Principles of Public Reason in the UNFCCC: Rethinking the Equity Framework

Original Paper

Abstract

Since 2011, the focus of international negotiations under the UNFCCC has been on producing a new climate agreement to be adopted in 2015. This phase of negotiations is known as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The goal has been to update the global effort on climate for long-term cooperation. In this period, various changes have been contemplated on the design of the architecture of the global climate effort. Whereas previously, the negotiation process consisted of setting mandated targets exclusively for developed countries, the current setting requests of each country to pledge its contribution to the climate effort in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). The shift away from establishing negotiated targets for rich countries alone towards a universal system of participation through intended contributions raised persistent questions on how exactly the new agreement can ensure equitable terms. How to conceptualize equity within the 2015 climate agreement, and beyond, is the focus of this paper. The paper advances a framework on equity, which moves away from substantive moral conceptions of burden allocation toward refining principles of public reason specially designed for the negotiation process under the UNFCCC. The paper outlines the framework’s main features and discusses how it can serve a facilitating role for multilateral discussion on equity on a long-term basis capable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Keywords

International climate change negotiations Paris Agreement Agreement architecture Institutional structure Public reason Reasonable pluralism Political conception of justice Equity Common but differentiated responsibilities 

References

  1. Aldy, J. E., & Stavins, R. N. (2010). Introduction. In J. E. Aldy & R. N. Stavins (Eds.), Post-Kyoto international climate policy: Implementing architectures for agreement (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Babiker, M. J., & Eckaus, R. (2002). Rethinking the Kyoto emissions targets. Climatic Change, 54(4), 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodansky, D. (2004). International climate efforts beyond 2012: A survey of approaches. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.c2es.org/publications/international-climate-efforts-beyond-2012-survey-approaches. Accessed June 27, 2015.
  4. Bodansky, D. (2010). The Copenhagen climate change conference: A post-mortem. American Journal of International Law, 104, 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodansky, D. (2012). The Durban Platform: Issues and options for a 2015 agreement. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. http://www.c2es.org/publications/durban-platform-issues-options-2015-agreement. Accessed June 27, 2015.
  6. Bodansky, D., & Diringer, E. (2014). Building flexibility and ambition into a 2015 climate agreement. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. http://www.c2es.org/publications/building-flexibility-ambition-2015-climate-agreement. Accessed June 27, 2015.
  7. Boran, I., & Shockley, K. (2015). COP 20 Lima: The ethical dimension of climate negotiations on the way to Paris—Issues, challenges, prospects. Ethics, Policy, Environment, 18(2), 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breakey, H. (2015). COP 20’s ethical fall out: The perils of principles without dialogue. Ethics, Policy, Environment, 18(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunée, J., & Streck, S. (2013). The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: Toward common but more differentiated responsibilities. Climate Policy, 13(5), 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caney, S. (2014a). Just emissions. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 40, 255–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caney, S. (2014b). Two kinds of climate justice: Avoiding harm and sharing burdens. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22, 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardiner, S., Caney, S., Jamieson, D., & Shue, H. (Eds.). (2010). Climate ethics: Essential readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heath, J. (2008). Political egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice, 34(4), 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacoby, H. D., Schmalensee, R., & Wing, S. (1999). Toward a useful architecture for climate change negotiations. Report No. 49, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.Google Scholar
  15. Jamieson, D. (2012). Consequentialism, climate change, and the road ahead. Chicago Journal of International Law, 13(2), 439–468.Google Scholar
  16. Klinsky, S., & Winkler, H. (2014). Equity, sustainable development, and climate policy. Climate Policy, 14(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macaspac Penetrante, A. (2013). Common but differentiated responsibilities: The North–South divide in the climate negotiations. In G. Sjostedt & A. Macaspac Penetrante (Eds.), Climate change negotiations: A guide to resolving disputes and facilitating multilateral cooperation (pp. 249–276). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Maguire, R. (2013). The role of common but differentiated responsibility in the 2020 climate regime. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 4, 260–269.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, J., & Waskow, D. (2014). A New Look at Climate Equity in the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 14–1, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumayer, E. (2000). In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics, 33, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Otto, F. E. L., Frame, D. J., Otto, A., & Allen, M. R. (2015). Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5, 917–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner, E. A. (2006). International law: A welfarist approach. University of Chicago Law Review, 73(2), 487–543.Google Scholar
  23. Posner, E. A., & Weisbach, D. (2010). Climate change justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Posner, E. A., & Weisbach, D. (2012–2013). International paretianism: A defense. Chicago Journal of International Law, 13(2), 347–358.Google Scholar
  25. Rajamani, L. (2015). Differentiation in a 2015 climate agreement. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. http://www.c2es.org/publications/differentiation-2015-climate-agreement. Accessed November 28, 2015
  26. Rawls, J. (1985) [1999]. Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. In S. Freeman (Ed.). John Rawls: Collected Papers (pp. 388–414). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rawls, J. (1997) [1999]. The idea of public reason revisited. In S. Freeman (Ed.). John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 573–615). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Scheffler, S. (2003). What is egalitarianism? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(1), 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheffler, S. (2008). Cosmopolitanism, justice, and institutions. Daedalus, Summer, 68–77.Google Scholar
  32. Singer, P. (2002). One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stone, C. (2004). Common but differentiated responsibilities in international law. American Journal of International Law, 98(2), 276–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (1992). Text of the convention. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2015.
  35. Vanderheiden, S. (2009). Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Winkler, H., & Rajamani, L. (2014). CBDR& RC in a regime applicable to all. Climate Policy, 14(1), 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations