BURDEN SHARING OF CLIMATE CHANGE-SHOULD INDONESIA BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS DEFORESTATION AND TRANSBOUNDARY HAZE? - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Linköping University | Department of Culture and Society
Master’s Thesis, 15 ECTS Credits | Applied Ethics
Spring Semester 2020 | LIU-CTE-AE-EX--20/09--SE
Burden Sharing of Climate
Change
– Should Indonesia Be Held Responsible for Its
Deforestation and Transboundary Haze?
Siska Purnamasari Putri
Supervisor: Elin Palm
Examiner: Lars Lindblom
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping
+46 13 28 10 00, www.liu.seAbstract
The IPCC’s report in 2018 projects global warming will increase by 1.5oC in 2030, which
makes contribution of each country to control their emissions becomes significant. This
study seeks to investigate what entitlement human beings have over the absorptive
capacity of the atmosphere as well as the harm it caused by elaborating the Entitlement
Theory of Justice, thereto, finding out how the burden of climate change should be
distributed according to the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and the Equal per Capita Shares
Principle (ECSP). Furthermore, this study seeks to investigate Indonesia's part in
increasing the burden of climate change and whether Indonesia should be held responsible
for its part by comparing data of Indonesia’s emissions to some developed countries’
emissions.
Humanity has a collective ownership over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere,
which implies that every individual has equal share of this absorptive capacity. A
violation of this equal share should be compensated. The PPP suggests countries, who
has the most cumulative amount of emissions from the past to present, to compensate and
bear the climate change burden. While, the ECSP suggests countries, who emit more than
their equal share per capita, to bear the climate change burden and reduce their emissions.
Indonesia, despites massive amounts of CO2 released by its deforestation and annual haze,
contributes insignificant to climate change due to both its cumulative and per capita
emissions are considerably low compared to developed countries and even lower than a
country with large population size such as China.
Key words: climate ethics, private property, collective ownership, historical principle,
equal per capita principle, climate burden, Indonesian deforestation, Indonesian annual
haze
2TABLE OF CONTENT
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ 4
1.1. A Brief Introduction to Climate Ethics __________________________ 4
1.2. Problem Formulation _________________________________________ 9
1.3. Aim _____________________________________________________ 12
1.4. Theoretical Approach _______________________________________ 12
Chapter 2: Equitable Distribution of the Absorptive Capacity of the Atmosphere ___ 13
2.1. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice _________________________ 14
2.1.1. Nozick and Locke’s Theory of Acquisition _________________ 15
2.1.2. Nozick and the Lockean Proviso __________________________ 17
2.1.3. An Equitable Distribution of the Absorptive Capacity of the
Atmosphere According to Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice ____ 17
2.2. Summary _________________________________________________ 21
Chapter 3: Equitable Distribution of the Burden of Climate Change _____________ 22
3.1. The Polluter Pays Principle ___________________________________ 22
3.2. The Equal per Capita Shares Principle __________________________ 26
3.3. Summary _________________________________________________ 30
Chapter 4: Should Indonesia Bear the Burden of Climate Change _______________ 31
4.1. A Brief Introduction to Indonesia Forest ________________________ 31
4.2. Deforestation of Indonesian forest _____________________________ 32
4.2.1. Deforestation in 1960s-1980s ____________________________ 33
4.2.2. Deforestation in 1990s-present ___________________________ 33
4.3. Indonesian Forest conversion into Palm oil plantation ______________ 33
4.4. Indonesian Forest Fires Crisis and Transboundary Haze ____________ 34
4.5. Do Indonesia’s Deforestation and Transboundary Haze Contribute
Significantly to Climate Change?__________________________________ 35
4.6. Summary _________________________________________________ 39
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION _____________________________________________ 40
REFERENCES ______________________________________________________ 42
3Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. A Brief Introduction to Climate Ethics
Climate change has become a major concern and important issue of many countries in the
world as its evidence and effects are increasingly visible. The online survey performed
by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association from December
12-16, 2019 has reported that at least 56 % of adults in the United States believe that
climate change is a crucial issue (Science Daily, 2020). Eurobarometer 300 conducted a
survey in spring 2018 to see how people in EU countries are responding to climate
change. According to 62% respondents in this survey, climate change or global warming
is one of the most serious problem the world currently facing after international terrorism
(the Directorate-General for Communication of the European Commission, 2008).
The term climate change refers to changing in climate. Climate itself is a long term
average of weather conditions prevailing in a given region. Thus, climate change, simply
put, is long term changes in average weather conditions in particular region. According
to Cambridge Dictionary (2020) climate change is defined as “changes in the world's
weather, in particular the fact that it is believed to be getting warmer as a result of human
activity increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”. While
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refers climate change to “a change
in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes
in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer” (Data Distribution Centre, 2020). From these two definitions,
it can be concluded that climate change is a change in the pattern of world climate in a
relatively long period of time (decades) due to the increase of global average temperature.
The increase of global average temperature results when the atmosphere surrounding the
earth traps heat that radiates from the earth into space. Certain gases, known as
greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere prevent the heat to escape into space. The more
amount greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth becomes. As the earth
gets warmer and warmer, several feature changes in the world’s climate can be seen. For
4example, the rise of sea level, the disruption of the water system, the melting of ice in the
arctic, longer drought, extreme hot temperature during the summer, severe tropical storms
and so forth.
