Global Environment and International Inequality

1
Global Environment and International Inequality

• Henry Shue

2
Fairness and Efficiency

• Principles of fairness tell us what to do about
  allocating the costs of environmental protection.
  
• Equity is similar to fairness, sometimes the most
  efficient set up happens to be fair but sometimes
  it is not.

3
The North and the South

• Rich states want poor states to stop using
  methods of industrialization by which rich states
  got wealthy. To achieve this goal rich states
  may be willing to deal more equitably with poor
  states than they have in the past.

4
Complete Egalitarianism and Dignity

• He assumes complete egalitarianism is
  unacceptable. It is the idea that all good
  things ought to be shared equally among all
  people (395).
• But he thinks all people must have equal respect
  and dignity.

5

• So the question becomes which inequities are
  compatible with equal respect and dignity and
  what other sorts of inequalities ought to be
  eliminated?

6
Three kinds of Justification for Inequities

• Unequal burdens might remove unfair advantages
• They may prevent existing inequalities from
  becoming worse
• They guarantee that a minimum exists so that
  further inequities wont hurt those on the bottom
  beyond a certain amount
• Really these last two sorts of justification are
  for the same purpose.

7
The First Justification

• 1. Unequal burdens might be justified because
  they remove unfair advantages
• This is the idea that who benefits from a mess
  has to clean it up the idea of internalizing
  externalities (putting the costs of a product
  into the price including environmental costs).

8

• This provides incentive not to makes messes and
  is fair because it doesnt require others to pay
  the costs. If people are allowed to improve
  their position by making others worse off
  inequalities expand.

9

• The idea here is that if someone makes a mess, we
  are 1. justified in assigning unequal burdens to
  people on this basis and 2. we should at least
  make them pay back costs of the mess (maybe
  more).

10
Applying the Conclusions

• If one applies these conclusions to the world
  then developed countries (DC) have made a mess of
  the climate and ought to pay. This is stronger
  than the polluter pays principle, which only
  talks about paying for future costs.

11
First Possible Objection

• Less Developed Countries (LDCs) have also
  benefited via medicines and technologies.

12
Response

• They have been charged for these products with
  the exception of some aid and they now have a
  huge debt mostly from buying this stuff. However
  the costs have to be borne by everyone.

13
Second Possible Objection

• Environmental damage was unintentional the
  results could not have been foreseen.

14
Response

• This confuses punishment and responsibility.
  Dignity of others must be respected it cant be
  an I broke it but you must fix it relationship.
  

15
Third Possible Objection

• One cant hold the people who caused the damage
  responsible they are gone. It is unfair to hold
  those people's descendents responsible they are
  unrelated.

16
Response

• The principle is right, but the people are not
  completely unrelated
• 1. the industrialized states continue to pollute
  even now that they know better and
• 2. those people born into industrial societies
  are the very people who reap the benefits of
  those societies.

17

• Benefits and rights carry across generations and
  so should responsibilities.

18
The Second Justification

• 2. Unequal burdens may be justified because they
  prevent existing inequalities from becoming worse
  
• This is the idea behind paying according to your
  ability (progressive rate of payments). Those
  who have the most should normally contribute the
  most.

19

• The rates of contribution can be proportional or
  not strictly proportional. Contrasting it with a
  flat payment rate one can see its appeal this
  takes circumstances and their effects on peoples
  lives into account (case of what is the minimum
  necessary for survival final ends need to be
  considered).

20
Possible Objection

• One might object that this has disincentive
  effects.

21
Three points can be made in response

• 1) Fairness and incentives are different concerns
  (they may need to be balanced).
• 2) Concerns about incentives come up when people
  worry about maximum production and limitless
  growth. Maximal growth may not be desirable.

22

• 3) One might respond that the extra incentive
  (past some point) may not be important some
  people are altruistic for example. One should be
  wary of the assumption that maximum incentive is
  needed. This justification applies regardless of
  whether the initial inequity was fair.

