Review and Comments
One World: The Ethics of Globalization
A book* of Prof. Peter Singer, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.,
U.S.A.
Reviewer: John Burton
(061208)
In this book, Prof. Peter Singer has a chapter, "One Atmosphere," in
which he discusses
how principles of fairness could be applied to solving the problem of
global warming.
The following applies only to what he says in this chapter.
Singer starts by saying that both September 11th and the CO2
emissions from gas guzzling
SUVs are indicators of how we are now one world. The climate change
to which SUVs
contribute will almost certainly kill far more people than will be
killed by terrorists.
In evaluating actions to avert climate change, the first principle
should be one based on
the past record of each country, commonly called "the polluter pays."
This is the
principle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been using in
clearing up
polluter sites in the U.S. A clean (non-warming) atmosphere is a
heritage shared by all
humans. Since today nearly all of the greenhouse gases (the
pollutants) have been put in
the atmosphere by the people of the industrial nations, it is clear
that by this principle it is
their responsibility to put an end to excess greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
Under a second principle, the principle of equal rights, the people
in the developing
nations can increase their emissions until their total amount emitted
as calculated on a per
person basis equals the amount that has been emitted by the people in
the industrial world.
We in the current and the coming generations in the industrial world
would be in effect
paying for what our past generations have done. Singer suggests one
modification of this
principle. Since it was not known until about 1990 that greenhouse
gases were a danger,
we might in the above balance be held responsible for only what we
have emitted since
that date.
A principle of justice would be based, not on the past record, but on
what represents
justice to present and future generations. We then could say every
human has the right to
emit equal amounts (Singer estimates about one ton) of carbon dioxide
equivalent per
year. Under this formula, Americans would need to reduce their
emissions to one-fifth of
the present level, while those in India could increase their emission
to five times their
present level. While applying this principle looks to be a handicap
for the industrial
nations, we should note that it is much less burdensome than using
the historical "polluter
pays" principle.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol targets on greenhouse gas emissions were set
by negotiations
among government leaders and are not defensible on any of the above
principles of
fairness. The provisions in the Kyoto Protocol resulted from the need
to get the
agreement of governments. One objection that the U.S. had to this
Protocol was that it
2
required no participation by the developing countries, but it was
understood that these
developing nations will have some binding restrictions after the
industrial nations have
made progress in reducing their emissions.
Singer proposes a means of giving every country an incentive to
reduce its emissions as
much as possible and a plan that would also be in line with
principles of fairness and
justice. The basis for this is to accept a principle that each nation
has the right to emit
CO2 in proportion to its population.
Each country would receive an emission permit in tons of CO2 per year
based on the
number of people the U.N. projects it will have by 2050. This would
be a tradable permit
system. Under this system, developing nations would be below their
quotas and would
sell permits to the industrial nations. Developing nations would thus
realize financial gain
while the industrial nations, who would be buying permits, could
avoid the very deep cuts
that equality would require. A tradable permit system in a different
form is allowed in the
Kyoto Protocol and is somewhat similar to the U.S. tradable permits
to emit sulfur
dioxide that are bought and sold among U.S. utilities.
Thus every nation would have a proper economic incentive. The
developing ones have an
incentive to minimize the amount of their emissions and thus increase
the tons of GHGs
they have to trade. Wealthy countries have an economic incentive to
reduce the amount
of emissions above their quota.
Establishment of national quotas based on projected population also
gives nations
incentives to limit population growth, an objective that is desirable
for other reasons. And
receiving funds for being under their emission quotas would be
helpful in reducing
poverty in many countries.
In order to be certain that corrupt governments in developing
countries do not squander
funds received for selling emission permits, these sales would be
monitored by an
international authority answerable to the U.N.
Reviewer's comments:
It is increasingly accepted these days that the wealthy nations
should make more of an
effort to reduce poverty in the developing ones. Singer's proposal
would be an effective
way of accomplishing this and it would be seen, not as welfare, but
as a fair and just
program, so it would be more acceptable to the public than our usual
type of foreign aid.
The recent Stern Review has a short discussion of the "polluter pays"
principle and of
moral responsibilities. It questions the concept of everyone having
equal rights for
emissions. It ends the discussion by saying of equal rights for
emissions, "action on
climate change requires international agreement and this is not a
proposition likely to
gain the approval necessary for it to be widely accepted."
3
Of course there would be difficulty in measuring net emissions of the
developing
countries, but in accepting Kyoto the participating countries have
accepted a belief that
they can manage this problem. It is fortunate that by far the
greatest emissions come from
the use of fossil fuels and national consumption of fossil fuels is
already measured. The
difficulty would be in measuring changes in absorption or emissions
from forests and
soils.
Singer recognizes the potential problem of a corrupt government in
the developing
countries not using such income in a manner good for the welfare of
the people. His
remedy is to have an international authority hold these payments in
trust until the
situation is corrected. I note that recently this problem is getting
international
recognition in connection with the payments that foreign oil
companies make to countries
that have petroleum. This is an effort to require accountability as
to how these funds are
spent.
*One World: The Ethics of Globalization was published in 2002 by Yale
University Press
with offices in New Haven and London, 272 pp., US$14.