The Added Value of the Environment Ethical Aspects of Climate Change (original) (raw)
Related papers
Carbon & Climate Law Review
Climate policy, theory of sustainability, theory of justice, WTO law. Author for various national newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, Financial Times Deutschland, TAZ, Capital u.a.); political advisor on questions of climate protection for German Federal and Laender ministries and parliaments (e.g. for the Federal Government on questions of long-term climate protection strategies); also member of various advisory commissions. Among his other achievements are some 20 international presentations
Global Policy, 2014
Researchers from various disciplines have built impressive but distinct compendia on climate change; the defining challenge for humanity. In the spirit of Lord Dahrendorf, this paper represents the output of interdisciplinary collaboration and integrates state-of-the-art academic expertise from the fields of philosophy, economics and governance. Our focus is on Europe, which is widely perceived as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, leadership weakness on climate over recent years, largely due to recession and political vacillation, is eroding this perception. What is needed is a firm justification for strong climate action, acknowledgement of the available tools, awareness of the reasons for our failures to date, and a realistic, but goal-oriented strategy for an integrated climate policy. We therefore present current normative insights from climate justice research highlighting the need to make institutions responsive to those most vulnerable; we discuss the economics of the transition to a low-carbon economy, pointing to key policy instruments and post-2020 climate targets for the EU; we contrast the normative and quantitative synoptic principles with the particularistic implementation schemes and politics of (not) implementing measures on the ground; and we suggest a careful coordination of European climate policies with acute challenges that could increase both climate justice and political feasibility.
The limited success of the United Nations climate change initiatives shows that the expectations of a global agreement in the near future are still far away. Unfortunately due to diverse causes such as difference in culture, difference in stages of development, wealth, legal systems and diversity of financial system, the trend that the KYOTO protocol created seems to drastically be shifting from creating a world order in to a system that is becoming more local and regionally divided. Such shift is generating a series of challenges for a market that far from reducing is growing at a fast pace. The object of my investigation was first to study the different challenges that these International Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) and supporting Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAS') are facing today, as well as to examine on the form of law and binding obligations being generated. For a better understanding of ETS and its current situation, as a starting point it is vital to elaborate a definition for this international system. A second aspect that the study focused on was the ongoing development of these types’ instruments. Because of a simultaneous concern of (normative) failure and (economic) success the core concern was to deepen the study and understand how the concept of "aequitas", was born, developed and finally mutated to its existing concept today within International Environmental Law. Despite the increasing interest in the use of emissions trading for curbing emissions, its application is reduced to a few initiatives worldwide. This is mainly due to the difficulty in establishing global commitments that can attain every country’s expectations. My research analyzes the “Kyoto Mechanisms” that were established to control the emission of GHG. This initiative is doing fairly well from an environmental perspective, in part due to the growing conscience for the need of enforceable environmental agreements. Unfortunately some of the major challenges these initiatives face are based on the disagreements’ in regards to the allocation of responsibilities for polluting and also an insufficient international concept of what equity implies. The idea and discussion with regard to equity is as old and as complex as the evolution of philosophy. Social movements have many times had equity in mind when trying to establish solutions to their demands of being treated differently. Such demands have been taken in consideration by politicians and also legal and judicial systems when trying to define ‘equal treatment’. These issues raise a number of important questions for political scientists and theorists. The search for justice, equality and equity pervades international discourse. It motivates the international community, with statement that all humans are equally entitled to live in freedom. Such discourse fuels and retro feeds on the debate of globalization. Equity is a well-known topic in environmental negotiations. Several agreements were reached in at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It was agreed that “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”. States that poll were responsible for the trans-boundary consequences. (The ‘polluter pays’ principle). The challenges and the way states responded to pressing environmental issues was from then on going to be a reflection on the way they had contributed to it in the first place (the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”). The way climate is