Content uploaded by Henry Shue
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henry Shue on Nov 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions
Abstract
In order to decide whether a comprehensive treaty covering all greenhouse gases is the best next step after UNCED, one needs to distinguish among the four questions about the international justice of such international arrangements: (1) What is a fair allocation of the costs of preventing the global warming that is still avoidable?; (2) What is a fair allocation of the costs of coping with the social consequences of the global warming that will not in fact be avoided?; (3) What background allocation of wealth would allow international bargaining (about issues like 1 and 2) to be a fair process?; and (4) What is a fair allocation of emissions of greenhouse gases (over the long-term and during the transition to the long-term allocation)? In answering each question we must specify from whom any transfers should come and to whom any transfers should go. As the grounds for the answers we usually face a choice between fault-based principles and no-fault principles.
... I have proposed emissions limitarianism as a justification for why UCT + ECDs is unjust, even if the double ethical outcome (less GHG emissions, more economic equality) is given. It is now important to clarify why I argue that we (also) need this specific normative account to assess the distributional effects of a carbon pricing reform, instead of relying on established normative theories, such as economic limitarianism or the classical distinction between subsistence and luxury emissions, first proposed by Henry Shue (1993) and later discussed in the literature. ...
... SEvsLE argues that subsistence emissions should be prioritised over luxury emissions. This is because subsistence emissions aim to satisfy basic needs, whereas luxury emissions aim to satisfy less urgent needs (Shue 1993). Applying this theory to a tight GHG budget scenario, such as the one we are experiencing today, one might conclude that all luxury emissions are wrong, and therefore perhaps to be banned, because they take carbon space away from subsistence emissions (see Tank 2022). ...
A uniform carbon tax with equal per capita dividends is usually advocated as a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without increasing, and in many cases even reducing, economic inequality, in particular because of the positive balance between the carbon taxes paid by the worse off and the carbon dividends they receive back. In this article, I argue that a uniform carbon tax reform is unjust regardless of how the revenue is used, because it does not discourage the rich from indulging in wasteful emissions. This is at odds with a normative account of the distribution of the GHG budget that I define as emissions limitarianism, which is a climate derivative of economic limitarianism. Emissions limitarianism holds that, under low GHG budget conditions, emissions permits should not be used to achieve functionings that over-consume the GHG budget without producing significant welfare gains relative to the achievement of alternative functionings. Accordingly, I argue that a uniform carbon tax should be complemented by a limitarian carbon tax, which restricts the capabilities of the rich to achieve wasteful emission-generating functionings. The article adopts a methodological multi-level perspective on capabilities as a measure of welfare, distinguishing between basic, secondary and tertiary capabilities.
... How far does the individual duty extend? Here, the concept of control, which is inextricably tied to the concept of moral responsibility, as well as Shue's (1993) distinction between luxury and subsistence emissions serve to outline one possible response. ...
This work employs Elizabeth Cripps’ collectivist account of responsibility for climate change in order to ground an individual duty to reduce one’s GHG emissions. This is significant not only as a critique of Cripps, but also as an indication that even on some collectivist footings, individuals can be assigned primary duties to reduce their emissions. Following Cripps, this work holds the unstructured group of GHG emitters weakly collectively responsible for climate change harms. However, it argues against Cripps that what follows from this is a corresponding collective duty to act qua group to bring about an end to the harm and a derivative duty for each emitter to promote the required organization of a group capable of this. Instead, this work argues that acts of GHG emission, to the extent that they are avoidable and performed with requisite knowledge, make one into a member of a group that is morally responsible for climate-related harms. Thus, individual emitters who can do otherwise should recognize themselves as members of a group that collectively harms. Subsequently, they should take all possible steps in order to renounce their membership (e.g. by reducing their GHG emissions).
... Regarding the impact of tourism on biodiversity and ecological erosion of destinations, "loving nature to death" scenarios have been proposed to describe the role of tourism's contribution to the unnatural natural history of the planet. Thus, tourism is increasingly acknowledged for producing global greenhouse emissions, raising old debates over wants and needs, subsistence, and luxury emissions (Shue, 1993). Therefore, sustainability is crucial for the industry as it needs to reproduce and justify its societal acceptance beyond purely economic benefits. ...
