Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · 2010 · 434 citations · 43 references
LawEconomicsEnvironmental PolicyClimate Change MitigationClimate PolicyEnvironmental LiabilityClimate ChangeClimate EthicsClimate GovernanceEnvironmental CompensationPolluter Pays PrinciplePrecautionary PrincipleClimate Change PrecautionClimate CompensationFairness PrinciplesMitigation Ethics
Climate change threatens vulnerable populations, prompting appeals to the Polluter Pays Principle. The paper asks who should bear the burden of combating dangerous climate change and argues that the Polluter Pays Principle should be revised and supplemented by a modified Ability to Pay Principle. The author examines the Ability to Pay Principle and addresses four objections to it. The analysis finds that the Polluter Pays Principle has three limitations and requires revision, and that a suitably modified Ability to Pay Principle can supplement it.
Climate change poses grave threats to many people, including the most vulnerable. This prompts the question of who should bear the burden of combating ‘dangerous’ climate change. Many appeal to the Polluter Pays Principle. I argue that it should play an important role in any adequate analysis of the responsibility to combat climate change, but suggest that it suffers from three limitations and that it needs to be revised. I then consider the Ability to Pay Principle and consider four objections to this principle. I suggest that, when suitably modified, it can supplement the Polluter Pays Principle.
43
Thomas J. Barker, I. Bashmakov, L. Bernstein et al. · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · 2007 · 9.2K citations · Full text
Martin L. Parry, Osvaldo Canziani, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele de Strihou et al. · 2007 · 2.8K citations