The supersession thesis, climate change, and the rights of future people

Borgogno, Santiago Truccone

doi:10.4324/9781003303794-4

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is a limit to the upper level of emissions the present generation of both developed and developing countries can release to not wrongfully harm future people ( Meyer and Roser 2006 , p. 226). Given this upper limit, fulfilling the duty of restitution implies that the present members of developed countries have to reduce their GHG emissions substantially ( Truccone-Borgogno 2022 , pp. 369ff.).…”

Section: Benefits Life Plans and Status Quo Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Justice and the Duty of Restitution

Borgogno

2022

Moral Philosophy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the climate justice discussion revolves around how the remaining carbon budget should be globally allocated. Some authors defend the unjust enrichment interpretation of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). According to this principle, those states unjustly enriched from historical emissions should pay. I argue that if the BPP is to be constructed along the lines of the unjust enrichment doctrine, countervailing reasons that might be able to block the existence of a duty of restitution should be assessed. One might think that the duty to provide restitution no longer has moral weight if many benefits were already consumed, if the particular benefits obtained from historical emissions cannot be transferred from one country to another, or if present members of developed countries framed their life plans based upon the expectation of continued possession of those benefits. I show that none of these reasons negate the duty to provide restitution.

show abstract

Section: Benefits Life Plans and Status Quo Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%