Greenhouse gases are naturally present in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases absorb
the heat from solar energy and hold it in the atmosphere, which is known as the
greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect makes the earth conveniently warm and
habitable for humans and other species. However, human activities on the earth have
increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and thus, altered this
natural greenhouse effect. Allegedly, the increase of global average temperature since the
mid-twentieth century is clearly due to an increase in greenhouse gases concentrations,
which are predominantly caused by human activities (IPCC, 2013). Human activities,
such as excessive use of fossil fuels, land clearance (usually done by the burning of
forests), deforestation, sea pollution, goods manufacture, and mining waste, are
considered to contribute significantly to the increase in greenhouse gases emissions,
mainly carbon-containing gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, in the
atmosphere. High emissions of both CO2 and methane as well as other greenhouse gases
such as, water vapor (H2O), nitrous oxide (NO2), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to the
atmosphere lead to the greenhouse effect phenomenon where the solar energy is absorbed
and re-radiated to the earth by the greenhouse gases resulting in the rise of the earth’s
surface temperature. The increase of the earth’s surface temperature consequently alters
the climate.
“Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will
persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the
climate system…” (IPCC, 2018, p. 7)
The increase of the earth’s surface temperature, which changes the climate, is a result of
increased amount of greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gases, once emitted, will remain in
the atmosphere for a very long time before natural processes can remove them. Carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide will remain in the atmosphere for 5 to 200 years, 12
years, and 114 years, respectively, while other carbon-containing industrial gases such as
chlorofluorocarbon, hydrofluorocarbon, and perfluoromethane will linger for about 45
years, 260 years, and more than 50000 years, respectively (IPPC, 2001). Thus, it is
5important to calculate the amount of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon-containing
gases, released in the atmosphere, which is known as carbon footprint. Carbon footprint
as defined in Cambridge Dictionary (2020) refers to “a measurement of the amount of
carbon dioxide produced by the activities of a person, company, organization, etc.”. While
a universally accepted definition of carbon footprint set by Laurence A. Wright, Simon
Kemp and Ian Williams (2011) is as follow: “a measure of the total amount of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions of a defined population, system or activity,
considering all relevant sources, sinks and storage within the spatial and temporal
boundary of the population, system or activity of interest. Calculated as carbon dioxide
equivalent using the relevant 100-year global warming potential”.
Greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide and methane, have been occurring
over a long period of time. Industrial and transportation activities that involve the process
of burning fossil fuels that occur consistently but also continuously from the era of the
Industrial Revolution to the present are the main factors of the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions in the earth's atmosphere today. It is reported that in the last 150 years, carbon
dioxide concentration levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 ppm to 412 ppm
and there is more than 95% probability that human-induced greenhouse gases have caused
much of the increase in the earth's temperatures over the past 50 years (IPCC, 2014). The
World Research Institute (WRI) has also simulated the amount of global carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from 1850 to 2011. From the simulation, it is reported that CO2
emissions in 1850 is 150 times higher than in 2011. In the beginning of 1850 the United
Kingdom (UK) was listed as the top emitter country of CO2 with emissions nearly six
times higher than the United States (US), the second place. The third, fourth and fifth
places of the top five countries with the highest CO2 emissions in 1850 were filled by
France, Germany, and Belgium, respectively. However, in 2011, China took place as the
top emitter country, followed by the United States, India, Russia, and Japan (Friedrich
and Damassa, 2014).
The change of the world's climate results in a wide impact, not only on the environment
but also social-politics, economy, health, as well as moral-ethics, in human life. As living
organisms become part of a society in which social interaction and mutual relations occur
6with one another, all people in the world will be affected by the impact of climate change.
For example, climate change impacts on the availability of food, water and energy in the
community, transmission of disease and various problems in the health sector, and
disruptions to the transportation system and other public facilities.
However, there are several groups of people in a society that are more severely affected
than other groups to the change of world's climate. Byrd and DeMates (2014) describes
that women, children, elderly, unemployed, small farmers, and poor people who live in
rural and urban areas, as well as socially marginalized people are vulnerable to climate
change as they are more susceptible to the health and economic impact of climate change.
In underdeveloped and developing countries, women are usually responsible for domestic
work in the household, such as preparing food, transporting clean water from the central
water supply (the distance can reach tens of kilometers from the house) to the kitchen,
looking for firewood, cleaning the house and yard, washing clothes, taking care of
children and many others. Climate change makes the burden borne on the shoulders of
women become overwhelmingly heavier due to the higher workload and both
psychological and emotional stress. Furthermore, the existence of gender inequality
experienced by women especially in underdeveloped and developing countries, makes
women more vulnerable to climate-related hazards. Correspondingly, the same thing was
also narrated by Verona Collantes, an intergovernmental specialist with UN women, in
an interview with Global Citizen.
“Gender inequality hampers women’s capacity and potential to be actors of climate action.
These gender inequalities — access to and control over resources, access to education and
information, and equal rights and access to decision-making processes — define what women
and men can do and cannot do in a particular context of climate change,” (Collantes cited in
McCarthy, 2020)
Apart from that, most small-scale farmers in underdeveloped and developing countries
rely their agricultural land on natural rainwater and sunlight. They also usually do not
have access to capital or agricultural technology. At the same time, they have to compete
with large agricultural corporations who monopolize the market. Changes in climate's
patterns such as drought, extreme temperatures and precipitation, and heavy rainfall are
7worsening their condition. An example of the case is shown by Harvey et al (2018) in the
research on the impact of climate change on small-scale farmers in developing countries
in Central America, i.e., Turrialba and Los Santos in Costa Rica, Choluteca and Yoro in
Honduras, and Chiquimula and Acatenango in Guatemala. The result shows that climate
change has a negative impact in the form of a decrease in the production of their
agricultural crops, namely a decrease in production of 87% of corn farmers, 78.4% of
bean farmers, and 66.4% of coffee farmers (Harvey et al, 2018).
