Climate Change Simon Caney Analysis
Mark Twain famously quoted,
“The art of prophecy is very difficult- especially with respect to the future”.
Simon Caney describes how the earth’s climate is enduring profound changes which to a large extent are caused by human activity, resulting in undesirable effects on people’s standard of living especially the weak and vulnerable. (Caney, 2010) Scientists claim that climate change heralds unpredictable weather events like raised sea levels, that causes floods and in some cases greater risks of ‘storm-surges’, drought, diseases, flooding and in some cases death by heat stress. This essay broaches the ultimate question of who will pay and bear the burden of dealing with climate change based on the principles formulated by Caney and how the near future will evolve to deal with this crisis. At the onset of this 21st …show more content…
century, time is ticking away to unravel enduring fiscal defies triggered by climate change, aging societies, the polluters and other problems.
Firstly, the two main principles identified for who should bear the burden by Caney are described, followed by Knights interpretation on Caney’s ideology. o Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – those who caused the problem should pay: it is a powerful stance that if an actor initiates pollution through emitting dangerous fumes or releasing radioactive waste, then that actor is ethically accountable for dealing with the subsequent costs to others. Several developing countries, particularly Brazil has canvassed this approach. Simon affirms that this approach has two main challenges viz. practicality and human ignorance. To practically apply this tactic, the exact harm done needs to be specified and traced back to the polluter and ensuring the nature of harm is certain and predictable, otherwise it is not a practical approach. Drawing on the research by Ahmed, his Third Assessment Report estimates that between 1990 and 2100 sea levels will increase by 0.09 metres and 0.88 metres and temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8° Celsius. (Ahmad, 2001) examples like this portray how difficult it is to specify the extent of harm caused and thus arduous to make people pay in proportion to their causal impact on the issue. (Allen & Lord, 2004) It is unfair to make some people pay since they were justifiably oblivious to that fact that their activities can harm and cause hazardous climate change issues. They were not aware their actions caused harm and thus their ignorance is excusable. (Baer, 2006) Further study by Simon has indicated three limitations to this principle which are as follows:
PPP cannot deal with the consequences on the climate that ensued from the emissions of former generations. (Caney S. , 2005)
When a climate change phenomena occurs that is not caused by human activity. (Watson, 2001)
The assumption to make the polluter pay is in practice often to make the affluent pay, since industrialized nations like European countries and USA have conventionally been the highest emitters of greenhouse gases, thus allowing people to pay in proportion to their emissions since there is an imperfect correlation between wealth and high emissions, it would perpetuate the poverty of some and reduce others to poverty like in the case of India and China. (Raupach, 2007)
o Ability to Pay Principle (ATP) – those who have the greatest ability to pay. This approach comprehends that the wealthy should bear the burdens of climate change since in contrast to the Polluter Pays Principle which focuses on who caused the harm, it emphasis on who can rectify the harm. Simon justifies that this method might have several objections levelled against it.
Firstly, since the harm caused by climate change might not be the fault of the advantaged, it is unfair to make them pay and/or cut back on emissions. This attitude although debatable, is quite favorable since the advantaged are most able to pay the price without sacrificing any reasonable interests unlike those in the Nile Delta and Bangladesh, and thus are under a duty to do so.
Secondly it can be argued that historical genesis of wealth cannot be ignored while regarding who should bear the burden of climate change wholly.
Simon suggests that the advantaged who established their wealth in a climate endangering way should be liable to devote resources to ameliorating climate change, paying for adaptation costs and mitigation to unravel the damage triggered by climate change than those whose wealth came in a clean manner.
Thirdly this purist approach is vulnerable to the objection that why should ‘clean developers’ pay anything, though morally as Peter Singer claims, it would be odd to refuse aid to a person sitting next to you who suddenly becomes ill and one is well placed to help them even if the harm was not caused by you. Ethically there is a duty to aid as cost of giving to them is greater than the benefit received. (Singer, 2002)
Lastly Simon questions why the price paid by the advantaged solely depend on the harm caused to climate change. In his opinion, considering historical genesis of wealth, ancestors of one could have obtained wealth by unfair means for instance slave trade or from Jews during the Second World
War.
Simon thus concludes by stating two controverting principles, the Poverty-Sensitive Polluter pays Principle that cannot cover all aspects like emissions from past generations, poor and non-anthropogenic climate change and the History-Sensitive Ability to Pay Principle which distinguishes the just and unjust ways of the wealth obtained.
Hence to defend his views, he combines two separate principles into a hybrid principle which summarizes that there needs to be a global adaptation fund that is financed by the globally advantaged and those who have emitted undue quantities of GHGs. The poor of the world should not bear the cost either since they are disadvantaged and their emissions are very less or they are extremely poor. (Caney S. , 2010)
“The art of prophecy is very difficult- especially with respect to the future”.
