This paper examines what constitutes a fair distribution of the burden for reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally. Drawing on Peter Singer's ethical framework in One World: The Ethics of Globalization, the paper argues that developed, industrialized nations — particularly the United States and Great Britain — bear the greatest responsibility for addressing climate change, both because they are the largest current emitters and because they initiated industrialization historically. The paper evaluates binding emissions standards versus voluntary ones, considers the economic dimensions of fairness, and assesses the Kyoto Protocol as an imperfect but necessary step toward a coordinated global response to the greenhouse gas crisis.
What is the best principle of fairness for distributing the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? An equitable solution to this global crisis would be for the countries most responsible for emissions to take the greatest responsibility for reducing them.
As the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development recommended, "Developed nations should 'take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof'" (Singer, 2002, p. 21). Thus, the nations that contribute most to the problem — developed nations, including the United States, which is the top contributor — should be the first to act in combating and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This position makes intuitive sense: developed nations are those that can most afford the necessary expenditures, and they are responsible for the majority of the damage. Many underdeveloped nations are too poor to raise the capital required to effectively combat emissions, and they contribute far less to the global problem because they are not as heavily industrialized.
Another equitable solution would be to establish binding emissions standards for vehicles and industry, rather than relying on voluntary standards. This approach would again place the primary burden on industrialized nations, which are the worst offenders, targeting the problem directly and forcing the most polluting countries to reform their practices. The United States is at the forefront of this category and is arguably the nation most capable of making meaningful change — yet it has not done so.
By making standards legally binding, the worst offenders would be compelled to confront and address problems within their own borders first, after which smaller and less polluting nations could also be targeted. Without enforceable laws, many of the worst offenders will simply continue "business as usual" — a dangerous trajectory given what current research indicates about the future of the climate.
The Kyoto Protocol attempted to set these limits, but even its author acknowledges that the agreement was politically motivated rather than grounded in fairness (Singer, 2002, p. 22). This may be one reason the United States chose not to participate: the limits and agreements reached with 178 other nations were not considered effective or equitable in the American context. Given this disregard for solutions such as Kyoto, it is difficult to see how a global principle of fairness can be achieved at all.
"Cost-effectiveness of global climate initiatives"
"Early industrializers bear historic accountability"
Singer, P. (2002). One world: The ethics of globalization. Yale University Press. Chapter 2, "One Atmosphere," pp. 14–50.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.