Furthermore, the impact of climate change on health sector on people who live in the rural
area in developing countries in the Caribbean is also visible. The Economic Commission
for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has reported that the rural people in
countries in the Caribbean have experienced serious problems in health sector due to the
spread of various deadly diseases as a result of climate change. Some types of mosquitoes
which play an important role as vectors of deadly diseases such as malaria and dengue
fever, are sensitive to changes in temperature in the Caribbean as it induces the maturity
periods of those mosquitos. Overpopulation of mosquitos causes the outbreak of malaria
and dengue fever and has killed many civilians in the Caribbean (Clarke et al, 2013).
Eventually, people who live in underdeveloped and developing countries are more
vulnerable to the impact of climate change than those who live in developed or industrial
countries. Ironically, activities of those people who live in underdeveloped and
developing countries considerably contributed less to the impact of climate change as
they mostly live close to nature and do not do any activities that result in high emission
of carbon such as the use of car and electronic devices, travel via airplane more, high
consumption of meet, working in industrial sector or living in huge house or apartment.
In addition, they also usually have limited access to advanced technology and financial
resources in order to help them to adapt to the impact of climate change. Most of them
are nature dependent agricultural sectors which lead their earnings are susceptible to the
change of nature's climate.
Meanwhile, people in developed countries that are the main contributors to carbon
emissions, both in total and per capita, especially the United States and developed
8countries in Europe, considerably suffer less to the change of climate as their countries
are technology well equipped with advance technologies as well as finances to help them
adapt to the change of climate. In addition, they are mostly working in the sector that are
not nature dependent.
The unequal capacity in both contributing to the cause of climate change and coping the
impact of climate change between poor (underdeveloped and developing) and rich
(developed) countries raises moral-ethics problems. Greenhouse gases emitted into the
atmosphere will be uniformly dispersed. Therefore, the harm they incur will not only be
borne by the people live in the place where they are emitted. They can, thereto, harm the
people who live further away from those who cause the harm. Meanwhile, those who
cause the harm reap benefits from their emissions without or less being affected by the
harm. Accordingly, there will be a condition, where the victims who suffer the impacts
of climate change are not the main actors who emit most of the greenhouse gases that
cause climate change. In other words, those poor countries will be left to bear the burdens
of rich countries’ wrongful emissions that benefit from their emissions. Can this condition
be justified? If not, should the rich countries be held responsible and how should the
burden of climate change be allocated?
1.2. Problem Formulation
The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018, p. 6) summarizes that
“Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to
increase at the current rate”, which implies that within the next 10 years the capacity of
the atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases without causing temperatures to rise above
1.5oC will be depleted, if carbon dioxide emissions are not drastically reduced. Limiting
average global temperature to only rise by 1.5oC compared to 2oC can reduce the harm
imposed on human beings and ecosystems.
“Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and
economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further
with 2°C.” (IPCC, 2018, p. 11)
9The report, thereto, concludes that a 2oC increase in average global temperature will lead
to more complex social-economic problems, e.g., higher mortality rate, decline in
agricultural sector production, extreme weather which lead to natural disasters, slowing
economic growth, poverty, scarcity of clean water and sanitation problem by up to 50%
compared to an increase by 1.5°C. Thereto the impacts will be increasingly worse if
average global temperature raises beyond the 2°C limit. To avoid this condition and keeps
average global temperature to not rise more than 1.5oC, carbon-containing gases
concentrations need to be cut down by 45% by 2030 and reach zero by 2050 (IPCC,
2018). This would demand countries who emit the most greenhouse gases to take the lead
to reduce their emissions and even to compensate for their excess emissions.
It seems an easy task to point out that developed countries are the main suspect who emit
the most greenhouse gases and use up the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb
greenhouse gases without causing rising in temperature above 1.5oC, and thus, they
should be held responsible. As James Garvey (2008) expresses in his work The Ethics of
Climate Change: right and wrong in a warming world (cited in Chalmers 2008),
developed countries have the greatest responsibility to shoulder the burden of climate
change both because they emit much more greenhouse gases and they have greater
financial and technical capacity to mitigate climate change.
Nevertheless, pointing a finger at developed countries for causing the harm of climate
change and holding them responsible is not as easy as blaming and holding responsible a
person who breaks other’s window. If someone broke someone else’s window, it would
be clear who the culprit was, who the victim was, and what the harm had caused. Thus, it
would be easier to hold the culprit (the one broke the window) responsible for the harm
(shattering the window) he caused to the victim (the window owner). Meanwhile, the
dilemma of climate change can rise where a person who drives a fossil fueled car in an
affluent country can contribute, many years later due to accumulated carbon-containing
gases, to malaria outbreak in the Caribbean, for instance. Could this person be held
responsible, responsible for what? Could people in the Caribbean demand compensation,
what sorts of compensation, to whom compensation should be demanded? More
importantly what is ‘the harm’ been done exactly?
10Thus in this thesis, I will examine what entitlement human beings have over the
absorptive capacity of the atmosphere and what harm human beings can impose on others
by appropriating this absorptive capacity of the atmosphere more than they are entitled
to. Thereby, I will discuss what sorts of responsibility should be imposed on them who
appropriate the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere to the extent that their appropriation
deprives others of their share of the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere.
