Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Distributing the burdens of climate change

By Edward Page

Abstract

Global climate change raises many questions for environmental political theorists. This article focuses on the question of identifying the agents that should bear the financial burden of preventing dangerous climate change. Identifying in a fair way the agents that should take the lead in climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as the precise burdens that these parties must bear, will be a key aspect of the next generation of global climate policies. After a critical review of a number of rival approaches to burden sharing, the paper argues that only a principled and philosophically robust reconciliation of three approaches to burden sharing (‘contribution to problem’, ‘ability to pay’ and ‘beneficiary pays’) can generate a satisfactory mix of theoretical coherence and practical application

Topics: JC, HB
Publisher: Routledge
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:935

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2008). 2007/2008 Human Development Index rankings [online]. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
  2. (2007). Adapting to climate change: What’s needed in poor countries, and who should pay [online]. London: Oxfam International: Available at:
  3. (2008). Available at: http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/ldc%20criteria.htm.
  4. (2006). Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations. doi
  5. (2004). Committee for Development Policy: Report to the Sixth Session [online].
  6. (2004). Compensating Wrongless Historical Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. doi
  7. (2005). Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change. doi
  8. (2007). Cosmopolitan Luck Egalitarianism and Climate Change.
  9. (2006). Distributive Justice and Climate Change: The Allocation of Emissions Rights. doi
  10. (1987). Equality as a Moral Ideal. doi
  11. (2000). Equality or Priority? In doi
  12. (1995). Equality, Sufficiency, and Opportunity in the Just Society. doi
  13. (2004). Ethics and Global Climate Change. doi
  14. (2005). Fiscal Interactions and the Case for Carbon Taxes over Grandfathered Carbon Permits. doi
  15. (2008). Forecasting the path of China’s CO2 emissions using province-level information. doi
  16. (2002). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: doi
  17. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. doi
  18. (2000). In Defence of Historical Responsibility for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. doi
  19. (2007). Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Cover in the US:
  20. (2004). International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: A Survey of Approaches.
  21. (2003). Intrinsic Value of Economic Equality. doi
  22. (1996). Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: doi
  23. (2000). Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism. doi
  24. (2007). Moitoring poverty and social exclusion
  25. (1979). Mortal Questions. doi
  26. (2002). One World. doi
  27. (1984). Reasons and Persons. doi
  28. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [online]. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [Accessed 25
  29. (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In doi
  30. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: doi
  31. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol,
  32. (1986). The Morality of Freedom. doi
  33. (2007). The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework [online]. Henrik Böll Foundation: Berlin. Available from: http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf [accessed 25
  34. (2008). The World’s Billionaires [online]. Available at:
  35. (2003). Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures. doi
  36. (1995). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. doi
  37. (2007). Why Sufficiency id Not Enough. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.