Justice and Past EmissionsJustice and Past Emissions

Stephen M. GardinerStephen M. Gardiner

Department of Philosophy and Program on Values in SocietyDepartment of Philosophy and Program on Values in Society

University of Washington, SeattleUniversity of Washington, Seattle

Part IPart I

IntroductionIntroduction

The Broad Consensus in Climate EthicsThe Broad Consensus in Climate Ethics

Serious climate action is required Serious climate action is required (‘the action claim’)(‘the action claim’)

The developed countries should bear The developed countries should bear the largest burden of a transition to a the largest burden of a transition to a low carbon future, at least in the low carbon future, at least in the short-term (‘the burden claim’). short-term (‘the burden claim’).

These views are not completely These views are not completely unanimous, and there are differences unanimous, and there are differences in the details; still, they are very in the details; still, they are very widespread.widespread.

Support for the Burden ClaimSupport for the Burden Claim

The major approaches to fairness:The major approaches to fairness:

Historical: the developed countries are responsible for most of the cumulative Historical: the developed countries are responsible for most of the cumulative emissions currently causing climate changeemissions currently causing climate change

Moral equality: the developed countries consume much more per capita than other Moral equality: the developed countries consume much more per capita than other countries (e.g., in 2007, the US average was 5.32 metric tons of carbon, Australia 4.84, countries (e.g., in 2007, the US average was 5.32 metric tons of carbon, Australia 4.84, the UK 2.47 New Zealand 2.11; China 1.16, India 0.35, and Bangladesh 0.08)the UK 2.47 New Zealand 2.11; China 1.16, India 0.35, and Bangladesh 0.08)

Priority to the least well-off: developed countries are much richer on average (per Priority to the least well-off: developed countries are much richer on average (per capita income in 2007 was more than US$45,000 in the US and UK, but only $2604 in capita income in 2007 was more than US$45,000 in the US and UK, but only $2604 in China, $976 in India, and $428 in Bangladesh), and more than 10% of the world’s China, $976 in India, and $428 in Bangladesh), and more than 10% of the world’s population lives on less than $1 per day, unable to meet their basic needs (UN 2009). population lives on less than $1 per day, unable to meet their basic needs (UN 2009).

Utilitarianism: it seems better for happiness to allow the global poor access to Utilitarianism: it seems better for happiness to allow the global poor access to emissions to meet their subsistence needs and to move out of poverty, than to protect emissions to meet their subsistence needs and to move out of poverty, than to protect the “luxury emissions” of the richer countries. Moreover, there are good utilitarian the “luxury emissions” of the richer countries. Moreover, there are good utilitarian reasons for supporting the other approaches to justice, as secondary principles reasons for supporting the other approaches to justice, as secondary principles

(Singer 2002)(Singer 2002)

Hesitation about Past EmissionsHesitation about Past Emissions

A mainstream position:A mainstream position:• deny relevance prior to 1990 (or perhaps deny relevance prior to 1990 (or perhaps

somewhere 1985-1995)somewhere 1985-1995)• arguing that prior responsibility is arguing that prior responsibility is

implausible, largely on ethical groundsimplausible, largely on ethical grounds

(e.g., Singer 2002, Jamieson 2001, Caney 2004, Miller 2010, (e.g., Singer 2002, Jamieson 2001, Caney 2004, Miller 2010, Posner and Sunstein 2008, Posner and Weinstein 2010)Posner and Sunstein 2008, Posner and Weinstein 2010)

Some core arguments:Some core arguments: ignoranceignorance ““first-come, first-served”first-come, first-served” dead emittersdead emitters practicalitypracticality

ThesisThesisGeneral conclusions:General conclusions: The usual objections to taking past emissions The usual objections to taking past emissions

seriously are too quick.seriously are too quick. The issue of past emissions is more complex The issue of past emissions is more complex

than the mainstream position suggests.than the mainstream position suggests. Past and future emissions are intertwined, and Past and future emissions are intertwined, and

cannot be so easily separated.cannot be so easily separated.