Apart from that, cutting carbon-containing gases emissions will affect developing
countries who depend their energy and even earnings from fossil fuels, one of which is
Indonesia. Indonesia depends on its oil, gas, coal and timber exports as the main source
of its national income. The cutting of carbon-containing gases in developed countries
would bring adverse effect to Indonesia’s income. This can lead to Indonesia will depend
more on its second main income, i.e., palm oil sector. As one of the largest producers and
exporters of palm oil in the world, Indonesia provided 50% of the palm oil world
production in 2014 (Schleicher et al, 2019). Utilizing palm oil sector would mean
increasing in Indonesia’s deforestation. Peatland clearings for palm oil agriculture,
thereto, has caused Indonesia suffers annual forest fires. This annual forest fires also
causes pollution problem in the region of South East Asia due to its transboundary haze.
Moreover, it is pointed out that both Indonesia’s deforestation and forest fires have
contributed to the increase of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere which
cause climate change.
Meanwhile, the IPCC’s report (2018) projects the essential role of forests in stabilizing
the global temperature and suggests reforestation up to 3.86 million square miles (10
million square kilometers) by the year 2050. The forests can remove about 25% of carbon-
containing gases lingered in the atmosphere. As a country who possesses great potential
of tropical forest, which ranks third behind Brazil and the Republic Democratic Congo
(FAO, 2015), it is expected that Indonesia will preserve its forests, one of which through
REDD+, a global initiative aims at curbing carbon emissions from changes in forest cover
(UN-REDD programme, 2019).
11This raises a dilemma, where Indonesia, in its attempt to develop, not only contributes
more to the global carbon-containing gases emissions but also losses its forests that the
world expects to reduce carbon-containing gases concentrations in the atmosphere.
Thereby in this thesis, I will also try to discuss whether Indonesia has contributed
significantly to the global climate change thus should take part in bearing the climate
burden.
1.3. Aim
This study seeks to investigate what entitlement human beings have over the absorptive
capacity of the atmosphere, what harm can be caused if violation of this entitlement
occurs, and what sorts of rectification can be imposed on those who violate this
entitlement. Thereto, this study also seeks to investigate Indonesia's part in increasing the
burden of climate change and whether Indonesia should be held responsible for its part.
1.4. Theoretical Approach
This thesis consists four chapters. The first provides some background of climate ethics.
I begin this chapter with some basic information regarding climate change, inter alia, the
causes and effects, as well as the relation of human activities and climate change. Thereto,
I point out some ethical issues that I will discuss in this thesis. The second elaborates the
Entitlement Theory of Justice. In this chapter, I defend collective ownership of the
atmosphere and its implication that every human being entitles to the absorptive capacity
of the atmosphere without depriving others’ access to it. The third differentiates between
the Polluter Pays Principle and the Equal per Capita Shares Principle, two principles that
can assess burden sharing of climate change. The fourth outlines Indonesia’s forests and
its problem of massive deforestation and annual transboundary haze. In this chapter I
attempt to compare Indonesia’s emissions’ contribution to climate change to other
countries and find out if it is significant or not.
12Chapter 2: Equitable Distribution of the Absorptive Capacity
of the Atmosphere
In discussing global climate change, we cannot avert from the discussion on collective
ownership of the earth since changes in climate have affected the earth that humanity
collectively owns. The conception of humanity owns the earth collectively was a leading
discussion by philosophers in the 17th century, among others are Hugo Grotius and John
Locke. One of the main discourses is the conditions under which parts of the earth, namely
the land, the air, and the sea, can be owned privately. Grotius in 1609, for instance,
proposed ideas about the possibilities of owning the sea.
“The sea cannot become the property of anyone, but owes forever to all men a use which is
common to all… not even fishing on the sea could be prohibited by anyone… nor navigating
the sea” (Grotius, 2004, pp. 78-79)
Grotius formulated two reasons in which might justify collective ownership of the sea,
i.e., 1) it was originally discovered in nature and was never ruled by anyone, 2) it gives
the impression to be created by nature for the common use.
“…those things which cannot be occupied or were never occupied can be proper to none
because all propriety hath his beginning from occupation… all those things which are so
ordained by nature that anyone using them they may nevertheless suffice others whomsoever
for the common use are at this day (and perpetually ought to be) of the same condition
whereof they were when nature first discovered them.” (Grotius, 2004, p. 24)
Accordingly, Grotius considered the sea as common property of all that cannot be
possessed by anyone and thereby, anyone’s access to it cannot be denied.
In Grotius’ day, the air space surrounding the earth, namely the atmosphere, were
untouched by human activities and technologies, thus the idea about the possibility of
owning the atmosphere never arose. Nevertheless, Grotius considered an application of
his conception about collective ownership to the atmosphere.
“Of this kind the air is for a double reason, both because it cannot be possessed and
also because it oweth a common use to men” (Grotius, 2004, p. 25).
Hence, the atmosphere is more like the sea than the land, i.e., cannot be owned privately
and is a common use for all. This directs to questions of what entitlements humanity could
have over the atmosphere and what legitimate use humanity could make of the
13atmosphere. Does it entail that every human being could labor the atmosphere as they
pleased? Is it permissible to use the atmosphere to the exclusion of others? These
questions should lead us to a broader discussion regarding the distribution of climate
change burdens. It is, thereto, morally necessary to create fair principles in regulating the
distribution of climate change burdens. To do so, first we need to consider whether
owning the atmosphere privately, i.e., to make use of the atmosphere to the exclusion of
others, is possible or not. In order to justify the possibility of owning the atmosphere
privately, we need to consider the acceptability of appropriating the atmosphere to the
exclusion of others, what I mean here is appropriation of the absorptive capacity of the
atmosphere which deprives others of their share of this absorptive capacity. Thereby, in
this chapter I will discuss property ownership according to Nozick’s Entitlement Theory
of justice. In the following, I will attempt to answer what is an equitable distribution of
the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere according to this approach.