This article engages with the notion of the Anthropocene to discuss tourism trajectories in the changing Arctic environment, particularly focusing on how the industry aligns with totalized and harmonized visions of sustainability and growth. Using the example of the Republic of Santa Claus theme park, a mega-project planned to be built at Rovaniemi in Finnish Lapland, this conceptual article speculates and provokes discussion over post-Arctic tourism futures in a region expected to face profound effects from climate change and disruptions to the tourism industry. Using the concepts of pseudo-events, heterotopia, and Arctification, the article points out that to keep the myth of Santa alive, the Arctic environment needs to be increasingly fabricated and staged, leading to the production of "neo-natures." Finally, the article posits that we should understand the Republic of Santa Claus as an example of neo-nature: a model embodying total Arctification and a simulation of an idealized Arctic environment. This reflection underscores the challenges and dilemmas inherent in reproducing the key elements of nature-based tourism in the Arctic region in the future. Hence, the article explores reactions and visions of expected future changes in Arctic tourism by examining anticipated changes in Arctic tourism and its globalization in the new circumstances of the Anthropocene.
... La EAC es un recurso global escaso, valioso, rival y no excluible que nadie posee. 5 Todas las múltiples catástrofes del cambio climático llegan cuando (como está ocurriendo 5 Para una selección de otros trabajos que discuten esta idea, véase Shue (2014), Traxler (2002), Vanderheiden (2006), Blomfield (2013), Dolšak y Ostrom, (2003). Aunque se podría decir mucho más de cada una de estas características, que retomo en otro lugar, vale la pena mencionar algunas cosas. ...
'Tener demasiado' es el primer volumen académico dedicado al limitarismo: la idea de que el uso de los recursos económicos o de los ecosistemas no sobrepasen ciertos límites.
Se trata de un concepto profundamente arraigado en el pensamiento económico y político, por lo que es posible encontrar premisas similares en pensadores como Platón, Aquino o Spinoza. No obstante, 'Tener demasiado' es el primer ejemplar en el campo de la filosofía política contemporánea en el que el limitarismo se explora en profundidad y con detalle.
Asimismo, este estudio reúne por primera vez los mejores escritos de los principales teóricos del limitarismo, lo que le convierte en una contribución esencial al campo de la filosofía política, en general, y de las teorías sobre la justicia distributiva, en particular. Incluye tanto artículos seminales ya publicados como nuevos capítulos y se presenta como lectura indispensable para académicos y estudiantes de teoría política y filosofía, así como para todos aquellos interesados en cuestiones relacionadas con la justicia distributiva.
... Véase, por ejemplo,Shue (1993) sobre las emisiones de lujo y de subsistencia. ...
'Tener demasiado' es el primer volumen académico dedicado al limitarismo: la idea de que el uso de los recursos económicos o de los ecosistemas no sobrepasen ciertos límites.
Se trata de un concepto profundamente arraigado en el pensamiento económico y político, por lo que es posible encontrar premisas similares en pensadores como Platón, Aquino o Spinoza. No obstante, 'Tener demasiado' es el primer ejemplar en el campo de la filosofía política contemporánea en el que el limitarismo se explora en profundidad y con detalle.
Asimismo, este estudio reúne por primera vez los mejores escritos de los principales teóricos del limitarismo, lo que le convierte en una contribución esencial al campo de la filosofía política, en general, y de las teorías sobre la justicia distributiva, en particular. Incluye tanto artículos seminales ya publicados como nuevos capítulos y se presenta como lectura indispensable para académicos y estudiantes de teoría política y filosofía, así como para todos aquellos interesados en cuestiones relacionadas con la justicia distributiva.
Contemporary discourse on climate change is dominated by two opposing stories, one of doom and gloom and the other of passive complacency. This chapter challenges the latter story by drawing on South African scholar Rob Nixon’s idea of slow violence, calling attention to the lethality and injustice of the most unnatural of disasters. This chapter also challenges the doom-and-gloom story by showing how change, though slow and difficult, is already happening and can be accelerated. In addition to drawing on Nixon’s work, this chapter includes ideas from Ramachandra Guha and Joan Martinez-Alier, Lula da Silva, Desmond Tutu, Anote Tong, and Bernard Ferguson, as well as perspectives from people experiencing the impacts of climate change, like Filipino fisherman and Native Alaskan communities.
This chapter aims to explore the role that the right to a decent standard of living may play to satisfy basic human needs in a context of environmental overshoot and fossil fuel depletion. At present, everything indicates that the rise in global temperature will most likely be more than 1,5 degrees in the next decades, which will trigger devastating environmental and economic impacts, especially in the Global South. Moreover, the progressive depletion of cheap and easily accessible fossil fuels such as crude oil and natural gas will have an enormous impact on human economic and social rights, since welfare systems have been built on fossil fuel-dependent infrastructures. Therefore, the primary purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of the right to an adequate standard of living in guaranteeing basic needs depending on energy in the current context. Thus, our premise is that the absolute standards implied in this right could help to navigate these challenges in the next few years, giving priority to the satisfaction of basic needs, such as access to water, food, and shelter. In addition, this work also discusses the current limitations of the human rights framework to integrate the needs of future generations as well as the concept of planetary boundaries.
