2. Who is responsible for dealing with climate change?

Normative Perspectives on Policy Responsibility

The discussion on responsibility in political policy is rooted in normative perspectives, focusing on how policies should be shaped based on moral and ethical frameworks rather than solely on outcomes. Understanding normative conceptions is crucial as these underlying beliefs often operate implicitly within the analysis of policy and political events.

Climate Change as a Normative Issue

Climate change is a significant example of the importance of normative perspectives in policy discussions. Key factors contributing to climate change include:

• Significant increase in fossil fuel usage over the past 70-80 years.

• As a result, there has been an exponential growth in CO2 emissions leading to global temperature changes and climate-related consequences.

• Emission sources have shifted historically:

  • Prior to colonial independence, major emitters included Europe and North America.

  • Post-independence, many developing countries have seen increased emissions contributing to global change.

Emissions Responsibility Breakdown

Current emissions do not align with historical emissions:

• Countries with high current emissions may not have historically contributed the most (e.g., India).

• Climate change presents a unique challenge of responsibility:

  • The atmosphere responds uniformly to emissions regardless of their origin or time of emission.

• Action must be taken now to reduce emissions:

  • Countries responsible for current emissions may differ from those that historically contributed to the problem.

• Example of the U.S. and Europe:

  • The U.S. and Europe, while currently emitting less comparatively, have historically contributed the second-most to cumulative emissions.

Assessing Responsibility for Climate Action

The criteria to determine responsibility involve:

• Current contributions and historical emissions.

• Distribution of resources available to address the issue.

• Perspectives on fair responsibility apportionment can lead to varying policy recommendations.

The Analytical Framework

Common but Differentiated Responsibility: Insinuates that not all countries share equal burden; more developed countries may have greater responsibility. Various definitions of responsibility exist, and their implementation can differ significantly:

• Contributions to the problem (historical and present).

• Capacity to solve the problem (economic power).

• Benefits derived from the emissions, impacting liability for dealing with the climate crisis.

Liability in Climate Responsibility

Two main forms of liability:

• Strict Liability: Directly caused harm.

• Conditional Liability: Harm caused with knowledge of potential risks (more nuanced). This distinction matters in global discussions of who should be held accountable for emissions. The focus on anthropogenic climate change makes it necessary to strictly define actions and contributions.

Historical Context and Current Capacity

Understanding responsibility also requires acknowledging historical context:

• Nations change over time, altering the perception of responsibility.

• Examples of historical responsibility (colonial emissions vs. current states).

  • For example, how pre-independence emissions in India relate to present-day India's responsibility.

Different Perspectives on Contribution to Emission Problems

Contribution analysis:

• Identifying how historical emissions should affect current responsibility.

• Assessing both cumulative and present emissions. Challenges with current capacity:

• Countries with high historical emissions may not currently have the means to compensate for climate change.

Discussion of Responsibility in Practical Contexts

The lecture outlines thought experiments to explore how different countries might negotiate responsibilities for climate aid:

• Hypothetical countries facing climate challenges evaluated on wealth, historical emissions, and vulnerability.

• Determines how to allocate financial responsibilities for adaptation projects. The discourse often reveals a reliance on consequentialist reasoning, over more idealistic views of morality. Group discussions reflect varied perspectives on policy implementation and fiscal responsibilities based on emissions.

Approaches to Quantifying Responsibility

Various organisations and analyses provide frameworks for interpreting climate responsibility based on:

• Historical emissions (i.e., Oxfam example) and its implications on current responsibilities.

• Efforts are made to balance ability and contribution in defining who should pay for change.

• Planetary boundaries: a more contemporary measure includes limits on carbon emissions, defining acceptable limits worldwide and redistributing the burden accordingly.

• The historical context from 1850 revealed vast disparities in responsibilities among developed and developing nations.

Implications for Future Discussions on Responsibility

Upcoming discussions will delve deeper into international negotiations and agreements associated with climate change, contextualising who bears responsibility and the moral implications of these treaties. Reflection on responsibility continues to be a central theme, intertwining ethical considerations with practical actions needed to combat climate change.