2.1. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice
Atmosphere as a common goods entails that every person on the earth has a shared right
to utilize the atmosphere, including in putting carbon-containing gases emissions and
other waste gases into it. While the atmosphere itself is limitless resource, however, its
capacity to absorb waste gases without causing harm is limited. Then, how do we justify
the actions of some people who put their waste gases into the atmosphere more than others
and thus limiting others’ opportunity to put the same amount of waste gases? Before
answering this question, we need to consider whether or not human beings may claim
ownership over the atmosphere, i.e., the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. If so, what
entitlements could human beings have over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere and
what legitimate use could human beings make of it?
Robert Nozick proposes a theory of distributive and private property that may give
answers to these problems, when viewed from a complete principle of distributive justice.
According to Nozick, the commons, i.e., resources belonging to human beings
collectively, can be acquired legitimately as a private property. He proposes a well known
the Entitlement Theory of justice in resources which consists three major aspects. The
first is a principle of justice in acquisition, which accounts the initial acquisition of
14resources, e.g., the processes of how people first came to claim ownership of unowned
resources, what kind of resources that can be owned by those processes, and so forth. The
second is a principle of justice in transfer, which accounts the processes of how one
human being can acquire resources from other human beings, including voluntary
exchanges. The third is a principle of rectification of injustice, which assesses how past
injustices in acquiring or transferring resources should be dealt (Nozick, 1999).
Suppose the world were absolutely just, Nozick believes that a principle of justice in
acquisition and a principle of justice in transfer would be enough for a complete principle
of distributive justice that assesses whether a person's entitlement to some resources is
legitimate or not.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition
is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer,
from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) application of 1 and 2 (Nozick 1999,
p. 151)
Unfortunately, not all ownership of a resource or common goods is acquired by legitimate
means, i.e., in accordance with a principle of justice in acquisition and a principle of
justice in transfer. In fact, “some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave
them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly
exclude others from competing in exchanges” (Nozick, 1999, p. 152). Thus, the third
principle of distributive justice is a necessity, to wit a principle of rectification of
injustice.
2.1.1. Nozick and Locke’s Theory of Acquisition
Robert Nozick's conceptions of private property are heavily influenced by John Locke,
one of the prominent 17th century philosophers, particularly his thoughts on the initial
acquisition. Nozick’s notion on how people originally came to claim ownership of
unowned resources is adapted from Locke’s theory of acquisition, which may give
answers to how human beings could have entitlements over the commons, the atmosphere
is one of which, as well as what legitimate use could be made of it.
15Locke (1980) views the earth, and everything in it, as a common property given by God
for humanity, in which each of them can claim ownership of, and take benefits from,
some part of the earth by appropriation. Thereto, Locke considers appropriation can be
done by mixing one’s labor with something from the common resources. Locke argues
that a person owns his labor, hence if he mix his own labor with an unowned resource, he
will make that certain resource his own because his labor has permeated and thus adds
something to that particular resource.
“…The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their
being… in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of
men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they
can be of any use… Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided,
and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property…, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common
for others… That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something
to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his
private right…” (Locke, 1980, chapter 5, sect. 26, 27, 28)
In adapting Locke’s theory of acquisition, Nozick admits that some limits are necessary
in order to determine what a human being entitled to by adding his labor into the common
resources. For instance, if an astronaut clears a place on an uninhabited planet, does he
own that particular part of the planet that he cleared, or the whole planet, thereto why
does clearing that particular place of the planet mean that he has gained property in the
planet rather than lost property that he spent during the clearing process?
”… why isn’t mixing what I own with what I don’t own a way of losing what I own rather
than a way of gaining what I don’t? If I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so
that its molecules (made radioactive, so I can check this) mingle evenly throughout the sea,
do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice?” (Nozick,
1999, pp. 174-175)
Regarding this problem, Nozick suggests that when a person adds value to unowned
resources through his labor, he also gains ownership over that resources, if the resources
is limitless so as there are still some resources left for other people. This condition is in
line with Locke’s proviso that there ought to be “enough, and as good, left in common
for others” (Locke, 1980, chapter 5, sect. 27), as a means to guarantee that the
appropriation of an unowned object does not make other people worse off.
162.1.2. Nozick and the Lockean Proviso
What happens then, when there are others who end up worse off due to one’s acquisition
over an unowned resource? What if there exist some affluent groups in society while the
others left with nothing to sustain their lives? Nozick develops a thought experiment to
assess this problem, i.e., suppose a person Y acquires land that leaves Z without enough
and as good land to acquire, which makes Z worse off. In this case, Y’s acquisition
violates the Lockean proviso, hence it is illegitimate and Y cannot acquire the land. Y’s
situation may indicate that person X, who acquired the land before Y, left Y in such
situation where Y is not allowed to acquire, which means that X has also made Y worse
off. Consequently, X’s acquisition over the land is illegitimate as well. The situation may
go on and may end up with A whose acquisition makes person B worse off, thus no one
acquires the land legitimately. Nevertheless, there is one condition that may not violate
the Lockean proviso, hence makes this kind of acquisition permissible, i.e., if Z’s baseline
condition ends up better off overall. Z may still be able to use the land without acquire
the land or Y pays compensation to Z, for instance by opening employment to Z that
makes Z better off than before the employment (Nozick, 1999, pp. 176-177).
