthropogenic sources of climate change. Two main backward-looking principles have been proposed: the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). The BPP emerged in the literature on climate justice in response to certain objections raised against the PPP. In this paper, I focus on two of these objections: the causation objection and the excusable ignorance objection. Defenders of the BPP have traditionally assumed that this principle is not vulnerable to those objections, which renders the BPP superior to the PPP. In this paper, I challenge this underlying assumption. My argument here is simple: moving from the PPP to the BPP in response to any of these objections might be unjustified because the BPP is affected by at least some of the considerations giving rise to these objections.

show abstract

“…In response to these objections, some authors have argued in favor of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP), according to which "the countries benefiting the most from greenhouse emitting activities in the past bear the greatest responsibility of climate justice" (Page 2008, p. 562; see also Barry and Kirby 2017;Duus-Otterström 2017). 3 In one interpretation, the BPP is constructed around the legal doctrine of unjust enrichment (Page 2012;Heyd 2017). In this view, "those states unjustly, but not wrongfully, enriched by activities that cause climate change should pay" (Page 2012, p. 308).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Justice and the Duty of Restitution

Borgogno

2022

Moral Philosophy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the climate justice discussion revolves around how the remaining carbon budget should be globally allocated. Some authors defend the unjust enrichment interpretation of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). According to this principle, those states unjustly enriched from historical emissions should pay. I argue that if the BPP is to be constructed along the lines of the unjust enrichment doctrine, countervailing reasons that might be able to block the existence of a duty of restitution should be assessed. One might think that the duty to provide restitution no longer has moral weight if many benefits were already consumed, if the particular benefits obtained from historical emissions cannot be transferred from one country to another, or if present members of developed countries framed their life plans based upon the expectation of continued possession of those benefits. I show that none of these reasons negate the duty to provide restitution.

show abstract

Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Distributive justice and the global emissions budget

Distributive justice and the global emissions budget

Backward-Looking Principles of Climate Justice: The Unjustified Move from the Polluter Pays Principle to the Beneficiary Pays Principle

Climate Justice and the Duty of Restitution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About