Abstract

Debates about individual responsibility for climate change revolve mainly around individual mitigation duties. Mitigation duties concern future impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, climate change has already caused important harms and it is foreseeable that it will cause more in the future, in spite of our best efforts. Thus, arguably, individuals might also have duties related to those harms. In this paper, I address the question of whether individuals are obligated to provide compensation for climate related harms that have already occurred. I explore two possible strategies to answer that question. The straightforward strategy answers in the affirmative. Two approaches embrace this strategy: the ‘ecological citizenship’ approach and the benefits-based approach. I challenge those two approaches and rule out an affirmative answer. The alternative strategy answers in the negative but provides a way to respond to why currently living individuals should pay for burdens created for past individuals. Two possible approaches embrace this alternative: the community-based approach and my own state-based benefits approach. I will argue that individual duties do not fall under the realm of compensatory justice, but they have nonetheless a duty to bear compensatory burdens allocated to their states.

Highlights

  • For about a decade, ‘individual climate ethics’ has become a topic in its own right (Fragnière 2016)

  • A response to the dead polluters objection (DPO) based on benefitting from historical emissions states that individuals have compensatory duties towards victims of climate change because they benefit from those emissions

  • In focusing on the DPO, I isolated it from other problems affecting compensatory justice claims, namely the non-identity problem (NIP) and the excusable ignorance objection (EIO)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

For about a decade, ‘individual climate ethics’ has become a topic in its own right (Fragnière 2016). Keywords Climate change · Historical emissions · Compensatory justice · Individual duties · Atmospheric debt · Benefits I assume that it is appropriate to attribute duties of compensatory justice to states for their past overuse of the atmosphere.4 The remaining question is: why should individuals bear those burdens?

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.