One of the normative aspects of climate change that has received relatively little attention from philosophers is the proposal that states reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by issuing ‘personal carbon allowances’ (PCAs) – also sometimes called ‘domestic tradable quotas’ (DTQs), or ‘tradable energy quotas’ (TEQs) 1 – to each of their citizens. According to this proposal, citizens would be required to surrender PCAs in order to engage in various greenhouse-gas emitting activities. The number of PCAs issued each year would decline, so as to ensure a year on year reduction in national greenhouse-gas emissions. One version of the proposal holds that a supranational system of PCAs could provide a global solution to climate change, with everyone on the planet receiving PCAs equivalent to a per capita share of global emissions. Whilst a supranational system of PCAs could provide a global solution to climate change, it would be extremely difficult to implement a supranational system of PCAs, and unrealistic to expect global leaders to sign up to such a system. 2 On the other hand, a domestic version of the proposal suggests an attractive way for states to share out emissions among their own citizens, however emissions are to be shared out between states. The proposal domestically to issue PCAs was first developed in the 1990s by Meyer Hillman and David Fleming. 3 More recently, the proposal has been further developed by Richard Starkey and Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, 4
Read full abstract