The Struggle for Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World (original) (raw)

Abstract

Many agents have failed to comply with their responsibilities to take the action needed to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change. This pervasive noncompliance raises two questions of nonideal political theory. First, it raises the question of what agents should do when others do not discharge their climate responsibilities. (the Responsibility Question) In this paper I put forward four principles that we need to employ to answer the Responsibility Question (Sections II-V). I then illustrate my account, by outlining four kinds of action that should be undertaken (Section VI). Pervasive noncompliance also raises a second question: Given the lack of progress in combating climate change, should existing governance structures be maintained or changed (and if they should be changed, in what ways)? (the Governance Question). The paper briefly outlines a methodology for addressing this question and outlines what a nonideal response to the existing institutional structures would be (Section VII). It does so with reference to the Paris Agreement, and in particular the creation of a "global stocktake" (Article 14, Paris Agreement) and the "facilitative dialogue" (paragraph 20 of the ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’). The aim, then, is to set out an account of a nonideal theory of climate justice.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the six response options to climate justice noncompliance?add

The study identifies six responses: Target Modification, Responsibility Reallocation, Burden-Shifting I and II, Compromising Moral Ideals, and Changing the Incentive Structure.

How does the integrationist normative theory influence climate justice?add

The paper demonstrates that integrating climate change with other issues like poverty and health is essential for addressing justice effectively.

What role does feasibility play in determining climate justice actions?add

The analysis finds that agents must consider opportunities and constraints, leading to varied responses based on individual capacities.

Why must responses to climate justice noncompliance vary among agents?add

Responses must differ due to agents' varying normative responsibilities and opportunities to influence outcomes in climate justice.

How do fossil fuel subsidies impact climate justice efforts?add

The research shows that fossil fuel subsidies exacerbate inequality, as only 8% of funds support the poorest populations.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (44)

  1. Interestingly, Thomas Schelling proposed a scheme that is similar in nature to this. See his discussion of what he terms "multilateral reciprocal scrutiny" in Schelling (1997, pp.10-12: also, 1992, pp.12-13).
  2. For an example of what I have in mind see Climate Action Tracker which assesses countries' 'Intended Nationally Determined Contributions'. http://climateactiontracker.org/ See also Climate Analytics: http://climateanalytics.org/what-we-do/climate-policy-analysis.html?theme=24 when others fail to discharge their climate responsibilities (Sections II-V), to indicate concrete courses of action (Section VI), and to draw attention to how agents might also respond to the inadequate governance structures, and again to outline a specific course of action (Section VII). Without a sustained campaign along the lines defended above, the prospects of achieving a just and effective response to climate change remain bleak indeed. Bibliography
  3. Allen, Myles et al (2009) Warming Caused by Cumulative Carbon Emissions Towards the Trillionth Tonne. Nature, 458 (no.7242), 1163-1166.
  4. Barrett, Scott (2003) Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making.
  5. Caney, Simon (2005a) Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  6. Caney, Simon (2005b) Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (no.4), 747-775.
  7. Caney, Simon (2012) Just Emissions. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 40 (no.4), 255-300.
  8. Caney, Simon (2014a) Two Kinds of Climate Justice: Avoiding Harm and Sharing Burdens. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22 (no.2), 125-149 (Special Issue: Philosophy, Politics & Society).
  9. Caney, Simon (2014b) 'Applying the Principle of Intergenerational Equity to the 2015 Multilateral Processes' Report for the Mary Robinson Foundation Climate Justice.
  10. Caney, Simon (2016) Climate Change and Non-Ideal Theory: Six Ways of Responding to Noncompliance. In Clare Heyward and Dominic Roser (eds) Climate Justice and Non-Ideal Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  11. Caney, Simon (in press) Political Institutions for the Future: A Fivefold Package. In Axel Gosseries and Iñigo González Ricoy (eds) Institutions for Future Generations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  12. Collins, Matthew and Knutti, Reto (2013) Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In Thomas Stocker et al (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp.1029-1136. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  13. Daniels, Norman. 1996 Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Edenhofer, Ottmar; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; Sokona, Youba; Kadner, Susanne; Minx, Jan C.; and Brunner, Steffen (2014) Technical Summary. In Ottmar Edenhofer et al (eds) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 33-107. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  15. Estlund, David (2008) Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  16. Gilabert, Pablo (2012) From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Hamlin, Alan, and Stemplowska, Zofia (2012) Theory, Ideal Theory and the Theory of Ideals. Political Studies Review, 10 (no.1), 48-62.
  18. Helm, Dieter (2012) The Carbon Crunch: How We're Getting Climate Change Wrong -and How to Fix It. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
  19. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2014) World Energy Outlook 2014. Paris: International Energy Agency.
  20. Johnson, Dominic and Levin, Simon (2009) The Tragedy of Cognition: Psychological Biases and Environmental Inaction', Current Science, vol.97 (no.11), 10 December, 1593-1603.
  21. Lawford-Smith, Holly (2013) Understanding Political Feasibility. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21 (no.3), 243-259.
  22. Lawford-Smith, Holly (2015) Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal. Ethics & International Affairs. 29 (no.3), 315-330.
  23. Lord, Richard; Goldberg, Silke; Rajamani, Lavanya; and Brunnée, Jutta (editors) (2012) Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Markowitz, Ezra M. and Shariff, Azim F. (2012) Climate Change and Moral Judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2 (no.4), 243-247.
  25. Meinshausen, Malte, et al. (2009) Greenhouse-gas Emission Targets for Limiting Global Warming to 2°C. Nature, 458 (no.7242), 1158-1163.
  26. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011) Biofuels: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
  27. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  28. Plato (2002) Phaedrus. New York. Oxford University Press. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Robin Waterfield.
  29. Pogge, Thomas. (2010) Keynote Address: Poverty, Climate Change, and Overpopulation. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 38, 525-542.
  30. Rawls, John (1999) A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Rimmer, Matthew. (2011) Intellectual Property and Climate Change: Inventing Clean Technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  32. Schelling, Thomas C. (1992) Some Economics of Global Warming. American Economic Review, 82 (no.1), 1-14.
  33. Schelling, Thomas C. (1997) The Cost of Combating Global Warming: Facing the Trade- offs. Foreign Affairs, 76 (no.6), 8-14.
  34. Sen, Amartya. (2009) The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.
  35. Solum, Lawrence B. (2008) Constitutional Possibilities. Indiana Law Journal, 83 (no.1), 307-337.
  36. Stehr, Nico (2015) 'Democracy is Not an Inconvenience', Nature (525) 24 September pp.449-450.
  37. Stemplowska, Zofia (2008) What's Ideal about Ideal Theory?. Social Theory and Practice, 34 (no.3), 319-40.
  38. Swift, Adam (2008) The Value of Philosophy in Nonideal Circumstances, Social Theory and Practice, 34 (no.3), 363-387.
  39. Victor, David G. (2011) Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  40. Warren, Rachel. (2006) Impacts of Global Climate Change at Different Annual Mean Global Temperature Increases. In Hans Joachim Schellnhuber et al (eds) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, 93-131. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  41. Weber, Elke U. (2006) 'Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare Us (Yet)', Climatic Change, 77 (nos.1-2), 103-120.
  42. Weber, Elke U. (2010) What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (no.3), 332-342.
  43. Wolsko, Christopher; Ariceaga, Hector; and Jesse Seiden. (2016) Red, White, and Blue Enough to be Green: Effects of Moral Framing on Climate Change Attitudes and Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 65, 7-19.
  44. Wood, Mary Christina (2014) Nature's Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.