Seite - 45 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Bild der Seite - 45 -
Text der Seite - 45 -
2 TheEthicalChallenges in theContextofClimateLossandDamage 45
Table2.2 Overview of differences between analysing L&Dwithin a framing of compensatory
justiceanddistributive justice
Compensatory justice Distributive justice
Scope Differentiating responsibilities
in lightof compensatory reasons
and liability L&Dunderstoodasundeserved
harmdemanding redistribution
toevenout thisunfairness
Redistributionbasedon Wrongful emitting Undeservedharms
Temporal context Backward-looking Forward-looking
Implementationhorizon Long-term,onceattribution
challengescanbe tackled Short- tomedium-term,while
attributionchallenges still exist
andareamainbarrier
ciaryofemissionsasresponsibleforprovidingcompensation.ThisistheBeneficiary
PaysPrinciple(BPP).Intheliterature,bothprinciplesmostoftenidentifyindividuals
as responsibilitybearers.But theycanalsorefer tocorporationsorcountries.This is
why sometimes a third principle in some sense combining thefirst two is invoked.
TheCommunityPaysPrinciple (CoPP)ascribestheresponsibilityforcompensation
to the polluting andbenefitting community.All three principles assign liability for
compensationeither to thepolluters (PPP), thebeneficiaries (BPP)or communities
(CoPP).3 They hold that by emitting, these differing agents acquire responsibility
tomakewhole again those harmed by the consequences of their emissions. Thus,
decision1/CP.21seemstosuggest, theseagentsbecomeliable tocompensatefor the
L&Dtheyarecontributing tocausing.
It is important to note that on ethical grounds compensatory duties for climate
L&Daremoredifficult to justify thanitatfirstappears.Thereareat least threebasic
problemsforjustifyingcompensationforL&D(MeyerandRoser2010;Meyer2013;
Kolstadet al. 2015): a.Potential dutybearersmightnothavewrongfully emitted by
exceeding their fair shares of emissions and thus have not acquired any legitimate
compensatoryduties; b.Potential dutybearersmighthavebeen (blamelessly) igno-
rant about the harmfulness of their emissions and can therefore not be said to be
(fully) responsible to compensate; and c. Potential recipientsmight be said not to
bewrongfully harmed since they are onlywrongfully harmed if they areworse off
due to (wrongful) emissions than theywould otherwise be or if they fall below a
specified thresholdofharmdue to (wrongful) emissions (orboth).4
3Althoughwediscuss these threeprinciples asprinciples identifying thebearers of compensatory
duties, these principles, and especially the beneficiary pays principle have also be shown to be
important in identifying the bearers of duties of distributive justice (seeMeyer and Sanklecha
2017).
4By such a threshold of harm, wemean that there is some sufficient (not necessarily minimal)
level ofwell-being and any individual who falls below that is thereby harmed, regardless of the
counterfactual arrangements (cf. Meyer 2003). In other words, individuals could be harmed by
beingbelowthethresholdevenif theyhadneverhadtheir interests thwartedbyanyotherparticular
individual.
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Titel
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Untertitel
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Autoren
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Verlag
- Springer Open
- Datum
- 2019
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Abmessungen
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Seiten
- 580
- Schlagwörter
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Kategorien
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima