Climate Change, by Anda Stancu Climate Change-1 | Page 5

Caney’s approach to the ‘ability to pay’ principle seems quite logical and
reasonable; however, if we take into consideration what Singer (2002, p.33)
states, we might think that the ‘ability to pay’ principle is just because
developed countries undoubtedly are wealthier than the developing countries,
and in addition to that, their current per capita emissions are higher than those
of the developing. Not only I believe that the ‘ability to pay’ principle is just, I
also believe that the ‘polluter pays’ principle is as just as the latter, because
going back to what Singer (2002) states, developed countries used to emit in the
past much more per capita emissions than the developing countries are emitting
in the present, thus fitting into the ‘polluter pays’ principle.
IV.
Different Approaches - Hybrid vs. Pluralistic
As we can see from the previous arguments, a moral distribution of
responsibilities could be borne by either people who contributed to climate
change, or by the wealthiest who can afford to make a positive change to this
issue. Caney (2010) develops an alternative principle to the ‘polluter pays’ and
‘ability to pay’ principles; that is, the ‘hybrid view’. He draws two main
positive conclusions from the previous principles and comes up with the (a)
Poverty-Sensitive Polluter Pays Principle and the (b) History-Sensitive Ability
to Pay Principles. The first principle entails that the people who caused climate
change should bare the burden only if it will not worsen their standard of living;
and the second principle entails that the responsibility to pay comes to those
who obtained their wealth in an unjust manner. In order for the ‘hybrid view’ to
work, we must think of its implications, for example, other actors should be
taken in consideration as well, hence not only wealthy countries should bear the
burden, but individuals, corporations, and any wealthy body as well. (ibid).