In this comment, we pick up three points raised by Ohndorf et al. (Clim Chang 133:385–395, 2015) in their reply to our ethical assessment of the German Advisory Council’s Budget Approach (WBGUBA). First, we discuss and clarify the relationship between ethics and political feasibility, highlighting that the way Ohndorf et al. use feasibility creates an unwarranted status quo bias. Second, we explain the proper place historical responsibility should have within the WBGUBA, stressing the fact that the reasons why we choose one policy proposal over another matter. Third, we analyze the limited extent to which a normative heuristic should motivate an ethically ambitious policy proposal like the WBGUBA.
Proper Place Policy Proposal Historical Responsibility Initial Allocation Climate Justice
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Ohndorf M et al (2015) Emission budget approaches for burden sharing: some thoughts from an environmental economics point of view. Clim Chang 133:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuppert F, Seidel C (2015) Equality, justice and feasibility: an ethical analysis of the WBGU’s budget approach. Clim Chang 133:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen (2009) The idea of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
WBGU (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. Special Report. BerlinGoogle Scholar