Specific proposals:Specific proposals: Reject the simple threshold and 1990 views in Reject the simple threshold and 1990 views in

favor of a more complex profilefavor of a more complex profile Accept the “fair access” framingAccept the “fair access” framing Take seriously the wider consequences of Take seriously the wider consequences of

rejecting liability for past emissions, and rejecting liability for past emissions, and collective responsibilitycollective responsibility

Limit liability by appealing to pluralism and a Limit liability by appealing to pluralism and a conditional responsibility viewconditional responsibility view

Part IIPart II

The Presumptive ArgumentsThe Presumptive Arguments

(1) “You Broke It, (therefore) You Fix It”(1) “You Broke It, (therefore) You Fix It”

Those who cause a problem have an Those who cause a problem have an obligation to rectify it, and also obligation to rectify it, and also assume additional liabilities, such as assume additional liabilities, such as for compensation, if the problem for compensation, if the problem imposes costs or harms on others. imposes costs or harms on others.

Already familiar in environmental law and Already familiar in environmental law and regulation (e.g., the “polluter pays” regulation (e.g., the “polluter pays” principle)principle)

(2) Fair Access(2) Fair Access

• The atmosphere’s capacity to The atmosphere’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases absorb greenhouse gases without adverse effects is a without adverse effects is a limited resource that is, or limited resource that is, or ought to be, held in common. ought to be, held in common.

• If some have used up the If some have used up the resource, and in doing so resource, and in doing so denied others access to it, then denied others access to it, then compensation may be owed. compensation may be owed. The latecomers have been The latecomers have been deprived of their fair share. deprived of their fair share.

Part IIIPart III

The Ignorance ObjectionThe Ignorance Objection

The Basic ObjectionThe Basic Objection

Past polluters were ignorant of the adverse Past polluters were ignorant of the adverse effects of their emissions, and so ought effects of their emissions, and so ought not to be blamed. They neither intended not to be blamed. They neither intended nor foresaw the effects of their behavior, nor foresaw the effects of their behavior, and so should not be held responsible. and so should not be held responsible.

Todd Stern (the top U.S. negotiator) at Todd Stern (the top U.S. negotiator) at Copenhagen: Copenhagen:

““I actually I actually completely rejectcompletely reject the notion of the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the a debt or reparations or anything of the like. like.

For most of the 200 years since the For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant blissfully ignorant of the fact that of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.”It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.”

Response #1: Blame isn’t the issueResponse #1: Blame isn’t the issue

Some relevant concepts:Some relevant concepts:

Causal responsibility: A brought it about Causal responsibility: A brought it about that Xthat X

Moral responsibility: A has a duty with Moral responsibility: A has a duty with respect to X (e.g., to avoid or prevent it)respect to X (e.g., to avoid or prevent it)

Moral Blame: A should be morally Moral Blame: A should be morally blamed if X occursblamed if X occurs

Moral Accountability: A is morally liable Moral Accountability: A is morally liable if X occurs (e.g. to compensate for the if X occurs (e.g. to compensate for the costs)costs)

Claim: We can have moral responsibility Claim: We can have moral responsibility without moral blame, but with moral without moral blame, but with moral accountabilityaccountability

Example: if my dog digs under my (imposing Example: if my dog digs under my (imposing and serious) fence, escapes into your and serious) fence, escapes into your yard and destroys your vegetable patch, yard and destroys your vegetable patch, I am I am notnot causally responsible or morally causally responsible or morally blamable, but I am morally responsible blamable, but I am morally responsible and accountable for the damage. and accountable for the damage.

(This is so even if the damage is not the (This is so even if the damage is not the result of negligence on my part. The result of negligence on my part. The basic point is: it is my dog, and part of basic point is: it is my dog, and part of what one takes on when one has a dog what one takes on when one has a dog is these kinds of responsibilities.)is these kinds of responsibilities.)

