Abstract
AbstractA central task of climate justice is to agree upon a just distribution of the right to emit greenhouse gases. According to the equal per capita shares view, the right to emit should be divided equally between every inhabitant of Earth, since to emit is to use up the resource of atmospheric absorptive capacity, and this is a resource to which no one person has any stronger claim than any other. The fact that a significant proportion of the Earth’s ability to absorb and sequester greenhouse gases actually comes not from the atmosphere, but from terrestrial climate sinks that are located within national borders, and that are therefore plausibly subject to legitimate territorial claims, poses a serious challenge to the intuitive egalitarian simplicity of the equal per capita shares view. A defence of this view, then, is tantamount to a defence of the redistribution of terrestrial sink capacity, and therefore must involve either (1) an argument against the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity, or (2) an argument for why legitimate territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity should nevertheless be ignored in favour of an equal per capita distribution of emissions shares. One strategy for doing so involves applying Charles Beitz’s resource redistribution principle to terrestrial sink capacity. Some authors have argued that this strategy will fail due to important differences between the nature of ‘conventional’ natural resources, and the nature of a resource link climate sink capacity. In this paper, I consider five arguments to this effect that seek to establish the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity. Respectively, they appeal to attachment, identity, self-determination, improvement and fairness in order to do so. I argue that each one either fails to establish the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity, or, where they do plausibly establish legitimacy, they do so in a way that renders them vulnerable to type-(2) objections that suggest territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity should nevertheless be ignored. I conclude that, if one is willing to adopt the resource redistribution principle, a just distribution of emissions shares need not respect territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity.
Funder
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. Agarwal, A. 2002. A southern perspective on curbing global climate change. In Climate change policy: A survey, ed. Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, and John O. Niles, 373–391. Washington, DC: Island Press.
2. Armstrong, C. 2015. Climate justice and territorial rights. In Climate change and justice, ed. Jeremy Moss, 59–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Athanasiou, T., and P. Baer. 2002. Dead heat: Global justice and global warming. New York: Seven Stories Press.
4. Banai, A. 2016. Self-determination and resource rights: In defence of territorial jurisdiction over natural resources. Res Publica 22: 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-015-9308-8.
5. Batjes, N.H. 2016. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 269: 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.034.