Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement

Abstract

The Parties to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agreed to act "on the basis of equity" to protect the climate system. Equitable effort-sharing is an irreducibly normative matter, yet some influential studies have sought to create quantitative indicators of equitable effort that claim to be value-neutral (despite evident biases). Many of these studies fail to clarify the ethical principles underlying their indicators, some mislabel approaches which favour wealthy nations as 'equity approaches', and some combine contradictory indicators into composites we call 'derivative benchmarks'. This Perspective reviews influential climate effort sharing assessments and presents guidelines for developing and adjudicating policyrelevant (but not ethically neutral) equity research.

National ‘fair shares’ in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the principled framework of international environmental law

“…While identifying a least cost pathway may be a relevant consideration in choosing between alternative means of implementing national fair shares, it is not a relevant consideration in determining fair shares. As some scholars argue, imposing a least cost solution in a highly unequal world is 'inherently unjust' (Dooley et al, 2021). The precautionary principle requires measures to be taken, even in the absence of full scientific certainty, and these measures need to deliver 'global benefits at the lowest possible cost' (United Nations, 1992b, Article 3.4).…”

“…4.7; UNFCCC, 2015, preambular recital 8, and Articles 2.1 (chapeau), and 4.1). Grandfathering or maintaining constant emission ratios arguably creates 'cascading biases' against poorer states (Kartha et al, 2018), is not a 'standard of equity' (Dooley et al, 2021), and is indeed morally 'perverse' (Caney, 2011). It is also a well-established principle of common law that no person ought to profit from their own wrong (Dworkin, 1967).…”

Accelerating to zero: speeding up the decarbonization of heavy-duty vehicles in the EU

“…Defining what is a "fair share" of contribution for the EU is complicated and related to the progress and responsibilities of other regions of the world. Recent research highlights that there is risk of oversimplification when trying to quantify the fair share among countries, and the complex political and ethical dimensions of this context should be explored in a transparent fashion (Dooley et al, 2021).…”

Undoing Equivalence: Rethinking Carbon Accounting for Just Carbon Removal

“…In this perspective piece, we critically examine the social and environmental implications of three other equivalences. We argue that these too must be undone as part of a movement toward ensuring socially and environmentally just carbon removal and mitigation policies-which require that states with greater capability take the lead on climate action and that the needs of the most vulnerable are protected against the effects of climate change and of measures taken to limit it (Shue, 2019;Dooley et al, 2021). While concerns over the equivalences that we examine have long been raised in the social science literature on e.g., carbon accounting and carbon markets (Lohmann, 2009;Carton et al, 2020), they are now resurfacing under the guise of a rapidly evolving carbon removal agenda, and therefore warrant being discussed and scrutinized as part of this new conversation.…”