Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008958
 
 

Citations (7)



 
 

Footnotes (163)



 


 



Climate Change Justice


Eric A. Posner


University of Chicago - Law School

Cass R. Sunstein


Harvard Law School

August 2007

U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 354
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 177

Abstract:     
Greenhouse gas reductions would cost some nations much more than others, and benefit some nations far less than others. Significant reductions would impose especially large costs on the United States, and recent projections suggest that the United States has relatively less to lose from climate change. In these circumstances, what does justice require the United States to do? Many people believe that the United States is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point that is justified by its own self-interest, simply because the United States is wealthy, and because the nations most at risk from climate change are poor. This argument from distributive justice is complemented by an argument from corrective justice: The existing "stock" of greenhouse gas emissions owes a great deal to the past actions of the United States, and many people think that the United States should do a great deal to reduce a problem for which it is largely responsible. But there are serious difficulties with both of these arguments. Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations might well be desirable, but if so, expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor. The argument from corrective justice runs into the standard problems that arise when collectivities, such as nations, are treated as moral agents: Many people who have not acted wrongfully end up being forced to provide a remedy to many people who have not been victimized. The conclusion is that while a suitably designed climate change agreement is in the interest of the world, a widely held view is wrong: Arguments from distributive and corrective justice fail to provide strong justifications for imposing special obligations for greenhouse gas reductions on the United States. These arguments have general implications for thinking about both distributive justice and corrective justice arguments in the context of international law and international agreements.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 23, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Posner, Eric A. and Sunstein, Cass R., Climate Change Justice (August 2007). U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 354; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 177. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008958 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1008958

Contact Information

Eric A. Posner (Contact Author)
University of Chicago - Law School ( email )
1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-702-0425 (Phone)
773-702-0730 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-e/
Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard Law School ( email )
1575 Massachusetts Ave
Areeda Hall 225
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
617-496-2291 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 16,008
Downloads: 2,772
Download Rank: 2,035
Citations:  7
Footnotes:  163

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.281 seconds