Torpman, Olle
- Institutionen för tillämpad husdjursvetenskap och välfärd, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet
Forskningsartikel2021Vetenskapligt granskadÖppen tillgång
Torpman, Olle
In climate ethics, there is a debate about how the carbon budget, in terms of emissions permits, should be divided between people. One popular proposal, sometimes called The Equal per Capita View, says that everyone should have an equal share of the available emissions permits. Several authors have objected to this view, arguing that: (i) the equal per capita view implies isolationism since it treats emissions permits in isolation from other considerations of justice such as development, poverty and trade; and (ii) isolationism is implausible since it yields a number of problematic implications; therefore (iii) the equal per capita view is implausible. I examine this argument against the equal per capita view by scrutinizing the presumed problematic implications of isolationism. I show that they are either mistakenly inferred from isolationism or irrelevant as to whether isolationism is plausible or not. I conclude that the equal per capita view should not be discarded for being an isolationist approach. Rather, both isolationism and the equal per capita view should be considered as potential action guides. This result is of relevance to the climate political debate, since it could promote progress in the climate negotiations that are needed for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as set by the Paris Agreement.
Isolationism; integrationism; emissions permits; emissions distribution; equal per capita; climate change
Environmental Politics
2021, Volym: 30, nummer: 3, sidor: 357-375 Utgivare: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR AND FRANCIS LTD
SDG13 Bekämpa klimatförändringarna
Miljövetenskap
Klimatforskning
Statsvetenskap (exklusive studier av offentlig förvaltning och globaliseringsstudier)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1785809
https://res.slu.se/id/publ/106991