Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
New ways of containing climate change
Could new ways be found to contain and resolve climate change? From the
political-legal angle, three major approaches have been presented. The version
that has provoked the most discussion and received the most attention to date
is the utilitarian cost-benefi t model on the global scale. The best-known
option is the so-called 'contraction and convergence' model presented by the
Global Commons Institute.
The basic idea is that states should fi rst agree on what constitutes safe levels
of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Once this is settled, emission rights are
divided among the states according to what their per capita emissions are.
This would mean that developing countries with their low per capita emis-
sions would receive high emission rights. This in turn results in convergence:
as the developing nations would receive much higher emission rights, they
would be able to develop economically, but at the same time their per capita
greenhouse gas emissions would increase and they would have to start limiting
their emissions. Meanwhile, the industrialized nations would receive much
lower emission rights and would therefore be under pressure to reduce their
per capita emissions from the outset. Sooner or later, the per capita emission
rights of states would reach the same level globally, and the total emissions
would remain below the agreed safe levels.
The human rights model is critical of this cost-benefi t model, because it
continues to divide the emission reduction loads among states on the basis of
states' relative wealth rather than the needs and capacities of individuals. In prin-
ciple, the contraction and convergence model allows states like Bangladesh, for
instance, high emission rights at fi rst because of its low per capita emissions, but
it fails to take into account the enormous gaps between the rich and the poor
within developing countries. Emissions rights and targets are calculated according
to a state's gross national product and population size, but these, of course, provide
only crude averages and do not distinguish between the obligations on the very
rich in poor countries or the very poor in rich or middle-income countries.
Professor Simon Caney 6 argues that the best solution would be to allocate
emission burdens on the basis of human rights. Caney sees two advantages
in the human rights model compared with the cost-benefi t model. First of
all, the human rights violations caused by climate change generally affect
certain population groups worst: generally the poor within existing states.
As states already have global human rights legal obligations, both states and
the international community at large are liable for the protection at the very
least of the core of essential human rights - to ensure that climate change
does not result in death or sickness of the population. It is not necessary to
protect everyone's human rights, because the wealthy can generally protect
themselves against the worst impacts of climate change. Caney argues that
the second advantage of the human rights approach is that the affected
parties are entitled to compensation from those who contribute the most to
climate change. This viewpoint is not endorsed by the current climate
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search