Climate Change Justice

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Climate Change Justice

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Climate Change Justice
Author: Sunstein, Cass Robert; Posner, Eric

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Cass Sunstein & Eric Posner, Climate Change Justice, 96 Geo. L.J. 1775 (2008).
Access Status: Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time (“dark deposit”). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Greenhouse gas reductions would cost some nations much more than others, and benefit some nations far less than others. Significant reductions would impose especially large costs on the United States, and recent projections suggest that the United States has relatively less to lose from climate change. In these circumstances, what does justice require the United States to do? Many people believe that the United States is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point that is justified by its own self-interest, simply because the United States is wealthy, and because the nations most at risk from climate change are poor. This argument from distributive justice is complemented by an argument from corrective justice: The existing "stock" of greenhouse gas emissions owes a great deal to the past actions of the United States, and many people think that the United States should do a great deal to reduce a problem for which it is largely responsible. But there are serious difficulties with both of these arguments. Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations might well be desirable, but if so, expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor. The argument from corrective justice runs into the standard problems that arise when collectivities, such as nations, are treated as moral agents: Many people who have not acted wrongfully end up being forced to provide a remedy to many people who have not been victimized. The conclusion is that while a suitably designed climate change agreement is in the interest of the world, a widely held view is wrong: Arguments from distributive and corrective justice fail to provide strong justifications for imposing special obligations for greenhouse gas reductions on the United States. These arguments have general implications for thinking about both distributive justice and corrective justice arguments in the context of international law and international agreements.
Published Version: http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/96-5/Posner-Sunstein.PDF
Other Sources: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008958
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/SunsteinWeb6.pdf
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10880569
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters