scholarly journals Beyond burdens and climate refugees: a stocktake of international responsibility-sharing and South Pacific climate-induced migration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisy McElwain
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
Ability To Pay ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
South Pacific Climate ◽  
Climate Refugees

<p>This paper provides a ‘stocktake’ of common responsibility-sharing principles and goals in international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration to date and investigates how these principles might inform an Oceania agreement to deal with the emerging issue of South Pacific climate-induced migration. Where international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration overlap I identify a set of responsibility-sharing principles and goals and investigate their compatibility with the needs and demands of Pacific communities facing the prospect of climate-induced displacement. In this paper, I tap into ongoing political and academic debates concerning if and how we ought to differentiate states’ environmental responsibilities. I ask whose responsibility is it to address climate-induced migration? And what exactly are they responsible for? I find that international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration sufficiently overlap with the needs of Pacific communities to provide us with five common responsibility-sharing principles and goals that are potentially useful in the South Pacific climate migration context: the ability to pay principle, polluter pays principle, prevention, emissions reduction and (funding) adaptation. Notwithstanding responsibility-sharing’s negotiation difficulties, these responsibility-sharing principles have significant congruence with Pacific communities’ needs and demands, and thus provide us with a valuable starting point for an Oceania agreement on climate-induced migration that is informed first and foremost by the needs of those who may have to leave their homes.</p>

scholarly journals Beyond burdens and climate refugees: a stocktake of international responsibility-sharing and South Pacific climate-induced migration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisy McElwain
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
Ability To Pay ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
South Pacific Climate ◽  
Climate Refugees

<p>This paper provides a ‘stocktake’ of common responsibility-sharing principles and goals in international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration to date and investigates how these principles might inform an Oceania agreement to deal with the emerging issue of South Pacific climate-induced migration. Where international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration overlap I identify a set of responsibility-sharing principles and goals and investigate their compatibility with the needs and demands of Pacific communities facing the prospect of climate-induced displacement. In this paper, I tap into ongoing political and academic debates concerning if and how we ought to differentiate states’ environmental responsibilities. I ask whose responsibility is it to address climate-induced migration? And what exactly are they responsible for? I find that international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration sufficiently overlap with the needs of Pacific communities to provide us with five common responsibility-sharing principles and goals that are potentially useful in the South Pacific climate migration context: the ability to pay principle, polluter pays principle, prevention, emissions reduction and (funding) adaptation. Notwithstanding responsibility-sharing’s negotiation difficulties, these responsibility-sharing principles have significant congruence with Pacific communities’ needs and demands, and thus provide us with a valuable starting point for an Oceania agreement on climate-induced migration that is informed first and foremost by the needs of those who may have to leave their homes.</p>

Have You Benefitted from Carbon Emissions? You May Be a “Morally Objectionable Free Rider”

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-296
Author(s):  
J. Spencer Atkins ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Carbon Emission ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Free Rider ◽  
Ability To Pay ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
Beneficiary Pays ◽  
Compensatory Justice

Much of the climate ethics discussion centers on considerations of compensatory justice and historical accountability. However, little attention is given to supporting and defending the Beneficiary Pays Principle as a guide for policymaking. This principle states that those who have benefitted from an instance of harm have an obligation to compensate those who have been harmed. Thus, this principle implies that those benefitted by industrialization and carbon emission owe compensation to those who have been harmed by climate change. Beneficiary Pays is commonly juxtaposed with Polluter Pays Principle and the Ability to Pay Principle in the relevant literature. Beneficiary Pays withstands objections that raise suspicion for the latter two.

scholarly journals New Zealand and climate change: what are the stakes and what can New Zealand do?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Bailey ◽  
Tor Hakon Jackson Inderberg
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
United Nations Framework Convention ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The World ◽  
Nationally Determined Contributions ◽  
The United Nations

Following the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2015, governments around the world now face the task of developing strategies to meet their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – UN terminology for emissions reduction goals to 2030 – and their broader contributions to the Paris Agreement’s goal of maintaining global average temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels (UNFCCC, 2015a, article 2.1(a)). Paris represented a crucial starting point, but the decisions by Paula Bennett, New Zealand’s new minister for climate change issues, and her international counterparts will determine whether COP21 produced just warm words or genuinely charted a course to avoid the worst impacts of human-induced climate change.

