A Polluter-Pays and Avoiding Harm Approach to Climate Justice - Melody Stainbrook

May 4

When discussing climate justice, there are many different levels of responsibility: individual, community, corporation, and state-level. I plan to focus on states' responsibilities to address climate crises. In particular, I will examine this issue through the lens of an ongoing struggle for climate justice in the Philippines, concentrating on which approach to climate justice has the most advantages in this situation. I discuss major polluters' obligations to address climate crises that arise in less-polluting states. Additionally, I examine major polluters' obligations under sharing burdens and avoiding harm justice and discuss their importance within the polluter-pays model. When viewing climate justice from a global perspective, the polluter-pays model with a focus on avoiding harm justice is best.

Major global polluters are less affected by climate change than minor global polluters. This is portrayed by the Philippines, a small polluter, and the United States, a large polluter. According to the Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index, the Philippines is disproportionately impacted by climate change. The country has a Global Climate Risk Index of 11.17, but only consists of .35% of the global CO2 emissions. Larger states, such as the United States, are larger global polluters but are impacted less by climate change. The average Philippines citizen emits 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average United States citizen emits 20 tons of carbon dioxide a year.

Despite the significant difference in each states' pollution, citizens of the Philippines are facing an increasing number of climate crises such as rising sea levels, worsening typhoons, and destructive forest fires. These crises are so severe that Amnesty International rates the Philippines as the most at risk country in the world from climate change. In particular, marginalized communities, such as the native Manobo tribe, are facing the most drastic consequences of climate change. The Manobo tribe live in wooden houses that float above the water of Phillipine’s marshes, but this area is increasingly at risk due to human development and climate change. Large palm oil plantations paired with unusual droughts has led to an abundance of forest fires, threatening their homes and land. The Manobo tribe live off their native land— their carbon footprint is practically nonexistent. Nevertheless, their land is the most threatened by climate crises, putting them at risk of having to leave their land and become climate refugees.

States' Obligations Under Polluter-Pays:

In Roser and Seidel's Climate Justice, the polluter-pays model of climate change is described as an approach to climate justice where the amount states contribute to coping with climate change should be proportional to how they contribute to climate change. This model aims to rectify a wrong and solve issues of unfairness brought up in other models. It seems unfair to make a country like the Philippines put more time and resources into adapting to climate change when they had a minor role in creating the problem. Under the polluters' pay method, major polluters would contribute more resources to addressing climate change than the smaller polluters. This model of distributing burdens ensures that disadvantaged groups, such as the Manobo tribe in the Philippines, are not stuck with a disproportionate burden of adapting to climate change.

There are several ways major polluters could invest more resources under the polluter-pays model; one example is financial aid. Major polluters should provide financial aid to smaller polluters struggling with climate crises. The United States has recently taken this step in regards to the climate crisis in the Philippines. This year, the United States signed its first environmental aid agreement with the Philippines: a five-year plan valued at $150 million. Although this aid is a step in the right direction, it is less than other U.S. financial aid contributions to the Philippines. For example, the United States has provided over $4.5 billion to advance the Philippines' development goals. Under the polluter-pays model, major polluters need to prioritize addressing climate change and contribute a significant amount of their resources to the cause.

Another way major polluters can fulfill their obligations through polluters-pay is by helping climate refugees from disproportionately affected states. Disadvantaged groups are often displaced due to climate change. Under the polluter-pays model, large polluters have an obligation to accept these refugees. The Manobo tribe is currently "losing their way of life in the marsh" due to climate change. If the tribe becomes displaced, major polluters, such as the United States, should not hesitate to accept the tribe members into their nations.

Why Polluter-Pays:

The polluter-pays approach places the obligation to aid the impacts of climate change directly onto those who created the issue. By doing so, the polluter-pays model suggests an equitable approach to distributing the costs of climate change that relies on responsibility. Consequently, the polluter-pays model aims to end the ignorant continuation of climate change by major polluters. Without this model, major polluters can continue to pollute while shifting all responsibility to address issues caused by their pollution onto developing states.

The polluters-pays model is also more efficient at implementing solutions because the major polluters often have the most resources available to address climate change. Large polluters such as the United States and China have more economic muscle available to implement climate solutions than small polluters such as the Philippines. Placing the obligation to cope with climate change on smaller polluters with less economic resources creates weaker and less impactful climate solutions and policies. In order for adequate resources to be put towards climate change, large and wealthy states, who pollute the most, must be required to be the leaders behind climate policy efforts.