Response #2: “You Broke It, You Fix It” Response #2: “You Broke It, You Fix It” RationaleRationale

Commonsense morality:Commonsense morality:

if I accidentally break something of yours, if I accidentally break something of yours, we usually think that I have some we usually think that I have some obligation to fix it, even if I was ignorant obligation to fix it, even if I was ignorant that my behavior was dangerous, and that my behavior was dangerous, and perhaps even if I could not have known.perhaps even if I could not have known.

Why? Why?

It remains true that I broke it, and in many It remains true that I broke it, and in many contexts that is sufficient. After all, if I am contexts that is sufficient. After all, if I am not to fix it, who will? Even if it is not not to fix it, who will? Even if it is not completely fair that I bear the burden, isn’t completely fair that I bear the burden, isn’t it at least less unfair than leaving you to it at least less unfair than leaving you to bear the costs of my behavior alone? (e.g., bear the costs of my behavior alone? (e.g., Shue)Shue)

Response #3: Fair Access RationaleResponse #3: Fair Access Rationale

Suppose that I unwittingly deprive you of your share of Suppose that I unwittingly deprive you of your share of something and benefit from doing so. Isn’t it natural to something and benefit from doing so. Isn’t it natural to think that I should step in to help when the problem is think that I should step in to help when the problem is discovered?discovered?

Example:Example:

Suppose that everyone in the office chips in to order Suppose that everyone in the office chips in to order pizza for lunch. You have to dash out for a meeting, pizza for lunch. You have to dash out for a meeting, and so leave your slices in the refrigerator. I (having and so leave your slices in the refrigerator. I (having already eaten my slices) discover and eat yours already eaten my slices) discover and eat yours because I assume that they must be going spare. You because I assume that they must be going spare. You return to find that you now don’t have any lunch. Is return to find that you now don’t have any lunch. Is this simply your problem? this simply your problem?

We don’t usually think so. Even though I didn’t realize at We don’t usually think so. Even though I didn’t realize at the time that I was taking your pizza, this does not the time that I was taking your pizza, this does not mean that I have no special obligations. The fact that I mean that I have no special obligations. The fact that I ate your lunch remains morally relevant. ate your lunch remains morally relevant.

Response #4: Who knew, and when did Response #4: Who knew, and when did they know it? they know it?

1965: Johnson Administration1965: Johnson Administration

““Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. The C02 produced by this combustion million years. The C02 produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200% fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200% increase in the carbon dioxide content of the increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.” (126) atmosphere.” (126)

Understanding a Basic Threat Understanding a Basic Threat

““Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air” (p. 1) Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air” (p. 1)

““the data show, clearly and conclusively, that from 1958-1963, the carbon dioxide content the data show, clearly and conclusively, that from 1958-1963, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere increased by 1.36 percent” (116)of the atmosphere increased by 1.36 percent” (116)

““We can conclude with fair assurance that at the present time fossil fuels are the only We can conclude with fair assurance that at the present time fossil fuels are the only source of CO2 being added to the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system.” (119)source of CO2 being added to the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system.” (119)

““By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate …” (126-7)sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate …” (126-7)

““With a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth’s With a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2, the average temperature near the earth’s surface could increase from 0.6 to 4.0 degrees C, depending on the behavior of the surface could increase from 0.6 to 4.0 degrees C, depending on the behavior of the atmospheric water vapor content … A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen atmospheric water vapor content … A doubling of CO2 in the air, which would happen if a little more than half of the fossil fuel reserves were consumed, would have about if a little more than half of the fossil fuel reserves were consumed, would have about three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.” (121) [three times = 1.8-three times the effect of a twenty-five percent increase.” (121) [three times = 1.8-12.0C] 12.0C]

Response #5: Why a Sharp Threshold?Response #5: Why a Sharp Threshold?