Evidence for tropical South Pacific climate change during the Younger Dryas and the Bølling–Allerød from geochemical records of fossil Tahiti corals

2009 ◽  
Vol 288 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 96-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuji Asami ◽  
Thomas Felis ◽  
Pierre Deschamps ◽  
Kimio Hanawa ◽  
Yasufumi Iryu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Younger Dryas ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
South Pacific Climate

scholarly journals The Just Allocation of Climate Burdens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ewan Kingston
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Ability To Pay ◽  
Vulnerable People ◽  
History Of ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
Beneficiary Pays ◽  
Different Parts

<p>Human-induced climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people. Preventing the worst effects of climate change and compensating those who will suffer are tasks that should be taken up by individuals, firms and states, tasks that constitute a burden. In this thesis I suggest the use of particular principles for justly allocating this "climate burden". I first defend my use of an orthodox ethical approach from Dale Jamieson’s challenge that the ethics of climate change must be revisionary. I also reply to Luc Bovens’ Lockean argument that a history of high emitting justifies giving past polluters more rights to emit. Then, I propose a two-track theory under which the climate burden is divided in two. These two different parts are allocated by a contribution-based "polluter pays" principle and by an "ability to pay" principle. The "fault burden" is the burden from greenhouse gas emissions produced since it became reasonable to suppose that such emissions were harmful, except for the emissions from the very poor, which are not included. The fault burden should be allocated to those who have contributed to it, in proportion to their contribution. The "no fault burden" is the remaining portion. The no-fault burden should be allocated by an "ability to pay" principle which requires all parties (except for the very poor) to shoulder burdens that constitute an equal drop in whatever goods we deem most relevant. Finally I defend the two track theory from the claim that a "beneficiary pays" principle better allocates the burden caused by past emissions.</p>

scholarly journals The Just Allocation of Climate Burdens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ewan Kingston
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Ability To Pay ◽  
Vulnerable People ◽  
History Of ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
Beneficiary Pays ◽  
Different Parts

<p>Human-induced climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people. Preventing the worst effects of climate change and compensating those who will suffer are tasks that should be taken up by individuals, firms and states, tasks that constitute a burden. In this thesis I suggest the use of particular principles for justly allocating this "climate burden". I first defend my use of an orthodox ethical approach from Dale Jamieson’s challenge that the ethics of climate change must be revisionary. I also reply to Luc Bovens’ Lockean argument that a history of high emitting justifies giving past polluters more rights to emit. Then, I propose a two-track theory under which the climate burden is divided in two. These two different parts are allocated by a contribution-based "polluter pays" principle and by an "ability to pay" principle. The "fault burden" is the burden from greenhouse gas emissions produced since it became reasonable to suppose that such emissions were harmful, except for the emissions from the very poor, which are not included. The fault burden should be allocated to those who have contributed to it, in proportion to their contribution. The "no fault burden" is the remaining portion. The no-fault burden should be allocated by an "ability to pay" principle which requires all parties (except for the very poor) to shoulder burdens that constitute an equal drop in whatever goods we deem most relevant. Finally I defend the two track theory from the claim that a "beneficiary pays" principle better allocates the burden caused by past emissions.</p>

Reverse Transcribing Climate Change

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Solnick
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Information Theory ◽  
Climate Modelling ◽  
Economic Issues ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Scientific Competence

This paper suggests that certain conceptual, ethical and economic issues surrounding genetics are also relevant to the challenges that climate change poses to the humanities. It takes J.H. Prynne's and Derrida's engagements with biology and information theory as a starting point to address climate modelling, emissions management, biofuels, bioengineering and the importance of scientific competence.

Analysis of the International Responsibility System of Climate Change

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Davanlou ◽  
Dr. Abbas Poorhashemi ◽  
Ali Zare ◽  
Mohsen Abdollahi
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility System

scholarly journals The Vulnerability of Health Infrastructure to the Impacts of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in Small Island Countries in the South Pacific

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117863292110208
Author(s):  
Subhashni Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sea Level Rise ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
World Health ◽  
Small Island ◽  
Medical Facilities ◽  
Medical Infrastructure

Anthropogenic climate change and related sea level rise will have a range of impacts on populations, particularly in the low lying Pacific island countries (PICs). One of these impacts will be on the health and well-being of people in these nations. In such cases, access to medical facilities is important. This research looks at the medical facilities currently located on 14 PICs and how climate change related impacts such as sea level rise may affect these facilities. The medical infrastructure in each country were located using information from a range of sources such as Ministry of Health (MoH) websites, World Health Organization, Doctors Assisting in South Pacific Islands (DAISI), Commonwealth Health Online, and Google Maps. A spatial analysis was undertaken to identify medical infrastructure located within 4 zones from the coastline of each country: 0 to 50 m, 50 to 100 m, 100 to 200 m, and 200 to 500 m. The findings indicate that 62% of all assessed medical facilities in the 14 PICs are located within 500 m of the coast. The low-lying coral atoll countries of Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Tokelau, and Tuvalu will be highly affected as all medical facilities in these countries fall within 500 m of the coast. The results provide a baseline analysis of the threats posed by sea-level rise to existing critical medical infrastructure in the 14 PICs and could be useful for adaptive planning. These countries have limited financial and technical resources which will make adaptation challenging.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document