Climate Change, by Anda Stancu Climate Change-1 | Page 2

‘ability to pay’ principle. Furthermore, I will give examples of two alternative
principles regarding this issue, Caney’s ‘hybrid view’, and Knight’s ‘pluralistic
approach’; and ultimately, I will examine which principle is more just,
regarding the distribution of responsibilities. Lastly, I will conclude with the
idea that the ‘hybrid view’ is the most just approach regarding the distribution
of responsibilities for tackling climate change.
II.
The Distribution of Responsibilities – ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle
When looking at the two principles regarding the distribution of responsibilities
when it comes to tackling climate change we must determine which one is the
fairest; but first, I will explain what each one entails. These principles fall into
two categories: ‘historical’ principles and ‘time-slice’ principles (Singer, 2002,
p. 26). The ‘polluter pays’ principle falls into the ‘historical’ principle, meaning
that in order to determine what is just or unjust, one must look at its history, in
order to see how the situation came about. Contrary to the previous principle,
the ‘ability to pay’ principle falls into the ‘time-slice’ principle, meaning that in
order to determine the fairness of the distribution, one must look at the current
situation, regardless of the past actions. (ibid, p. 27).
The ‘polluter pays’ principle entails that whoever is responsible for polluting,
thus contributing to climate change, for example, by using a large amount of
fossil fuel, releasing radioactive waste, or deforestation, has a moral duty to
bear the burden of the costs and to dealing with mitigation and adaptation
actions. (Caney, 2010). However, Caney (2010) finds some challenges with this
principle: (1) The harm caused by climate change is very difficult to estimate,
therefore, in order to adopt the ‘polluter pays’ principle there needs to be