Surely there are important gradations both before and Surely there are important gradations both before and after 1990 …after 1990 …

Emissions prior to 1990:Emissions prior to 1990:

An evolving view? Arrenhius (1903) … Keeling An evolving view? Arrenhius (1903) … Keeling 1960s … Johnson Administration (1965)1960s … Johnson Administration (1965)

Emissions after 1990:Emissions after 1990:

Example: US initial commitment to stabilizing Example: US initial commitment to stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, basic agreement emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, basic agreement to Kyoto (1998), withdrawal from Kyoto (2001), to Kyoto (1998), withdrawal from Kyoto (2001), Copenhagen commitments (2009) …Copenhagen commitments (2009) …

Part IVPart IV

The “First-come, First-served” The “First-come, First-served” ObjectionObjection

An (Alleged) DisanalogyAn (Alleged) Disanalogy

In the pizza case, you have a clear right to the In the pizza case, you have a clear right to the eaten slices, because you have already paid eaten slices, because you have already paid for them. But in the case of emissions, for them. But in the case of emissions, where the shares of the latecomers are used where the shares of the latecomers are used up by those who come earlier, it might be up by those who come earlier, it might be maintained that the latecomers have no such maintained that the latecomers have no such claim. Perhaps it is simply “first-come, first claim. Perhaps it is simply “first-come, first served,” and hard luck to the tardy.served,” and hard luck to the tardy.

A Counter-interpretation: “Free for All”A Counter-interpretation: “Free for All”

If a resource initially appears to be unlimited, then If a resource initially appears to be unlimited, then those who want to consume it might simply assume those who want to consume it might simply assume at the outset that no issues of allocation arise. at the outset that no issues of allocation arise.

Everyone can take whatever they want, with no Everyone can take whatever they want, with no adverse consequences for others. In this case, the adverse consequences for others. In this case, the principle is not really first-come, first-served (which principle is not really first-come, first-served (which implies that the resource is limited, so that some implies that the resource is limited, so that some may lose out), but rather “free for all” (which does may lose out), but rather “free for all” (which does not). not).

Since it is assumed that there is more than enough for Since it is assumed that there is more than enough for everyone, no principle of allocation is needed.everyone, no principle of allocation is needed.

““So, What Happens If …”? So, What Happens If …”?

What if the assumption that the resource What if the assumption that the resource is unlimited turns out to be mistaken, is unlimited turns out to be mistaken, so that free for all becomes so that free for all becomes untenable? untenable?

Do those who have already consumed Do those who have already consumed large shares have no special large shares have no special responsibility to those who have not, responsibility to those who have not, and now cannot?and now cannot?

Does the original argument for “free for Does the original argument for “free for all” justify ignoring the past? all” justify ignoring the past?

Arguably, not …Arguably, not …

If the parties had considered at the outset the If the parties had considered at the outset the possibility that the resource might turn out to be possibility that the resource might turn out to be limited, which allocation principle would have limited, which allocation principle would have seemed more reasonable and fair: seemed more reasonable and fair:

(a) “free for all, with no special responsibility for (a) “free for all, with no special responsibility for the early users if the resource turns out to be the early users if the resource turns out to be limited”, or limited”, or

(b) “free for all, but with early users liable to extra (b) “free for all, but with early users liable to extra responsibilities if the assumption of responsibilities if the assumption of unlimitedness turns out to be mistaken”? unlimitedness turns out to be mistaken”?

Reasons to reject (b): Reasons to reject (b): makes later users vulnerable in an makes later users vulnerable in an

unnecessary way,unnecessary way, provides a potentially costly incentive to provides a potentially costly incentive to

consume early if possibleconsume early if possible especially implausible if there are harms to especially implausible if there are harms to

third parties as well. third parties as well.

Part IVPart IV

The Dead Emitters ObjectionThe Dead Emitters Objection

The Basic ObjectionThe Basic Objection

Since significant anthropogenic emissions have Since significant anthropogenic emissions have been occurring since 1750, many past been occurring since 1750, many past polluters are now dead. Given this, it is polluters are now dead. Given this, it is said, “polluter pays” principles no longer said, “polluter pays” principles no longer really apply to a substantial proportion of really apply to a substantial proportion of past emissions; instead, what is really being past emissions; instead, what is really being proposed under the banner of polluter pays proposed under the banner of polluter pays is that the descendents of the original is that the descendents of the original polluters should pay for those emissions, polluters should pay for those emissions, because they have benefited from the past because they have benefited from the past pollution (because of industrialization in pollution (because of industrialization in their countries). their countries).