Simon Caney describes how the earth’s climate is enduring profound changes which to a large extent are caused by human activity, resulting in undesirable effects on people’s standard of living especially the weak and vulnerable. (Caney, 2010) Scientists claim that climate change heralds unpredictable weather events like raised sea levels, that causes floods and in some cases greater risks of ‘storm-surges’, drought, diseases, flooding and in some cases death by heat stress. This essay broaches the ultimate question of who will pay and bear the burden of dealing with climate change based on the principles formulated by Caney and how the near future will evolve to deal with this crisis. At the onset of this 21st …show more content…
century, time is ticking away to unravel enduring fiscal defies triggered by climate change, aging societies, the polluters and other problems.
Firstly, the two main principles identified for who should bear the burden by Caney are described, followed by Knights interpretation on Caney’s ideology. o Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – those who caused the problem should pay: it is a powerful stance that if an actor initiates pollution through emitting dangerous fumes or releasing radioactive waste, then that actor is ethically accountable for dealing with the subsequent costs to others. Several developing countries, particularly Brazil has canvassed this approach. Simon affirms that this approach has two main challenges viz. practicality and human ignorance. To practically apply this tactic, the exact harm done needs to be specified and traced back to the polluter and ensuring the nature of harm is certain and predictable, otherwise it is not a practical approach. Drawing on the research by Ahmed, his Third Assessment Report estimates that between 1990 and 2100 sea levels will increase by 0.09 metres and 0.88 metres and temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8° Celsius. (Ahmad, 2001) examples like this portray how difficult it is to specify the extent of harm caused and thus arduous to make people pay in proportion to their causal impact on the issue. (Allen & Lord, 2004) It is unfair to make some people pay since they were justifiably oblivious to that fact that their activities can harm and cause hazardous climate change issues. They were not aware their actions caused harm and thus their ignorance is excusable. (Baer, 2006) Further study by Simon has indicated three limitations to this principle which are as follows:
PPP cannot deal with the consequences on the climate that ensued from the emissions of former generations. (Caney S. , 2005)
When a climate change phenomena occurs that is not caused by human activity. (Watson, 2001)
The assumption to make the polluter pay is in practice often to make the affluent pay, since industrialized nations like European countries and USA have conventionally been the highest emitters of greenhouse gases, thus allowing people to pay in proportion to their emissions since there is an imperfect correlation between wealth and high emissions, it would perpetuate the poverty of some and reduce others to poverty like in the case of India and China. (Raupach, 2007)
o Ability to Pay Principle (ATP) – those who have the greatest ability to pay. This approach comprehends that the wealthy should bear the burdens of climate change since in contrast to the Polluter Pays Principle which focuses on who caused the harm, it emphasis on who can rectify the harm. Simon justifies that this method might have several objections levelled against it.
Firstly, since the harm caused by climate change might not be the fault of the advantaged, it is unfair to make them pay and/or cut back on emissions. This attitude although debatable, is quite favorable since the advantaged are most able to pay the price without sacrificing any reasonable interests unlike those in the Nile Delta and Bangladesh, and thus are under a duty to do so.
Secondly it can be argued that historical genesis of wealth cannot be ignored while regarding who should bear the burden of climate change wholly.
Simon suggests that the advantaged who established their wealth in a climate endangering way should be liable to devote resources to ameliorating climate change, paying for adaptation costs and mitigation to unravel the damage triggered by climate change than those whose wealth came in a clean manner.
Thirdly this purist approach is vulnerable to the objection that why should ‘clean developers’ pay anything, though morally as Peter Singer claims, it would be odd to refuse aid to a person sitting next to you who suddenly becomes ill and one is well placed to help them even if the harm was not caused by you. Ethically there is a duty to aid as cost of giving to them is greater than the benefit received. (Singer, 2002)
Lastly Simon questions why the price paid by the advantaged solely depend on the harm caused to climate change. In his opinion, considering historical genesis of wealth, ancestors of one could have obtained wealth by unfair means for instance slave trade or from Jews during the Second World
War.
Simon thus concludes by stating two controverting principles, the Poverty-Sensitive Polluter pays Principle that cannot cover all aspects like emissions from past generations, poor and non-anthropogenic climate change and the History-Sensitive Ability to Pay Principle which distinguishes the just and unjust ways of the wealth obtained.
Hence to defend his views, he combines two separate principles into a hybrid principle which summarizes that there needs to be a global adaptation fund that is financed by the globally advantaged and those who have emitted undue quantities of GHGs. The poor of the world should not bear the cost either since they are disadvantaged and their emissions are very less or they are extremely poor. (Caney S. , 2010)