In discussions about climate justice, one particular question
that receives a lot of attention is that of how to share the global emissions
budget (that is, the limited amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that can be
released into the atmosphere if we are to avoid ‘dangerous’
climate change). A popular proposal here is ‘equal shares’. As suggested by the
name, if this solution were adopted the emissions budget would be shared between
countries on the basis of population size – resulting in a distribution of
emission quotas that is equal per capita. Equal shares is favoured not only by
many philosophers,
but also a wide range of international organisations (it is the second essential
component, for example, of the prominent Contraction
and Convergence approach).
I became interested in the equal shares view because it is
often put forward with very little argument. Some people seem to think it
obvious that this is the best way for parties to the UNFCCC to honour their commitment to deal with
climate change on the basis of ‘equity’.
But can things really be so simple when this budget must be shared across
countries and individuals that differ greatly in terms of their needs, wealth
and – arguably – contribution to climate change?
When you look more closely at the arguments that are actually
given for equal shares, it turns out that many people claim this to be a fair
solution to a global commons problem (for a quick introduction to commons
problems, listen here). They
argue that distributing emission quotas equates to distributing rights to the
atmosphere. The atmosphere, however, is alleged to be a global commons – or
shared resource – that no individual has a better claim to than any other.
Therefore, rights to this resource – in the form of emission quotas – should be
distributed to all human beings globally on an equal per capita basis.
The major problem underlying this argument is its restricted
focus on fairly sharing the atmosphere. What many defenders of equal shares
neglect to realise is that the atmosphere does not actually act as a sink for carbon
dioxide (CO2) – thought to be the most
important anthropogenic GHG – which is instead assimilated by the ocean,
soils and vegetation. Whilst the argument for equal shares might seem
plausible in the case of the ocean – a resource that is also often described as
a global commons – it is much harder to carry it over to terrestrial sinks
(soils and vegetation), which lie for the most part within state borders. This
leaves the equal shares view open to objections from countries like Brazil, which
could argue that they should be allocated a higher per capita CO2
allowance on the basis of their possession of a large terrestrial sink (in the
form of the Amazon rainforest). Furthermore it seems that Brazil would have backing
in international
law for such a claim.
The question of whether countries with large terrestrial
sinks should have full use rights in these resources – and should therefore be
allocated a greater share of the emissions budget – leads us into an enquiry
about rights to natural resource that has occupied philosophers for centuries. Roughly
speaking, the main parties to this debate are statists – who often deny the
existence of significant duties of international justice and attempt to defend
full national ownership over natural resources – and cosmopolitans – who hold
that justice requires us to treat all human beings equally regardless of their
country of birth.
Cosmopolitans often argue that one’s country of birth is a
‘morally arbitrary’ characteristic: a feature like gender or race that
shouldn’t be allowed to have a significant influence on your life prospects. They
believe it is clearly unfair that a baby lucky enough to be born in Norway will
on average have far better life prospects than a baby that happens to be born
in Bangladesh. Because of this, cosmopolitans are often opposed to national
ownership of natural resources, which they take to be a form of undeserved
advantage.
Cosmopolitanism can be used to defend equal per capita emission
shares because according to this view, rights to natural resources – whether
gold, oil, or carbon sinks – shouldn’t be allocated to whichever state they just
happen to be found in.
This cosmopolitan interpretation of fairness has a certain
intuitive plausibility – why should claims to valuable natural resources be based
on accidents of geography? On the other hand, there are a number of arguments
that can be given for taking some people to have a better claim than others to
certain carbon sinks. It seems particularly important, for a start, to consider
whether indigenous
inhabitants of the rainforest should be taken to have a privileged position
in decision-making about how this resource is used. We also need to acknowledge
that preserving forests will often be costly in terms of missed
development opportunities. Why should everybody be able to share equally in
the benefits of forest sinks, if it is countries like Brazil or India that must
forgo alternative ways of using that land when they choose to conserve? This
question is particularly pertinent given that land devoted to rainforest
protection cannot be used for alternative – renewable – forms of energy
production such as solar or biofuel. 
In addition, if cosmopolitans are correct that use rights to
terrestrial sinks should not be allocated on the basis of their location, then
we need to question national ownership of other natural resources as well. If
countries are not entitled to full use of ‘their’ forest sinks, then can we
consistently allow rights to fossil fuels – e.g. the shale gas below the
British Isles – to be allocated on a territorial basis? This is how rights over
natural resources – forests and fossil fuels included – have generally been allocated
in the past, with many resource-rich countries reaping huge benefits as a
result. If national ownership is a rotten principle, is rectification in order
for its past application? And what should we then say about the natural
resources that can be used in renewable energy production? Why should the UK
alone be allowed to exploit its territorial seas for the production of tidal
energy? Or Iceland claim rights over all of its easily accessible geothermal
sources?
Commons arguments for equal per
capita emission quotas go astray when they claim that the atmosphere is the
sole natural resource that assimilates our GHG emissions. Once we recognise
this, we should appreciate that the problem of the fair allocation of the global
emissions budget cannot be dealt with in isolation, but is instead tied up with
broader, difficult questions regarding how the natural world should be used and
shared. The answers we give regarding each individual’s claim to use GHG sinks
need to be rendered consistent with our judgments regarding the justice of the past
and current allocation of rights over other natural resources – resources
including fossil fuels and renewables – if we are really to deal with climate
change on the basis of equity.
This post was written by Megan Blomfield, a PhD student in
the University of Bristol philosophy department. It is based on her paper,
published in the latest edition of The Journal of Political Philosophy, titled
‘Global Common Resources and the Just Distribution of Emissions Shares’.
 |
| Megan Blomfield, University of Bristol |