Climate Change Justice notes
These are my notes for Climate Change Justice from the Georgetown Law Journal and written by Eric A. Posner and Obama’s Regulatory czar Cass R. Sunstein. I tweeted them on Twitter, so they are in abbreviated form.
Sunstein: p1 Intro: US must reduce production of greenhouse gasses cuz we are a wealthy nation & other nations are poor
Sunstein: p1 Intro: “Corrective justice”= existing “stock” of greenhouse gas is from past actions of the US. Thus, US should reduce it.
Sunstein: p1567 para 2: w/ their emissions, US & China committing tortious acts against other nations & regions
Sunstein: p1567 para 2: Corrective justice requires that largest emitting nation (that’s *US*) to pay damages & scale back emissions
Sunstein: p 1565 para 2: 2 assumptions:1. Wrld wld benefit frm agreemnt to reduce grnhse emission 2. Some nations (US&China) wld not benefit
Sunstein: p 1565 para 2: US less vulnerable- Model: If wrld settled on carbon tax @ $40/ton, US wld lose as opposed to $10, $15, or $20 /ton
Sunstein: p 1569 para 2: International Paretianism: US wld lose & world wld benefit & have to make up for it with side payments to the US
Sunstein: p 1570 para 2: Distributive Justice: US not arguing for paymnts. Nations shld pay China to participate in climate chng agreemnt
Sunstein: p 1570 para 3: Corrective Justice: Largest emitters (US) impose serious risks onto othr nations & shld not B compensatd to correct
Ok folks. Those seem to be the definitions that we’re working with. There might be more, but let’s see where he takes us from here.
Sunstein: pp1571-1572: We reject International Parentianism, but do not excld a “rough justice” to achve optml redistrbtn or corrctv justice
Sunstein: p 1573 para 3,4: 4 parts if corr justice is goal: I) facts abt clim chg II&III) Qs of dist justc & correctv justc IV) emissn rghts
Sunstein: p 1574 para 3,4: Pt I: 2 approaches to reduce grnhse emissns: Wrldwide Carbn tax & Cap&Trade akin to Kyoto Protocol
Sunstein: p1575-76: Impact of Kyoto Prot small if only indust nations complied, but significant if developing nations also complied
Sunstein: p 1577 para 1: Kyoto Prot estmts cost US $325B=10x Montreal Prot=1/2 entire cost of Kyoto Prot=80% of wrlds TOT cost of Kyot Prot
Sunstein: p 1577: Chart to show US and China as top emitters of global emissions
Sunstein: p 1578: Chart showing currnt & projectd CO2 emissions. Develping wrld in 2030 to contribute 55%. US expected to B well below China
Sunstein: p 1579: China apprntly surpassd United States in CO2 emissions in June 2007 or perhaps earlier. Greenhse gasses dissipate slowly
Sunstein: p 1579: Abt 1/2 the CO2 emittd in 1907 still remains. If wrld suddenly stopped emittng CO2 2day, CO2 in 2107 wld remain 90% of now
Sunstein: p 1580 para 2: Guess on victim of clim chg: Poorest Nations=biggest losers; US=biggest winner
Sunstein: p 1580 para 2: US=biggest winner cuz adaptive cpcty ,small %age of econ depsnds on agricultr, wealthy & higher latitude
Sunstein: p 1583 para 3: US should face special obligations in contxt of clim chg & should sign an agrmnt in worlds interest but not its own
Sunstein: p 1583 para 3: US “is obliged to transfer large sums of money to compensate countries at risk from clim chg” – Yes, he says that!
Sunstein: p 1583-86: If an asteroid were to hit India in 100 yrs, should the world pay to divert the asteroid. Who should pay? How much?
Sunstein: p 1588-89: Mock scenario: Clim chg threatens massive loss of life. Grnhs gas redctn cld be best way to redistribute wlth (welfare)
Sunstein: p 1589 para 2: RISK: Argument FOR distributive justice is strong when facing catastrophe & weak when catastrophe is unlikely.
Sunstein: p 1589 para 2: RISK: Argument FOR distributive justice is strong when facing catastrophe & weak when catastrophe is unlikely.