Even though the condition Nozick set may raise some issues with equality, for instance
in the thought experiment above where Z ends up with no property while Y with property,
it is a legitimate appropriation as long as it does not worsen Z’s overall condition. This
justification is possible because the entitlement theory is premised on the idea that what
matters for distributive justice is the process of acquisition and transfer along with the
history of those processes. This theory rejects end-states, viz., the end result after the
distribution, as a standard in assessing justice. Hence, this theory is also known as a
historical conception of justice, i.e., “whether a distribution is just depends upon how it
came about” (Nozick, 1999, p.153)
2.1.3. An Equitable Distribution of the Absorptive Capacity of the Atmosphere According
to Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice
Can human beings own the atmosphere? How do we justify the actions of some people
who put their waste gases into the atmosphere more than others and thus limiting others’
17opportunity to put the same amount of waste gases? In this section, I intent to answer
these questions. In so doing, I will discuss a thought experiment developed by Peter
Singer in his book One World: The Ethics of Globalization.
“Imagine that we live in a village in which everyone puts their wastes down a giant sink. No
one quite knows what happens to the wastes after they go down the sink, but since they
disappear and have no adverse impact on anyone, no one worries about it. Some people
consume a lot, and so have a lot of waste, while others, with more limited means, have barely
any, but the capacity of the sink to dispose of our wastes seems so limitless that no one
worries about the difference. As long as that situation continues, it is reasonable to believe
that, in putting waste down the sink, we are leaving “enough and as good” for others, because
no matter how much we put down it, others can also put as much as they want, without the
sink overflowing” (Singer, 2002, p. 27).
If we evaluate this thought experiment in accordance with the principle of initial
acquisition we have discussed in section 2.1.1. above, we will agree that anyone in the
village who puts their waste down that giant sink has gained ownership over the sink as
long as the sink is limitless, so as everyone after them can still put their waste down the
sink. It is also permissible for everyone to put as much waste as they want, even though
they may put much more than others. As long as the sink has the capacity to contain
everyone’s waste and thus, no one is forced to limit the amount of waste they put down,
no violation to the Lockean proviso has been done, hence Nozick’s entitlement theory of
justice will justify this condition.
Let us continue Singer’s thought experiment. Suppose, as the conditions continue,
everyone keeps putting their waste into the giant sink as they pleased. One day, the giant
sink becomes no longer limitless, namely the sink’s capacity to contain the waste reaches
its limit and the sink becomes overloaded. As a result, seepage occurred and caused some
problems, e.g., a foul odor covers the village, the water becomes smelly and turbid, etc.
In this condition, if people keeps putting their waste down the sink the way they always
did, there will no longer be “enough and as good” sink for everyone. But as the sink is a
collective property, there is no guarantee that everyone will reduce their waste to lift up
the burden of the sink. Thus, no one in the village is willing to reduce their waste and no
one feels responsible to do it. This condition is called tragedy of the commons. In this
condition, the giant sink becomes a limited resource that needs to be distributed in an
18equitable way. Nozick’s entitlement theory may still allow us to take the sink out of the
collective ownership and giving someone private ownership over the sink, since there is
the weaker requirement on the Lockean proviso, i.e., “appropriation is acceptable if it
leaves people as well or better off overall” (Kymlicka, 2002, p. 113)
This experiment thought is analogous to today’s climate change problem, if we think of
the atmosphere “as a giant global sink into which we can pour our waste gases” (Singer,
2002, p. 29). Everyone feels entitled to the atmosphere, thus everyone dumps their waste
gases, as they pleased, into the atmosphere. No one feels environmentally responsible
since the atmosphere would be polluted by others anyway. As a result, the atmosphere’s
capacity to absorb waste gases will be depleted, which leads to the changes of the climate
that caused harmful effects. Once the atmosphere’s capacity is depleted, there will be
tragedy of the commons, where everyone will be worse off, i.e., no one will be left with
enough and as good atmosphere to absorb the waste gases without causing harmful
effects. For this reason, owning the atmosphere as a private property that entails rights to
utilize the atmosphere’s absorptive capacity more than the others, seems to be justifiable.
Taking the atmosphere out of the collective ownership, thus allowing some people or
some countries to deprive others of their share of the atmosphere’s capacity would be
justifiable if it does not worsen anyone’s overall condition. As Nozick (1999, p. 178)
states “a process normally giving rise to a permanent bequeathable property right in a
previously unowned thing will not do so if the position of others no longer at liberty to
use the thing is thereby worsened”, the proper test for the legitimacy of such appropriation
is that it does not worsen the situation of others. But, what exactly does it mean by
worsening the situation of others? Nozick’s answer to this is a materialistic standpoint
(Kymlicka, 2002, p. 115), i.e., if the appropriation will not make people’s economic
conditions worse off, than they had been when the atmosphere was in collective use.
One may argue that developed countries who have used the global sink, namely the
atmosphere, more than other countries through their industrialization, have increased
productivity which its benefits, such as inventions and technologies, have spread across
the world. Thereto, global economic development has increased throughout the world,
19which improves people’s life quality in terms of income or decent standard of living, life
expectancy, and literacy or education. Thus, developing countries or even the poorest
people in the world have taken benefits from the industrialization of developed countries,
and thereby, their condition ends up better off overall than they would otherwise be.
Hence, their appropriation of the most absorptive capacity of the atmosphere is justifiable.