23
The Third Justification

• 3. Unequal burdens may be justified because they
  guarantee that a minimum exists so that further
  inequities wont hurt those on the bottom beyond
  a certain amount

24
For Example

• In the following circumstances of radical
  inequality equalizing measures may be justified
  a) the total resources are sufficient for all, b)
  some parties have more than enough (some have
  much more), c) some have less than enough.

25

• Lots of inequalities could be preserved for
  incentive, but it seems fair that all should have
  their basic needs met (a healthy and active human
  life). Usually children benefit most from this
  principle.

26
Possible Objection

• Over population is an issue its not fair for
  some societies to have to take care of (maintain
  a minimum for) others. Across borders only
  negative duties (e.g. dont harm) hold.

27

• There are two possible requirements here a) dont
  interfere with other countries ability to
  maintain a minimum or 2) help them reach that
  minimum so the objection says only the first
  requirement holds. But resources move across
  boundaries all of the time, there needs to be
  more of a justification given.

28
An Argument for the Strong Version of the Third
Principle

• A reason to think the stronger principle holds
  can be seen in the following Assuming wealthy
  states dont have the stronger obligation to help
  establish a minimum it doesnt seem that weaker
  states have an obligation to help control
  emissions (they havent polluted much yet).

29

• It may be in the developing countries interest
  to help clean up, but they have more pressing
  problems like food and shelter for their
  citizens.

30

• When wealthy states ask weak states to help
  control pollution they must realize that
  development is necessary for establishing a
  minimum so (by the weak principle) they must
  offer compensation if they ask for help. It is
  like asking a starving man to help fix the roof.
  The roof is important but not as pressing as the
  need for food.

31

• The intuition is that without giving him lunch
  the request is unfair. We should at least let
  him pursue food.

32
Possible objections

• By the weaker version of the third principle The
  poor dont have an obligation to help us clean up
  our messes but by the first principle they have
  an obligation to clean up their own messes so
  they should not be polluting either.

33

• Rich countries should develop the technology to
  fix the environment (if possible) on their own
  but they can only ask the poor countries to help
  if they compensate them.

34

• Its only if one adopts the stronger version of
  the third principle that we must help the third
  world attain a decent standard of living, but
  this is independent of environmental
  considerations.

35
Review of the principles

• The rational for the second and third principles
  is similar to avoid making the worst off any
  worse off. The second requires that when
  contributions are made they are made by the most
  well off and the third provides safeguards for
  the worst off.

36

• The justification for the first and third
  principles is based on considering existing
  injustices but for different reasons. The first
  considers how injustices arose and the third
  considers their nature.

37

• They all converge on the same conclusion the
  costs of saving the environment should be borne
  by the most well off.

38
Summary

• Shue offers three principles of equity which he
  believes lead to the conclusion that the costs of
  saving the environment should be borne by the
  rich nations. The first is justified by the idea
  that if people dont clean up after themselves
  they impose extra costs on others (those who have
  reaped the benefits of industrialization should
  have the responsibility for the costs).

39

• The second is justified by the idea that costs
  paid for common projects should be proportional
  so that the least well-off dont bear terrible
  burdens (so that ends are taken into
  consideration assuming disincentive effects can
  be ameliorated).

40

• The third is the idea that if there is radical
  inequality burdens can be assigned so that
  everyone should have their basic needs met (or at
  least we should not prevent the poor from
  fulfilling those needs).

41
Questions for Consideration

• Which of Shues principles is the strongest?
  Which is the weakest? Offer an argument for and
  against both of these principles.
• What do you think of the weak and strong versions
  of the third principle? Which is right? Why?
  Why is the other wrong?

42

• Do all three principles entail that the costs of
  cleaning up the environment fall on the rich?
  Offer and argument for and against this claim.
• What do you think about incentive effects? How
  important are they? How big do they have to be?
  (If you want to do a paper on this you will need
  to do research in economics).