Climate Change, by Anda Stancu Climate Change-1 | Page 3

knowledge about what causes climate change and the extent of harm climate
change causes; (2) Some people did not know that they were causing harm with
their actions, they were excusably ignorant, meaning that it is unfair to hold
them responsible. Some other limitations regarding to this principle are (a)
emissions from past generations, meaning that the polluter no longer exists, and
the burden falls to someone else; (b) climate change not induced by human
activity, meaning that not all climate change is caused by humans (although the
majority is); (c) emissions of the disadvantaged (developing countries), meaning
that the cost falls on the developing countries, who necessarily pollute more
because of their development. (Caney, 2010). The ‘polluter pays’ principle
poses some challenges which makes us think whether this principle is justifiable
regarding the distribution of responsibilities.
Furthermore, Singer (2002) argues that emissions from the developing countries
to the atmosphere will not be equal to those of the developed countries until
approximately 2038. Today we could have not been facing the problem of
anthropogenic climate change if only the developed countries would have had
per capita emissions the same as the developing countries in the present. (p. 33).
If the ‘polluter pays’ principle is taken into account, it could be viewed as a
punishment for a crime, for example, someone harms another person, therefore,
that someone pays the price of the harm he/she has caused. The same goes for
the ‘polluter pays’ principle, meaning that if developed countries contributed
more to climate change, they should bear the burden of prevention and
adaptation. However, the challenges this principle poses with regards to many
other things considered above, it makes it hard to determine if this principle is
the just one.
III.
The Distribution of Responsibilities – ‘Ability to Pay’ Principle