However, the argument continues, this However, the argument continues, this “beneficiary pays principle” is unjust “beneficiary pays principle” is unjust because it holds current individuals because it holds current individuals responsible for emissions that they did not responsible for emissions that they did not cause (and could not have prevented), and cause (and could not have prevented), and in ways which diminish their own in ways which diminish their own opportunities. opportunities.

Response #1: Not Dead! Response #1: Not Dead!

(a) More than half of cumulative emissions (a) More than half of cumulative emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s. So, have occurred since the mid-1970s. So, for much of the pollution, many of the for much of the pollution, many of the polluters are still around.polluters are still around.

(b) “Polluter pays” can still apply if it refers (b) “Polluter pays” can still apply if it refers not to individuals as such but to some not to individuals as such but to some entity to which they are connected, such entity to which they are connected, such as a country, people, or corporation. as a country, people, or corporation.

Moreover, this is the case in climate change, Moreover, this is the case in climate change, where polluter pays is usually invoked to where polluter pays is usually invoked to suggest that countries should be held suggest that countries should be held responsible for their past emissions, and responsible for their past emissions, and these typically (though not always) have these typically (though not always) have persisted over the time period persisted over the time period envisioned.envisioned.

Response #2: Defending the Collective Response #2: Defending the Collective

Many proponents of the ‘dead emitters’ objection Many proponents of the ‘dead emitters’ objection the moral relevance of states, and instead the moral relevance of states, and instead invoke a strong individualism that claims that invoke a strong individualism that claims that only individuals should matter ultimately from only individuals should matter ultimately from the moral point of view. the moral point of view.

However, this move makes the argument more However, this move makes the argument more controversial that it initially appears.controversial that it initially appears.

On the one hand, even many individualists would On the one hand, even many individualists would argue that states often play the role of argue that states often play the role of representing individuals and discharging many representing individuals and discharging many of their moral responsibilities. Given this, more of their moral responsibilities. Given this, more needs to be said about why the fact of needs to be said about why the fact of membership is irrelevant for assigning membership is irrelevant for assigning responsibility. responsibility.

Response #3: Radical Individualism?Response #3: Radical Individualism?

On the other hand, the argument ignores the issue that a On the other hand, the argument ignores the issue that a very strong individualism would also call into very strong individualism would also call into question many other practices surrounding inherited question many other practices surrounding inherited rights and responsibility. rights and responsibility.

Put most baldly, if we are not responsible for at least Put most baldly, if we are not responsible for at least some of the debts incurred by our ancestors, why are some of the debts incurred by our ancestors, why are we entitled to inherit all of the benefits of their we entitled to inherit all of the benefits of their activities? In particular, if we disavow their activities? In particular, if we disavow their emissions, must we also relinquish the territory and emissions, must we also relinquish the territory and infrastructure they left to us? infrastructure they left to us?

The worry here is that, if successful, the attempt to The worry here is that, if successful, the attempt to undermine polluter (or beneficiary) pays is liable to undermine polluter (or beneficiary) pays is liable to prove too much, or at least to presuppose a radical prove too much, or at least to presuppose a radical rethinking of global politics. Perhaps this radicalism rethinking of global politics. Perhaps this radicalism is theoretically correct. Still, it is not clear that it is is theoretically correct. Still, it is not clear that it is okay to apply it selectively in this context.okay to apply it selectively in this context.

An Alternative ApproachAn Alternative Approach

Of course, it is true that holding some contemporaries Of course, it is true that holding some contemporaries accountable for the past emissions of their accountable for the past emissions of their ancestors/benefactors may result in unacceptable ancestors/benefactors may result in unacceptable burdens for them.burdens for them.

