MICH: Acceptable Pollution and Unacceptable Pollution: Do burdened societies owe strong climate obligations to their citizens?

Thierry N’gosso (Saint-Gallen)
Shue claims that there is a clear distinction between subsistence and luxury emissions. In consequence, rich countries should bear the essential part of the burdens costs and should assist poor countries that should bear little if not none. I take issue with both claims. First, the subsistence/luxury emissions distinction becomes unclear if interpreted as acceptable/unacceptable pollution. Drawing the line between acceptable/unacceptable pollution belongs to citizens within political communities. These communities are ideologically highly divided on which trade-off are the best between climate constraints and other valuable interests. If some people may suffer harmful situations in absence of strong climate mitigation policies, others may do so in absence of strong job protection policies. Only citizens within political communities can therefore draw that line which will necessarily fluctuate and the necessity to find always compromises between several moral constrains will make it harder to implement climate justice. Second, the exemption of poor countries or more broadly burdened societies from strong climate obligation is not justified either if the subsistence/luxury emissions distinction is interpreted as a distinction between unavoidable and avoidable pollution. This second interpretation allows taking seriously the moral distinction between rich and poor countries that Shue highlights without downplaying the fact that there are some emissions poor countries or burdened societies can still and should avoid by rejecting for example a climate destructive model of growth and development. Moreover, it allows the moral responsibility of individual persons as well as individual entities (states, firms, organizations) to play out more robustly.