If Equity’s In, We’re Out”: Scope for Fairness in the Next Global Climate Agreement

Jonathan Pickering, Steve Vanderheiden, Seumas Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

At the United Nations climate change conference in 2011, parties decided to launch the “Durban Platform” to work towards a new long-term climate agreement. The decision was notable for the absence of any reference to “equity,” a prominent principle in all previous major climate agreements. Wealthy countries resisted the inclusion of equity on the grounds that the term had become too closely yoked to developing countries' favored conception of equity. This conception, according to wealthy countries, exempts developing countries from making commitments that are stringent enough for the collective effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. In circumstances where even mentioning the term equity has become problematic, a critical question is whether the possibility for a fair agreement is being squeezed out of negotiations. To address this question we set out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, accompanied by a set of minimal standards of fairness and plausible feasibility constraints for sharing the global climate change mitigation effort. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement may be reached by (1) reforming the current binary approach to differentiating developed and developing country groups, in tandem with (2) introducing a more principled approach to differentiating the mitigation commitments of individual countries. These two priorities may provide the basis for a principled bargain between developed and developing countries that safeguards the opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change without sacrificing widely acceptable conceptions of equity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423-443
Number of pages21
JournalEthics International Affairs
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

fairness
equity
climate
climate change
developing country
commitment
UNO
inclusion
Climate
Equity
Fairness
Climate Change
Developing Countries
Conception
Group
Mitigation

Cite this

@article{8af037dbf1424799806f8a04effcff4d,
title = "If Equity’s In, We’re Out”: Scope for Fairness in the Next Global Climate Agreement",
abstract = "At the United Nations climate change conference in 2011, parties decided to launch the “Durban Platform” to work towards a new long-term climate agreement. The decision was notable for the absence of any reference to “equity,” a prominent principle in all previous major climate agreements. Wealthy countries resisted the inclusion of equity on the grounds that the term had become too closely yoked to developing countries' favored conception of equity. This conception, according to wealthy countries, exempts developing countries from making commitments that are stringent enough for the collective effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. In circumstances where even mentioning the term equity has become problematic, a critical question is whether the possibility for a fair agreement is being squeezed out of negotiations. To address this question we set out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, accompanied by a set of minimal standards of fairness and plausible feasibility constraints for sharing the global climate change mitigation effort. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement may be reached by (1) reforming the current binary approach to differentiating developed and developing country groups, in tandem with (2) introducing a more principled approach to differentiating the mitigation commitments of individual countries. These two priorities may provide the basis for a principled bargain between developed and developing countries that safeguards the opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change without sacrificing widely acceptable conceptions of equity.",
author = "Jonathan Pickering and Steve Vanderheiden and Seumas Miller",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1017/So892679412000603",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "423--443",
journal = "Ethics International Affairs",
issn = "0892-6794",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

If Equity’s In, We’re Out”: Scope for Fairness in the Next Global Climate Agreement. / Pickering, Jonathan; Vanderheiden, Steve; Miller, Seumas.

In: Ethics International Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2012, p. 423-443.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - If Equity’s In, We’re Out”: Scope for Fairness in the Next Global Climate Agreement

AU - Pickering, Jonathan

AU - Vanderheiden, Steve

AU - Miller, Seumas

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - At the United Nations climate change conference in 2011, parties decided to launch the “Durban Platform” to work towards a new long-term climate agreement. The decision was notable for the absence of any reference to “equity,” a prominent principle in all previous major climate agreements. Wealthy countries resisted the inclusion of equity on the grounds that the term had become too closely yoked to developing countries' favored conception of equity. This conception, according to wealthy countries, exempts developing countries from making commitments that are stringent enough for the collective effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. In circumstances where even mentioning the term equity has become problematic, a critical question is whether the possibility for a fair agreement is being squeezed out of negotiations. To address this question we set out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, accompanied by a set of minimal standards of fairness and plausible feasibility constraints for sharing the global climate change mitigation effort. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement may be reached by (1) reforming the current binary approach to differentiating developed and developing country groups, in tandem with (2) introducing a more principled approach to differentiating the mitigation commitments of individual countries. These two priorities may provide the basis for a principled bargain between developed and developing countries that safeguards the opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change without sacrificing widely acceptable conceptions of equity.

AB - At the United Nations climate change conference in 2011, parties decided to launch the “Durban Platform” to work towards a new long-term climate agreement. The decision was notable for the absence of any reference to “equity,” a prominent principle in all previous major climate agreements. Wealthy countries resisted the inclusion of equity on the grounds that the term had become too closely yoked to developing countries' favored conception of equity. This conception, according to wealthy countries, exempts developing countries from making commitments that are stringent enough for the collective effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. In circumstances where even mentioning the term equity has become problematic, a critical question is whether the possibility for a fair agreement is being squeezed out of negotiations. To address this question we set out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, accompanied by a set of minimal standards of fairness and plausible feasibility constraints for sharing the global climate change mitigation effort. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement may be reached by (1) reforming the current binary approach to differentiating developed and developing country groups, in tandem with (2) introducing a more principled approach to differentiating the mitigation commitments of individual countries. These two priorities may provide the basis for a principled bargain between developed and developing countries that safeguards the opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change without sacrificing widely acceptable conceptions of equity.

U2 - 10.1017/So892679412000603

DO - 10.1017/So892679412000603

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 423

EP - 443

JO - Ethics International Affairs

JF - Ethics International Affairs

SN - 0892-6794

IS - 4

ER -