Assessing common(s) arguments for an equal per capita allocation

Starkey, Richard

doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00359.x

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper I am not specifically interested in the viability of personal carbon trading as a (partial) solution to climate change mitigation, nor is the focus upon questions of justice and fairness in the establishment of the scheme (Seyfang et al . 2009; see Starkey this issue). They may accomplish all of these goals very well.…”

Section: Personal Carbon Trading: Good Climatic Citizensmentioning

confidence: 98%

Broadening debates on climate change ethics: beyond carbon calculation

Randalls¹

2011

Geographical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market‐based solutions have become an important focus for international strategies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The commodification of carbon through markets, however, raises a number of questions about the ethics and justice implications of these approaches. They are tied up in a calculative, managerial approach to the environment, which looks for cost‐effectiveness, just allocations of carbon allowances and equitable international frameworks. In this paper and using an extended case study of personal carbon trading I argue that current debates have insufficiently focused on the ethical assumptions that underlie these solutions. A universal system of carbon monitoring may not offer the kinds of political debates and imaginations of the good life that will be required for a more thoroughly participatory engagement in climate change debates. Opening up these broader ethical questions is a starting point for a renewed realisation of climate change as being as much of a cultural, moral issue as a technical challenge.

show abstract

Section: Personal Carbon Trading: Good Climatic Citizensmentioning

confidence: 98%

Broadening debates on climate change ethics: beyond carbon calculation

Randalls¹

2011

Geographical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The equality principle could alternatively imply the equal distribution of costs and benefits (ex post), which could be understood as requiring comparable efforts among parties. However, equal per capita allocation has been criticized (Starkey 2011;Godard 2000) since it leads to a significantly larger burden on industrialized compared to developing countries which contradicts the comparable efforts criterion (Grubb 1995) and may be politically infeasible (see Sect. 3.3).…”

Section: How Cap-and-trade Frames Distribution Issuesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: reframing international climate negotiations

Méjean

Lecocq

Mulugetta

2015

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceDistribution issues have been critical in international negotiations on climate change. These have been framed as a ‘burden sharing’ problem since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Three key difficulties are associated with this approach under a cap-and-trade system, namely the lack of consensus over what is equitable, uncertainty over estimates of policy costs, and lack of political realism and economic effectiveness of large-scale international transfers. These difficulties point to the risk of failure of post-2020 negotiations if these are based on the same premises of ‘sharing the emission reduction pie’ within a cap-and-trade regime. History has shown that different development paths can lead to similar economic performances with contrasted emission intensities. This paper proposes some insights into what could constitute a way forward, by recasting the discussion about emission reductions from a development perspective. It concludes that climate negotiations should depart from the current framework and shift to a debate focused on choosing a development path that would address domestic issues, while aligning pure climate policies with development policies. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

show abstract

“…Some analysts (Caney, 2009) have noted, however, that a commitment to equality does not necessarily translate into an equal right to emit. Egalitarians generally call for equality of a total package of 'resources' (or 'capabilities' or 'opportunities for welfare') and thus may support inequalities in one good to compensate for inequalities in other goods (Starkey, 2011). For example, one might argue that poor people who are disadvantaged with respect to access to resources such as food or drinking water may be entitled to a greater than per capita share of emissions rights.…”

Section: Equalitymentioning

confidence: 99%