Currently used sharing principles (grandfathering and final consumption expenditure) do not align with the purpose of Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessments (AESAs)—enabling all to meet basic needs within the planetary limits. This discrepancy, though niche within life cycle engineering, demands attention due to the integration of the sharing principles in the widely adopted Science Based Targets initiative, embraced by 4000+ companies, representing over a third of the global economy. This paper suggests operationalizing sufficientarianism as a fair sharing principle for AESAs guaranteeing a minimum threshold of well‐being for all. The theory of human needs is highlighted to distinguish luxuries from necessities. This is vital when assigning shares to products/companies, as there's no room for luxuries (products for someone which cause others to fall short), given the extremely limited individual safe operating space, regardless of the sharing approach. This paper argues that sufficientarian‐based sharing principles must overlook historically skewed material welfare distributions to ensure no one falls below the minimum threshold. It underscores the need for an interdisciplinary approach to sharing principles, acknowledging and discussing diverse value perspectives on equal grounds. The focus is to inform and discuss the development of new sharing principles, which introduces initial steps toward a sufficientarian‐based approach. The paper concludes that recognizing embedded values is paramount in sharing principle development. Failing to do so risks letting quantifiable metrics dictate the values integrated into AESAs without open discourse.
Unorganised collectives that are interesting in terms of moral responsibility are a set of individuals picked out by some normatively relevant fact. With the collective harm of climate change, this could be about things like one’s consuming habits, line of work, or the potential of the constituents to do something good together. What is common for unorganised collectives relevant for climate mitigation responsibility is that their activity is interdependent and based on shared values to some degree. Shared social orientation can help us to conceptualise our responsibility as constituents of unorganised collectives who help to shape each other’s actions and values, including through social norms. When a systemic issue becomes individualised, the structural aspects can get blurred or fade completely into the background, meaning that the overall picture is also lost in terms of responsibility. Awareness of our embeddedness in collective contexts helps us to make sense of our moral lives and responsibility in our interdependent world. I suggest we try to pay attention to the harmful structures that we are part of. More specifically, we should try to become aware of our social positions within these structures and be willing to take action to make changes for the better, should such an opportunity arise. When we become aware of our shared social orientations, change can happen even from unlikely sources.
Riven with scientific uncertainty, contending interests, and competing interpretations, climate change today poses an existential challenge. For India, such a challenge is compounded by the immediate concerns of eradicating poverty and accelerating development. Moreover, India has played a relatively limited role thus far in causing the problem. Despite these complicating factors, India has to engage this challenge because a pathway to development innocent of climate change is no longer possible. To do so requires stimulating conversation on climate change as part of India’s larger development discourse. This volume brings together leading researchers and practitioners—negotiators, activists, and policymakers—to lay out the emergent debate on climate change in India. Through these chapters, the contributors hope to deepen clarity both on why India should engage with climate change and how it can best do so, even while appreciating and representing the challenges inherent in doing so.
Book review of the intergovernmental panel on climate change report on global warming and the greenhouse effect. Covers the scientific basis for knowledge of the future climate. Presents chemistry of greenhouse gases and mathematical modelling of the climate system. The book is primarily for government policy makers.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), formally begins a process for countries jointly to limit the long-term risk of climate change. The near-term effectiveness of the Framework Convention will be limited, due to ambiguities in language, uncertainties regarding the magnitude and location of sources and sinks, the difference between biological and industrial emissions, uncertainty about the relative importance of the various greenhouse gases and selection of a weighting system, and concerns about equity. Action in the near term will likely cover either CO2 alone or just those gases resulting from the use of fossil fuels in the industrialized world. Based on this limitation, it is projected that by 2036 the earth will be committed to a 2.2oC temperature increase. The effectiveness of the Convention need not be as limited as this analysis suggests; it is an evolving document, tailored to be flexible and to respond to the most recent scientific knowledge.
Top Environmental Official Welcomes Summit Aid Pledges from Developed Nations-China
- Bureau Of
- Affairs
Climate Change: Designing A Tradeable Permit System, by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Oecd)
- Michael Grubb
- James K. Sebenius
The International Politics of the Environment: Actors, Interests, and Institutions
- Henry Shue