changing constitutes a difficulty in the way we construct equitable, sustainable and efficient responses to this problem that is common to all of us. Climate change poses a serious challenge to our ability to construct equitable global responses to shared problems. The center of the climate change problem is as simple as it is discouraging, we know that it will be impossible for the underdeveloped countries to obtain emissions levels even similar to the ones of their developed peers. It would mean endangering our planet and all life. The developed countries are apparently better equipped to be able to respond more efficiently when mitigating their emissions. At the same time, their poor neighbours are likely to be the destinataries of the most harmful consequence of climate change. What is worse, they also tend to be the ones that have the least power in the decision making process in climate negotiations as well as not being able to evaluate the consequences of such decisions. That is why it does not come as surprise that equity has played such a great role in all negotiations related to climate change. Due to the fact that countries are so different in culture and also in perception of what justice is has made it difficult to forge one single concept. Nevertheless the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol are a clear outcome on the international community’s effort to create a system that can be considered fair. In order to achieve the convention’s goals, they set wider responsibilities for developed and industrialized countries citing common but differentiated responsibilities. They establish that the mechanisms that are contained within the protocol are subsidiary to internal measures that countries must take in mitigating climate change. The Convention assigns parties the responsibility to “protect the climate on the basis of equity. It also conditions the achievement of the provision within the convention by underdeveloped countries subject to assistance from developed countries. The refusal to fully assume the commitments of the scheme by high emitting countries such as USA, China and India creates a huge challenge in the implementations of the measures contained within these statutes. Therefore any future negotiations will have to result in commitments that are not only stronger, but that also offer more instruments to deal with conflicts and in doing so establishing the role of equity in dealing with climate change. This dissertation offers a set of challenges on this dilemma. In section one it makes an outline of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol and it establishes the mechanisms that they contain. It also makes a brief outline of some regional experiences. The second part categorizes several dimensions of equity that arise in the context of climate change. The philosophical frameset of equity has been analysed, in this section from its early stages to the concept it has in modern day environment protection. Nevertheless such analysis has been developed within its historical context therefore it is subject of all such constraints and limitations. Countries will most likely not reach a common agreement on a unique approach to equity as a founding principle for a climate change initiative. Therefore any successful outcome will be based on political negotiations and compromise. That seems to be the only approach in order to balance such dissimilar conceptions of equity. After a profound analysis the conclusion is that it is impossible to find a single universal position in regard to equity. The resources that are common to all humans are distributed by chance and have no relation to equity or fairness. Dealing with equity in the protection of the global commons has to be done taking in consideration not only political characteristics but also social economical and legal aspects. To embark on the establishment of a mitigation model and enforcing measures without considering the former aspects will only but unavoidably fail in the very end it seeks. This will result in the least equitable outcome for everyone. A failure to get to grips with climate change. That said, and after having analyzed the mechanisms that the UNFCCC establishes, it is possible to discern some of the features a novel agreement will require to be perceived as equitable. Climate change measures as established today are neither abstract nor designed to address all problems of prosperity and security as well as equity in the protection of the global commons. Nevertheless, the imperative task is to position and fully address the extent of the economic, political and social considerations that seek significant cuts in global greenhouse emissions. Perhaps and only so the principle of common but shared responsibilities might be a starting point Is equity the only means of measure? Or are there any other considerations? Does the general loss of confidence in multilateralism undermine the prospect of agreement on climate change? And if so; might a regional model tailored to a determined group and area be the most accurate response? These questions cannot yet be answered. Within this context, my intent was to outline a climate structure framework that might be a starting point and propose challenges when evaluating equity with regard to climate protection. In anticipation of this ever-changing discipline there is the hope that a more just and efficient model of adaptation and mitigation measures can be produced. Therefore the construct of an ethical analysis of a universally just climate protection system remains an uncertain enterprise.
