Wouter Peeters

Putting Sustainability into Sustainable Human Development

Abating the threat climate change poses to the lives of future people clearly challenges our development models. The 2011 Human Development Report rightly focuses on the integral links between sustainability and equity. However, the human development and capabilities approach emphasizes the expansion of peoples capabilities simpliciter, which is questionable in view of environmental sustainability. We argue that capabilities should be defined as triadic relations between an agent, constraints and possible functionings. This triadic syntax particularly applies to climate change: since peoples lives and capabilities are dependent on the environment, sustainable human development should also include constraining human activities in order to prevent losses in future peoples well-being due to the adverse effects of exacerbated climate change. On this basis, we will advocate that the goals of sustainable human development should be informed by a framework that consists of enhancing capabilities up to a threshold level, as well as constraining the functionings beyond this threshold in terms of their greenhouse gas emissions.

Strengthening bottom-up and top-down climate governance

Although the UN and EU focus their climate policies on the prevention of a 2 °C global mean temperature rise, it has been estimated that a rise of at least 4 °C is more likely. Given the political climate of inaction, there is a need to instigate a bottom-up approach so as to build domestic support for future climate treaties, empower citizens, and motivate leaders to take action. A review is provided of the predominant top-down cap-and-trade policies in place – the Kyoto Protocol and EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) – with a focus on the grandfathering of emissions entitlements and the possibility of offsetting emissions. These policies are evaluated according to two criteria of justice and it is concluded that they fail to satisfy them. Some suggestions as to how the EU ETS can be improved so as to enable robust climate action are also offered. Policy relevance The current supranational climate policy has not been successful and global leaders have postponed the adoption of a meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol. In view of this inaction, bottom-up approaches with regard to climate policy should be further developed. It is argued that two of the main top-down policies, grandfathering and offsetting, impede the avowed goals of EU climate policy and pose significant ethical dilemmas with regard to participatory and intergenerational justice. In order to provide a more robust EU climate policy, the EU should inter alia provide a long-term perspective for investors, reduce the volatility of the carbon price, and prepare for the possibility of carbon leakage.

The Capabilities Approach and Environmental Sustainability: The Case for Functioning Constraints

The capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum has become an influential viewpoint for addressing issues of social justice and human development. It has not yet, however, given adequate theoretical consideration to the requirements of environmental sustainability. Sen has focussed on the instrumental importance of human development for achieving sustainability, but has failed to consider the limits of this account, especially with respect to consumption-reduction. Nussbaum has criticised constraining material consumption for its paternalistic prescription of one particular conception of the good life, without considering it as an imperative of justice. We discuss two possible extensions of the capabilities approach. First, the concept of capability ceilings contains several attractive elements, but it also suffers from some shortcomings. Therefore, second, we advocate constraining peoples combinations of functionings in accordance with a personal budget which consists of a fair share of environmental resources.

Emissions Trading Ethics

Abstract Although emissions trading is embraced as a means to curb carbon emissions and to incentivize the use of renewable energy, it is also heavily contested on ethical grounds. We will assess the main fundamental objections and possible counterarguments. Although we sympathize with some of these arguments, we argue that they are unpersuasive when an emissions trading system is well designed: emissions should be accounted ‘upstream,’ on the production rather than the consumer level. Moreover, allowances should be auctioned, and regulatory measures (such as an escalating tax on additional allowances) could instigate the right kind of behavior towards the environment.

The delegated authority model misused as a strategy of disengagement in the case of climate change

The characterisation of anthropogenic climate change as a violation of basic human rights is gaining wide recognition. Many people believe that tackling this problem is exclusively the job of governments and supranational institutions (especially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). This argument can be traced back to the delegated authority model, according to which the legitimacy of political institutions depends on their ability to solve problems that are difficult to address at the individual level. Since the institutions created to tackle climate change fail to do so, their legitimacy is under great pressure and can only be saved by considerations of feasibility. We argue that democratically elected representatives are able to claim that a more robust climate policy is unfeasible, but only because the mandate we as citizens grant them is very restrictive. Instead of shifting responsibility for the thoroughly inadequate response to climate change fully to political representatives, we should highlight the failure of the political community as a whole to fulfil its responsibility at the input-side of the delegation of authority. When individual voters fail to fulfil the minimal obligation to at least vote for parties that explicitly advocate robust climate policies, they cannot hide behind the delegated authority argument, but should accept their complicity in the massive violations of basic human rights caused by the failure to successfully tackle climate change.

Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Responsibility

This chapter sketches the problems of climate change and allocation of the responsibility for tackling it. In view of the threats to key human rights posed by observed and projected climatic changes, climate change is conceptualized as a moral harm. We explore how the burdens involved in remedying the problem should be allocated, focusing on the principle of moral responsibility that plays a central role in common-sense morality. The responsibilities of individual emitters have been underestimated because important doubts exist about the agency of individuals in complex global dynamics such as climate change. We contrast this view with the observation that people can psychologically reconstruct their contribution to climate change, in order to evade moral responsibility for it.

Understanding the Motivational Gap

This chapter explores two complementary explanations for the motivational gap. We argue that the first explanation — referring to the inadequacy of our moral framework to capture climate change as an important moral problem — remains incomplete, since individuals can effectively be identified as morally responsible for their luxury emissions. Second, the complexity of climate change and doubts about individual agency are overly emphasized, enabling emitters to act out of self-interest. Through the influence of the prevailing liberal-capitalist worldview, self-interested pursuits have become equated with wealth accumulation and consumption. Climate change challenges the inviolable status conferred to these materialistic freedoms, requiring emitters to resort to moral disengagement in order to be able to maintain a consumptive lifestyle without having to accept moral responsibility for the resultant harms.

The Phenomenology of Agency in Climate Change

Most objections against holding individual emitters responsible for climate change are closely related to the characteristic way in which people experience themselves as agents with causal powers. Within this phenomenology of agency, acts have primacy over omissions; near effects have primacy over remote effects; and individual effects have primacy over group effects. We describe how these features affect our thinking about individual responsibility for climate change and argue that the predominant characterization of climate change as a matter of omissions, remote effects and group effects is deceitful. Arguments along these lines do not convincingly exonerate individual emitters from moral responsibility for their luxury emissions; although the complexity of climate change undeniably challenges our moral judgement system, it also provides a convenient opportunity for moral disengagement.

Addressing the Motivational Gap and Tackling Moral Disengagement

In this chapter, we tentatively suggest some strategies to increase emitters’ motivation to accept moral responsibility for the consequences of their luxury emissions, and to accordingly acknowledge their remedial responsibility for tackling climate change. First, emitters’ motivation can be increased by enhancing their moral judgement on the basis of common-sense morality, or by invoking alternative moral values. Second, the motivational force of the underlying reasons for deploying mechanisms of moral disengagement can be reduced by encouraging people to evaluate and redefine their self-interested motives or by addressing the perceived demandingness of morality. Third, we argue that the propensity for moral disengagement should itself be tackled as well.

Is the EU ETS a Just Climate Policy

The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is in dire straits. Prone to design problems and suffering from the effects of the economic crises the scheme is criticised for its poor achievements. In this paper we will analyse some of the features of this situation from an ethical perspective. The major part is dedicated to the complications within each phase of the EU ETS and to the recent developments it has undergone. We will briefly discuss the remedies suggested by prominent commentators. Furthermore, any policy tool to tackle climate change should be evaluated in view of the profound equity issues that are inherent to the climate problem. We will evaluate the EU ETS according to two justice-based criteria, related to effectiveness and the distribution of the duties involved in climate change, respectively. We will conclude that the EU ETS, in its current form, clearly lacks fairness on both criteria. However, the biggest problem is the unwillingness of EU leaders to mend, what could be, a commendable climate policy tool. To that extent, we argue, those leaders are acting unjustly.