However:However: We should recognize that this is a different issue, We should recognize that this is a different issue,

to be addressed on its merits.to be addressed on its merits. We can also say that past emissions are only one We can also say that past emissions are only one

of the relevant ethical considerations, to be of the relevant ethical considerations, to be integrated with others.integrated with others.

We could propose that those who find the overall We could propose that those who find the overall package of benefits and burdens bequeathed to package of benefits and burdens bequeathed to them be allowed to relinquish both the benefits them be allowed to relinquish both the benefits and burdens, and return to a background state of and burdens, and return to a background state of equality.equality.

Part IVPart IV

The Practicality ObjectionThe Practicality Objection

Political ImpracticalityPolitical Impracticality

Objection: if agreement is to be Objection: if agreement is to be politically feasible, we must politically feasible, we must ignore the past and be ignore the past and be forward-looking in our forward-looking in our approach.approach.

. .

Response #1: ‘Oh Yeah?’Response #1: ‘Oh Yeah?’

Claim: the objection makes a rash claim Claim: the objection makes a rash claim about political reality. about political reality.

A genuinely global agreement is needed to A genuinely global agreement is needed to tackle climate change, and since many tackle climate change, and since many nations of the world would not accept an nations of the world would not accept an agreement that did not explicitly or agreement that did not explicitly or implicitly recognize past disparities, any implicitly recognize past disparities, any attempt to exclude the past from attempt to exclude the past from consideration is itself seriously consideration is itself seriously unrealistic.unrealistic.

(Neumeyer 2000, Athanasiou and Baer (Neumeyer 2000, Athanasiou and Baer 2002)2002)

. .

Response #2: Is Separation so Easy?Response #2: Is Separation so Easy?

On the one hand, the future emissions that make climate change On the one hand, the future emissions that make climate change pose such a large threat do so principally against the backdrop pose such a large threat do so principally against the backdrop of past emissions. Not only do these remain in the atmosphere of past emissions. Not only do these remain in the atmosphere for a long time, but they also make any given level of future for a long time, but they also make any given level of future emissions more dangerous than it might have been. Hence, emissions more dangerous than it might have been. Hence, the past constrains the future, and past emitters might be held the past constrains the future, and past emitters might be held liable for that. liable for that.

On the other hand, a similar point applies in reverse. The “liability” On the other hand, a similar point applies in reverse. The “liability” of the past is in part determined by future behavior. Past of the past is in part determined by future behavior. Past emissions become more dangerous if there are greater future emissions become more dangerous if there are greater future emissions. Hence, though it might initially be tempting to emissions. Hence, though it might initially be tempting to assign responsibility for adaptation efforts (say) solely on the assign responsibility for adaptation efforts (say) solely on the basis of past emissions, this obscures the fact that how much basis of past emissions, this obscures the fact that how much adaptation is ultimately necessary (or feasible) will depend on adaptation is ultimately necessary (or feasible) will depend on future emissions as well. future emissions as well.

Given these points, the issue of past emissions casts a notable Given these points, the issue of past emissions casts a notable shadow over other allocation questions. shadow over other allocation questions.

Part VIIIPart VIII

ConclusionsConclusions

ThesisThesis

General conclusions:General conclusions: The usual objections to taking past emissions The usual objections to taking past emissions

seriously are too quick.seriously are too quick. The issue of past emissions is more complex The issue of past emissions is more complex

than the mainstream position suggests.than the mainstream position suggests. Past and future emissions are intertwined, and Past and future emissions are intertwined, and

cannot be so easily separated.cannot be so easily separated.

Specific proposals:Specific proposals: Reject the simple threshold and 1990 views in Reject the simple threshold and 1990 views in

favor of a more complex profilefavor of a more complex profile Accept the “fair access” framingAccept the “fair access” framing Take seriously the wider consequences of Take seriously the wider consequences of

rejecting liability for past emissions, and rejecting liability for past emissions, and collective responsibilitycollective responsibility

Limit liability by appealing to pluralism and a Limit liability by appealing to pluralism and a conditional responsibility viewconditional responsibility view