But there has been much controversy about this argument, since many people in
developing countries, whose share of the atmosphere’s capacity has been deprived,
cannot afford the benefits of industrialization. Singer (2002, p. 39), for instance, points
out that at any rate in the US, “most goods and services that the United States produces,
89% of them, are consumed in the United States… Many residents of other countries,
especially the poorest countries, cannot afford to buy goods produced in the United States,
and it isn’t clear that they benefit from U.S. production”. Moreover, despite the benefits
they might obtain, the poorest people in the developing countries are most vulnerable to
the harmful effects of the depletion of the atmosphere's capacity to absorb waste gases,
e.g., natural catastrophes due to changing of the climate, which might cause crop failure
or even destroy their homes and land. In this situation, they will be left much worse off
which violates the Lockean proviso.
Apart from that, the people of developed countries have used up the most of the
atmosphere’s absorptive capacity in their daily life activities as well as in developing their
domestic economy to the extent that if the people of developing countries, in their attempt
to improve their life style and living standard, behave as the people of developed countries
do, the atmosphere will no longer be able to sustain their waste gases. Thus, this means
that appropriation of absorptive capacity of the atmosphere by the people of developed
countries has effectively deprived others (in developing countries) of their option to
develop as the people in developed countries, i.e., preventing the people of developing
countries from living as they choose. Regarding this circumstance, Nozick (1999, p. 180)
asserts that “Once it is known that someone’s ownership runs afoul of the Lockean
proviso, there are stringent limits on what he may do with his property”. Thus, a person
or a country is not permissible to appropriate the limited absorptive capacity of the
atmosphere, which imply that appropriation of the most absorptive capacity of the
20atmosphere by developed countries could not be justified. Accordingly, the Entitlement
Theory of Justice demands enforcement of the third principle, i.e., a principle of
rectification of injustice.
Furthermore, it is a matter of fact that developed countries were using fossil (carbon) fuels
since the Industrial Revolution and were benefited from the Industrial Revolution to this
day. Accordingly, their affluence and prosperity this day is linked to their past unjustified
appropriation of the most absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. If we put this into
consideration, then the present global distributive injustice happened as a consequence of
illegitimate appropriation of a collectively owned resource by the people of developed
countries. This historical wrongful appropriation may become a reason for rectification.
2.2. Summary
In this chapter, I have discussed the conception of property ownership according to the
Entitlement Theory of Justice. According to this theory, appropriation of the limited
absorptive capacity of the collectively owned atmosphere cannot be justified. Thus, any
action of depriving others of their access to the same entitlement of the atmosphere is
wrongful doings which need to be rectified. The sorts of rectification can be implied will
be discussed in the next chapter.
21Chapter 3: Equitable Distribution of the Burdens of Climate
Change
As a collectively owned property, the limited absorptive capacity of the atmosphere
should be distributed justly among individuals. Wrongful appropriation of the
atmosphere’s capacity to absorb human-induced emissions in the past has led some
countries to use up this capacity more than other countries. On the other hand, some
countries, even today, still use the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere more than other
countries. Thus, these particular countries have contributed more to climate change than
other countries. Meanwhile, the burden of climate change are borne by those both who
contribute more and less, without exception. This leads to unfair distribution of climate
change burden, where countries who contribute less to climate change should bear the
same burden as countries whose contribution is significant to climate change. Moreover,
countries who contribute less to climate change usually have less capability to cope with
the burden. Therefore, distribution of climate change burden needs to be regulated, and
thereby, fair norms need to be set. Johansson-Stenman and Konow (2017) proposes four
norms of fairness that can assess the distribution of climate change burdens, i.e., the
Accountability Principle, the Efficiency Principle, the Need Principle, and the Equality
Norm.
In this chapter, I will discuss two principles that can be used as guidelines in regulating
the distribution of climate change burden, namely burden sharing. These two principles
hold the accountability principle and the equality norm, i.e., the Polluter Pays Principle
and the Equal per Capita Shares Principle, respectively.
3.1. The Polluter Pays Principle
One of the main ethical questions regarding the climate change is whether individuals or
countries who have used up the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere in the past should
be held responsible for their wrongful emissions. If it is true that individuals or countries
should be held responsible for their past appropriation of the atmosphere’s capacity, they
would be required to rectify the harm they caused. Thus, this is the role of rectificatory
22justice. But, a question may arise whether rectificatory justice, a backward-looking
account, has any moral force? Regarding this matter, Collste (2010) argues that
rectificatory justice complements distributive justice. The entailment of rectificatory
justice is weighed by distributive justice i.e., rectification for wrongful acts in the past
can only be demanded if the wrong acts generate injustices in the distribution of benefits
and burdens among people in present day.
As I have discussed in chapter 2 that developed countries have been using fossil fuels,
which emitted greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, since the Industrial Revolution and
thus have luxuriated in wealth to this day. Developed countries, accordingly, appropriated
the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere more than other countries in the past. Thus,
rectificatory justice that holds individuals or countries responsible for their past emissions
would demand developed countries to reduce their present emissions more than
developing countries.
However, there are a number of discourses regarding which past emissions should be
counted for responsibility. Among other considerations are as follow: first, can past
emitters be held responsible when they could not have known the effects of the emissions
at that time? These past emitters, thereto, could not have known that the industrialization
in the far future would continue to depend on fossil fuels, which problems raised to date
are because of this continuation. Second, who should be held responsible? Is it a
responsibility of countries, companies or individuals, or even is it a collective
responsibility? Third, how can present day generations be held responsible for the
wrongful emissions of their ancestors?
Regarding these matters, Daniel Butt (2013) argues that past emitters could be held
responsible if they benefited from their wrongful emissions in the atmosphere. The fact
that the developed countries used up the most of the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere
in the past and the wealth they obtain nowadays is indivisible, those past emissions should
be counted even though the effects of the emissions were not understood at that time. This
responsibility can be passed down to their descendants who have also benefited from
these wrongful acts. Thus, the present day generations have a moral responsibility to
23rectify the wrongful acts of their ancestors as a result of the benefits they have received.
Hence, the developed countries should be held responsible for the emissions they caused
since the Industrial Revolution. Moreover, a set of reasons for holding developed
countries responsible for their past emissions has been raised in various discussions,
among others are the contributions of Peter Singer and Henry Shue.
“If the developed nations had had, during the past century, per capita emissions at the level
of the developing nations, we would not today be facing a problem of climate change caused
by human activity, and we would have an ample window of opportunity to do something
about emissions before they reached a level sufficient to cause a problem. So… as far as the
atmosphere is concerned, the developed nations broke it. If we believe that people should
contribute to fixing something in proportion to their responsibility for breaking it, then the
developed nations owe it to the rest of the world to fix the problem with the atmosphere”
(Singer, 2002, pp. 33-34).
“When a party has in the past taken an unfair advantage of others by imposing costs upon
them without their consent, those who have been unilaterally put at a disadvantage are
entitled to demand that in the future the offending party shoulder burdens that are unequal at
least to the extent of the unfair advantage previously taken, in order to restore equality”
(Shue, 1999, p. 534).
The idea that past emissions should be taken responsibility stirs up some issues, e.g., what
is “broke” in Singer’s term and what are “the costs that are imposed without consent” in
Shue’s term. Both Singer and Shue refer to what sorts of harm been inflicted by past
emitters (polluters). There are, in any case, two harms that could arise from both past and
present emissions, i.e., the physical harm and the harm of the excess use of the
atmosphere. The past emissions would likely be borne by today’s generation, while the
present emissions would be borne by future generation. Hayner and Weisbach (2016, pp.
97-98) defines the physical harm as the harm caused by a drastic change in climate, such
as “the harm from sea level rise, the loss of agricultural productivity, storms, droughts,
and even the harm from forced changes to lifestyles and the resulting loss of cultures”,
while the harm of the excess use of the atmosphere as the harm of appropriating an
unequal portion of the limited absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. To put it simple, the
physical harm points out historical principles, i.e., who ends up worse off due to wrongful
appropriation, while the excess use of the atmosphere points out end-result principles,
24i.e., who ends up with the less portion of the atmosphere’s capacity due to inequality in
sharing the atmosphere’s capacity.
The idea that past emissions should be held responsible for the physical harm it caused is
an application of rectificatory justice concerning the global environmental justice, to wit
the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP). The PPP is expressed in the Rio Declaration on the
Environment principle 16, which urges the polluters to bear all the costs of the physical
harm they caused:
“National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs
and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter
should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and
without distorting international trade and investment” (United Nations Environment
Program, 1993, p.6)
As an account of rectificatory justice, the PPP is built upon a premise that every individual
has a negative right to not be wrongfully harm, which implies that every individual has a
duty to rectify the harm caused by his wrongful acts. Thus, it is important to know not
only which past emissions that count and who emitted those emissions in the past, but
also who have been harmed -who have ended up worse off- by those past emissions and
in what amount. In order to determine what the PPP demands, namely what sorts of
obligation would entail responsibility for past emissions, a measure of harm, in this case
the physical harm, needs to be provided, because “some nations polluted
disproportionally relative to the harm that they bear” (Hayner and Weisbach 2016, p.100).
Simply put, the so called largest emitter countries would also be affected by the physical
harm they caused. Therefore, the estimation is needed to ensure who the harmed are.
Accordingly, even though the PPP seems to put burdens to developed countries, a
measure of harm, viz. who is harmed by those emissions and in what amount, however,
needs to be provided in order to determine what sorts of rectification should be borne by
developed countries. What if, by the estimation, developed countries, who appropriate
the atmosphere’s capacity illegitimately and thereby emit the most waste gasses, is facing
the same amount of physical harm as developing countries, who emit less. More
dramatically, what if developed countries bear most of the physical harm or even bear all
25of the physical harm, namely if it is the developed countries who ultimately become worse
off.
Nevertheless, the PPP does not specify the form of rectification, which means that the
obligation to rectify the physical harm caused by past emissions can be complied with
any transfer of value. The burdened countries, for instance, may demand the high emitter
countries in the past to have the greater commitment to reduce their present emissions, or
to transfer green technology to them, or even to give cash payments that may help them
adapt to the climate change.
3.2. The Equal per Capita Shares Principle
As I mentioned in section 3.1. above, the second harm that could arise from both past and
present emissions is the harm of the excess use of the atmosphere, which points out end-
result principles. Contrary to the physical harm, which points out historical principles, the
excess use of the atmosphere does not generate a claim of responsibility from rectificatory
justice, but distributive justice, i.e., an equality claim. It is built upon a premise that every
individual has a right to an equal share of a collectively owned resource. The absorptive
capacity of the atmosphere, which is limited, is owned collectively by humanity, thus
every human being should have the same right to access this limited capacity of the
atmosphere in the same portion. It means that each human being possesses the same
entitlement to put their waste gasses into the atmosphere. The harm of the excess use of
the atmosphere is the violation of this right, which is allowing some countries to use the
most portion of the atmosphere’s limited capacity to absorb waste gasses while depriving
others of their share.
The argument could be structured as follow:
(1) Humanity has a collective ownership of the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere
(2) If humanity owns the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere collectively, a right to use
it should be equally distributed to each of individuals
(3) Excessive use of the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere is a violation of this right,
which causes harm to others whose fair share are deprived
(4) Those who violate this right, should be held responsible for their excess use
26You can also read