Sharing Burdens and Avoiding Harm Justice Under a Polluters-Pay Framework:

In his essay entitled, "Two Kinds of Climate Justice: Avoiding Harm and Sharing Burdens," Simon Caney established two kinds of climate justice: sharing burdens and avoiding harm. Sharing burdens climate justice focuses on fairly allocating the responsibility to deal with the consequences of climate change while avoiding harm justice focuses on avoiding the consequences of climate change before they happen. Using the polluter-pays model with these two types of justice, one can ensure that larger polluters play a propionate and fair role in addressing the current burdens of climate change while avoiding future harm.

When looking at sharing burdens justice, small polluters are often unfairly forced to handle climate crises and the refugees that the crisis displaces by. This is worsened by the fact that many large polluters deny climate refugees asylum and send them back to their destroyed homes. Although the United States is an international leader in refugee resettlement, climate refugees are not considered eligible for protection as refugees. This is because the definition of a refugee has not been updated to include people fleeing from environmental crises. Furthermore, lawmakers and scholars struggle to agree on the definition of a climate refugee, which further marginalizes this vulnerable group. In order to adequately practice “sharing burdens” justice, climate refugees need to be clearly protected as refugees and accepted by major polluters. Under this model, large polluters like the United States would support displaced members of the Manobo tribe, who did not contribute to climate change but unfairly have to face its consequences.

When viewing avoiding harm justice under a polluters-pay framework, one must consider what large polluters are doing to avoid further global warming and climate crises. Major polluters have two main obligations under avoiding harm justice: change their current harmful practices and invest in technology to avoid further environmental harm. Major polluters must reduce their carbon emissions and polluting waste output. Additionally, these polluters must invest in research, development, and implementation of new environmentally friendly technology, such as new carbon sequestration technology, green-energy development, new recycling methods, and sustainable infrastructure.

Vision of Justice

An ideal vision of justice fairly apportions states’ responsibility to mitigate current burdens and avoid future harm. Through providing financial support to states dealing with climate crises and accepting climate refugees, major polluters can fairly address the current burdens of climate change that their actions (large carbon emissions, global waste production) disproportionately caused. By changing these harmful actions and investing in greener alternatives, large polluters can take actions to avoid causing further harm. When implemented correctly, avoiding harm justice should benefit all parties by reducing the amount of future climate crises and displaced climate refugees.

This vision of justice must include cooperation between major and minor global polluters. Major polluters must listen to the voices of those affected by climate change the most. These voices are often marginalized and ignored, even though listening to climate activists from smaller states has the potential to promote thoughtful and personal solutions. When major polluters research and fund the development of new green technology and sustainable infrastructure, it must be shared with smaller polluters. This cooperation ensures that small polluters do not fall behind economically and that all states build sustainable infrastructure and adopt green technology.

Lastly, I believe that a vision of justice not only includes action to address current climate crises and avoid future ones but also involves reconciliation and accountability. Many lives, homes, and communities have been destroyed by climate change. Major polluters need to acknowledge their role in fueling the current climate crisis and reconcile with those who lost their communities because of climate change. This could include financial reparations made to climate refugees or land being set aside for displaced communities.

The harmful effects of climate change are currently unfairly affecting small polluters more than large polluters. Disadvantaged communities in developing states are being displaced from their homes by climate crises. The Philippines is a minor global polluter but is one of the most impacted states by climate change, with the Manobo tribe being one of the most impacted communities within the state. A polluter-pays approach paired with avoiding harm justice is the best way to address this issue. However, many climate crises are too late to avoid, so it is essential to discuss sharing burdens justice as well. Ultimately, major polluters should have a more outstanding obligation to address climate change and deal with its burdens, focusing on actions to prevent future harm. Major polluters should provide financial aid to smaller polluters, accept climate refugees, fund and develop environmentally friendly technologies, adopt greener practices, and include developing states in all climate change discussions. This model creates a just and equitable approach to climate change mitigation.

A Polluter-Pays and Avoiding Harm Approach to Climate Justice - Melody Stainbrook

MORE INFORMATION

CONTACT US

A Polluter-Pays and Avoiding Harm Approach to Climate Justice - Melody Stainbrook

Unequal Green Space - Candice Powers

MORE INFORMATION

CONTACT US