Sunstein: p 1589 para 3: Developmnt aid is likely more effective than grnhous gas restrictions as method of helping poor ppl in poor nations
Sunstein: p 1590 para 1: Cap&Trade gets around corrupt govts by giving poor countries permits that it could sell to industry & make money
Sunstein: p 1590 para 1: “significant emissions reductions by wealthy nations would directly benefit poor nations”
Sunstein: p1590 p2: Even though grnhs gas cuts are indirect ways to help poor ppl or poor nations, its not feasible to provide direct aid
Sunstein: pg 1591 para 1: We cant exclde-that desirbl distrbtn-is more likely-or more effectvly accmplshed thru clim polcy than foreign aid
Sunstein: pg 1591 para 3: Many ppl believ that by-its past actions & policies, the US w/ other dev nat’ns, is to blame for prob of clim chng
Sunstein: p 1592 para 1: Corrective Justice: Altho China is now the largst grnhs gas emitter, the US has contributd more to existing stock
Sunstein: pg 1592 para 2: Corr Justice requires US to devote signfcnt resources to remedying prob: paymts, agreeing to reductns, clim pact
Sunstein: pg 1592 para 3: “This argument enjoys a great deal of support in certain circles and seems intuitively correct.” … Actual quote!
Sunstein: p 1593 para 1: Wrongdoer Identity Prob: Current stock of grnhs gas is reslt of ppl who are now dead.Current Americans not respsble
Sunstein: pg 1593 para 3: Insist that Americans today benefit from grnhs gas emitting activities of past Americans & thus not wrong to pay
Sunstein: pg 1593 para 3: This argmnt is similar to slave reparation debate argmnt wher Americans 2day benfit frm toil of slaves 150 yrs ago
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 1: “The idea of corrective justice, building on the tort analogy, does not seem to fit the climate change situation.”
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 2: Clim chg is anticpatd to produce benefits 4 many nations by incrsing agri prodctvty & by reducing extremes of cold
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 2: A proper accting is necessary for Corr Justice cuz Americans benefitted whereas ppl in, lets say India, did not
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 3: Difficult to ask whether Indians wld be better off today if Americans of the past had not emitted greenhouse gases
Sunstein: pg 1594-95: Corp liablty is justifd on grnds other than corrective justice on welfarist ground deterring emplyees from wrongdoing
Sunstein: pg 1595-96: Victims of clim chg live in future & some are harmd now. A successful abatement (reduction) prgm benefits future gens
Sunstein: pg 1596 para 3: Arguments on welfarist grounds R complicatd: Grnhs gas harms future generations while amassing capital
Sunstein: pg 1597 para 1: Welfarist grounds for abatement prgms are justified but its not a point about corrective or distributive justice
Sunstein: p 1594 para 3,4: Causatn problm weakens Corr Justice: Hard to prove that a villge in India, wiped out by monsoon, was reslt of US
Sunstein: p 1594 para 5: Just like tort law, perhaps sci & econ studies can find aggregate nat’l losses & connect w/ clim chg
Sunstein: p 1598-99: Corr Justice requires culpability. Weakst standard is negligence cuz its hard to determine any particlar actvty 2 blame
Sunstein: p 1600 para 2,3: Is US govt culpable? US reductions wld have had little or no effect overall cuz China was not under Kyoto Prot
Sunstein: p 1602: “Rough Justice” is also weak cuz ppl take pride in their country & would not admit to their country having done bad things
Sunstein: p 1603: China wants per capita wrldwide carbon tax & wld forbid poor nations from achieving levels held by wealthy nations
Sunstein: pg 1603-1606: Grnhs gas charts.
Sunstein: p 1607 para 3: Based on its moderate per capita statistic, China argues that raising the standard of living is their 1st priority
Sunstein: p 1607-08: China argues moral obligation that the world bears greatest share & rich countries shld use wealth to help poor nations
Sunstein: pg 1608 para 3,4: Many prefer Cap&Trade. China prefers per capita cuz it wld require US to purchase $100’s of billions of rights
Sunstein: p 1609 para 3: China may demand or deserve side-payments much like the Montreal Protocol.
Sunstein: p 1610 para 4: Fairness argument: If some states receive a large benefit, then it needs to make a pymt to a small-benefit state
Sunstein: p 1610 para 5: Fairness argument differs from corr justice argument cuz earlier contribution of stock grnhs gases is not relevant
Sunstein: p 1610 para 5: Fairness argument differs from redistributive justice cuz a state’s wealth is not relevant
Sunstein: p 1611 para 1: Kyoto Protocol puts a large burden on the US & no burden at all on developing countries that would benefit greatly
Sunstein: p 1611 para 2: Conclusion: Either a worldwide carbon tax or some kind of cap&trade program would be suitable for int’l agreement
Sunstein: p 1611 para 2: Wealthy US bears the largest burden & also important is how to distribute the costs of global emissions reductions
Sunstein: p 1612 para 2: We believe the proper approach to clim chg shld depend on welfarist considerations; corr justice are irrelevant
