On the Nature of Our Debt to the Global Poor

Hayward, Timothy

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00408.x

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pogge has been challenged on how individuals can be held responsible. 75 This question of connection between individuals and wider associations and institutions is the final main topic area. Armstrong, maintain that the problem is primarily political, and should be dealt with at that level.…”

Section: Much Of the Debate About What To Do Regarding Climate Change...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and ethics

2022

A Proposal to Achieve a Glasgow Agreement: Core Commitments for States on Climate Action to Reach Net Zero by 2050

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Much Of the Debate About What To Do Regarding Climate Change...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and ethics

2022

A Proposal to Achieve a Glasgow Agreement: Core Commitments for States on Climate Action to Reach Net Zero by 2050

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However that may be, I do believe that ethicists should consider what lessons can be learned from different kinds of economics – in particular, ecological economics, understood as a multi-disciplinary and substantively focused kind of endeavour which does not seek to commensurate incommensurable values or reduce qualitatively natural phenomena to quantifiable units suitable for purposes of commodification. Such approaches to economics can integrate in much more thorough going ways the concerns of the poor, as is emphasised, for instance, in campaigns featuring the concept of ecological debt (Hayward, 2008).…”

Section: Who Gains From Costs Saved?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting human need under ecological constraints: Justice as a radical challenge

Hayward

2019

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is an honour to be invited to respond to a paper by a political philosopher who so much helped shape my own, and many others', understanding of the purpose of political philosophy in the world today. The seminal contribution under discussion here exemplifies that purpose. Yet notwithstanding its significance, Henry Shue starts his reflection on it with characteristic modesty, by suggesting it be seen in the light of two qualifications: he stands on the shoulders of giants, and he has not broken all the way through. I propose to pursue the thought that those shoulders might support us in pushing further still, if we persevere with the lines of thought that Shue has advanced, as long as we are alert to the possibility that more radical change than he discusses may be required. The problem that I shall suggest still requires further thought lies with the lack of economic incentives to tackle climate change. Shue is acutely aware that economic forces in the world are not, on the whole, pushing in the right direction regarding climate change, and yet he does find some reasons to be hopeful. In particular, he notes: 'the prices of renewable energy have declined far more rapidly than anyone expected … and the alternative technologies are growing significantly in sophistication while dropping in price'. This sounds like good news, and something potentially to build on as an exit strategy from climate disaster. Unfortunately, though, I think we may need to be cautious even about this apparent good news. The advantages flagged by Shue are both expressed in terms of reduced prices. This is a matter that one needs to examine a little more closely before simply granting an assumption that it is good news. It may be that costs are reducing because of efficiencies in technologies that produce or consume energy, which in principle is to be welcomed, but there are two general questions to consider: what of the costs of depending on those technologies-in human and in ecological terms? And what if the apparent financial gain is itself in some way deceptive or misleading? In addressing these two general questions in turn we will find that the perspective that initially influenced Shue's breakthrough may still have critical insights to yield.

show abstract

“…Having identified what currency might be owed, and to whom, both distributive and corrective justice require an account of who would owe the debt and why. Much debate has focused on the validity and priority of three basic principles: "polluter pays," "beneficiary pays," and "ability to pay" (Hayward 2008, Vanderheiden 2008a). Caney (2005Caney ( , 2010, who has long advocated priority for "ability to pay," has recently expanded the terms of the debate by contrasting a general approach to "burden-sharing justice" with the approach that he advocates, "harm avoidance justice" (2014).…”

Section: Justicementioning

confidence: 99%