Distributing the burdens of mitigating fossil fuel productions instead of the remaining benefits: a safeguard for conservatism?
The need for climate change mitigation raises important questions of distributive justice. Ethicists and climate negotiators have discussed several criteria to determine which countries should receive what. What is not clear, however, is whether one should distribute the burdens of climate change mi...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2023-07-06
|
| In: |
Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía Política
Year: 2023, Volume: 12, Issue: 1, Pages: 45-82 |
| ISSN: | 2250-8619 |
| DOI: | 10.36446/rlfp125 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.36446/rlfp125 Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://rlfp.org.ar/revista/index.php/RLFP/article/view/125 
|
| Author Notes: | Rutger Lazou |
| Summary: | The need for climate change mitigation raises important questions of distributive justice. Ethicists and climate negotiators have discussed several criteria to determine which countries should receive what. What is not clear, however, is whether one should distribute the burdens of climate change mitigation or the benefits of using up the remaining carbon budget. This article argues that while the literature has neglected this, distributing burdens instead of benefits has considerable consequences in favor of the status quo. In particular, a burden-sharing approach would strongly protect the assets of fossil-fuel rich countries. The article criticizes the burden-sharing approach and argues that climate change mitigation requires the distribution of the remaining benefits. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 30.04.2026 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 2250-8619 |
| DOI: | 10.36446/rlfp125 |