Researchers from various disciplines have built impressive but distinct compendia on climate change; the defining challenge for humanity. In the spirit of Lord Dahrendorf, this paper represents the output of interdisciplinary collaboration and integrates state-of-the-art academic expertise from the fields of philosophy, economics and governance. Our focus is on Europe, which is widely perceived as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, leadership weakness on climate over recent years, largely due to recession and political vacillation, is eroding this perception. What is needed is a firm justification for strong climate action, acknowledgement of the available tools, awareness of the reasons for our failures to date, and a realistic, but goal-oriented strategy for an integrated climate policy. We therefore present current normative insights from climate justice research highlighting the need to make institutions responsive to those most vulnerable; we discuss the economics of the transition to a low-carbon economy, pointing to key policy instruments and post-2020 climate targets for the EU; we contrast the normative and quantitative synoptic principles with the particularistic implementation schemes and politics of (not) implementing measures on the ground; and we suggest a careful coordination of European climate policies with acute challenges that could increase both climate justice and political feasibility.
The EU and Global Climate Justice
2021
This book examines the European Union (EU)'s contribution to the development of the global climate regime within the broader framework of global justice. It argues that the procedural dimension of justice has been largely overlooked so far in the assessment of EU climate policy and reveals that the EU has significantly contributed to the development of the climate regime within its broader efforts to 'solidarise' international society. At the same time, the book identifies deficits of the climate regime and limits to the EU's impact, and explains why the EU policy towards global climate change has shifted over time. Finally, it argues that these policies should not be assessed in terms of being either wholly positive or wholly negative, but that they are shot through with ambiguities. This book will be of key interest to scholars, students, and practitioners of climate change, climate politics, and environmental and climate justice studies, and more broadly to EU Studies and International Relations.
EU Climate Change Policy: A Choice between Justice and Environmentalism?
The European Union actively shapes its environment. Climate change policy is a particularly illustrative example that the Union applies an active paradigm to protect the global environment both through internal and external actions. This paper examines the Union’s external action under the international climate change regime, as well as its creation of the European Emission Trading Scheme. It aims to identify evidence for the fact that under specific circumstances it can take a leading role in shaping the international legal order. Further, the paper addresses normative questions surrounding the Union as a climate change actor, and whether and in what way climate change action could contribute to finding a way out of the Union’s current Sinnkrise.
Climate justice and ambition under the Paris agreement
2020
Justice and ambition are key concepts concerning the efforts for mitigating climate change (CC) amongst countries. This effort sharing should suit all the Parties while meeting the Paris Agreement (PA) goals. However, although the PA enunciates that it must be “applied in a way reflecting equity” [2], it lacks the basis on how this equity should be operationalized. Moreover, the Paris Rule Book (PRB) indicates that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) must reflect fairness and the highest level of ambition reachable by a country [3]. In the absence of an international reference methodological framework in these matters, this paper aims to propose a methodology to assess the degree of justice and ambition of a country’s NDC.
Climate Justice under the Paris Agreement: Framework and Substance
Carbon & Climate Law Review, 2021
The Paris Agreement is the first treaty under the global climate regime to mention 'climate justice' as a concept. Given this unprecedented legal turn of the concept, the article reports a sociolegal study of climate justice, framing and assessing the substantive issues arising from the post-Paris negotiations of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) leading to the Glasgow COP in 2021. Gleaned from these framework and issues, how does climate justice look under the Paris Agreement? Drawing on the author's lived, legal practice and civil society experience, carrying out a doctrinal analysis of the UNFCCC and its instruments, and reviewing pivotal and representative literature and policy documents, the article claims that climate justice faces the fundamental challenge of state sovereignty. The author creates the conceptual and policy framework to identify the substantive issues converging on this fundamental challenge, assessing four of them: state self-centredness in addressing adaptation, state influence on the progress made on loss and damage, state autonomy and discretion in providing finance, and state-based policy-making that undermines inclusive decision-making. State and non-state actors are addressing some of these substantive issues already under the UNFCCC and beyond, and litigation has become a cross-cutting remedy. However, the fundamental challenge of state sovereignty remains.