Abstract
Global climate change from the perspective of ethics is defined by many scholars as the biggest problem of distributive justice encountering the world. Governments construe the notion of justice in terms of their political positions or national interests in the climate negotiations. Because the burden sharing agreed in the Kyoto Protocol is unsatisfactory for almost every country in terms of justice, it seems that just distribution of costs and benefits of climate change is one of the most important matters of discussion in the post-Kyoto climate negotiations. This study aims to analyze climate change as a problem of distributive justice. The analysis focus on three dimensions of distributive justice; the recipients of distribution (developed countries, developing countries, present generations, future generations, companies, individuals etc.), the item of distribution (atmosphere, emission rights, trust of future generations to the present generation, costs of mitigation or adaptation), and the process of distribution (fair decision making processes in global climate change regime etc.).The study concludes that it is extremely difficult to reach an agreement based on principles of distributive justice in the post-Kyoto climate negotiations because application of different justice principles leads to different outcomes for the Parties.
References
- Adger, W. N. (2001), “Scales of Governance and Environmental Justice for Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change”, Journal of International Development, 13(7), 921-931.
- Arıkan, Y. (2006), Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi ve Kyoto Protokolü Metinler ve Temel Bilgiler, Bölgesel Çevre Merkezi REC-Türkiye, http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/Files/REC_unfccc.pdf, (Erişim: 08.02.2013).
- Ashton, J. and X. Wang (2003), “Equity and Climate Change”, Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort against Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://www.researchsalons.crcresearch.org/filescrcresearch/File/301_1074798164.pdf, (Erişim: 08.02.2013).
- Bachram, H. (2004), “Climate Fraud and Carbon Colonialism: The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(4), 1-16.
- Baer, P. (2002), “Equity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Global Common Resources”, Ed. S. H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, and J. Niles, Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 393-408.
- Berk, M. M. and M. G. J. den Elzen (2001),“Options for Differentiation of Future Commitments in Climate Policy: How to Realise Timely Participation to Meet Stringent Climate Goals?”, Climate Policy, 1(4), 465-480.
- Bode, S. (2004), “Equal Emissions Per Capita Over Time – A Proposal to Combine Responsibility and Equity of Rights for Post-2012 GHG Emission Entitlement Allocation”, European Environment, 14(5), 300-316.
- Byrne, J. (2005), “Ellul and the Weather”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 25(1), 4-16.
- Byrne, J., C. Martinez, and L. Glover (2002), “A Brief in Environmental Justice”, Ed. John Byrne, Cecilia Martinez and Leigh Glover, Environmental Justice: Discourses in International Political Economy, Volume 8 Energy and Environmental Policy Series. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers, 3-17.
- Commission of the European Communities (2009), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen, Brussels, 28.01.2009, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0039:FIN:EN:PDF, (Erişim: 002013).
- DeSombre, E. R. (2004), Response to the Global Warming Tragedy Global Warming: More Common than Tragic”, Ethics and International Affairs, 18(1), 41-46.
Abstract
Etik açıdan küresel iklim değişikliği, birçok bilim insanı tarafından dünyanın karşı karşıya olduğu en büyük dağıtıcı adalet (tevzi-i adalet) sorunu olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Devletler, iklim müzakerelerinde “adalet” kavramını kendi siyasal konumlarına veya ulusal çıkarlarına göre yorumlamaktadır. Kyoto Protokolü ile ulaşılan yük dağılımı adalet açısından neredeyse hiçbir ülkeyi tatmin etmediği için iklim değişikliğinin fayda ve maliyetlerinin adil dağılımı, Kyoto sonrası iklim müzakerelerinin en önemli tartışma konularından birini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada küresel iklim değişikliğinin dağıtıcı adalet sorunu olarak analiz edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu analiz, dağıtıcı adaletin üç boyutu üzerinde durmaktadır: Aralarında dağıtım yapılanlar (gelişmiş ülkeler, gelişmekte olan ülkeler, bugünkü nesiller, gelecek nesiller, bireyler, şirketler vs.), dağıtılanlar (atmosfer, emisyon hakları, gelecek nesillerin bugünkü nesillere emaneti, emisyon azaltım veya adaptasyon maliyeti vs.) ve dağıtım süreci (küresel iklim değişikliği rejiminde adil karar alma süreçleri vs.). Çalışmada Kyoto sonrası iklim müzakerelerinde dağıtıcı adalet ilkelerine dayalı bir anlaşmaya ulaşmanın son derece zor olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Zira farklı adalet ilkelerinin uygulanması taraflar için farklı sonuçlar doğurmaktadır.
Keywords
İklim Değişikliği Dağıtıcı Adalet İklim Adaleti İklim Adaletsizliği Yük Paylaşımı. Climate Change and Distributive Justice
References
- Adger, W. N. (2001), “Scales of Governance and Environmental Justice for Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change”, Journal of International Development, 13(7), 921-931.
- Arıkan, Y. (2006), Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi ve Kyoto Protokolü Metinler ve Temel Bilgiler, Bölgesel Çevre Merkezi REC-Türkiye, http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/Files/REC_unfccc.pdf, (Erişim: 08.02.2013).
- Ashton, J. and X. Wang (2003), “Equity and Climate Change”, Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort against Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://www.researchsalons.crcresearch.org/filescrcresearch/File/301_1074798164.pdf, (Erişim: 08.02.2013).
- Bachram, H. (2004), “Climate Fraud and Carbon Colonialism: The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(4), 1-16.
- Baer, P. (2002), “Equity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Global Common Resources”, Ed. S. H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz, and J. Niles, Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 393-408.
- Berk, M. M. and M. G. J. den Elzen (2001),“Options for Differentiation of Future Commitments in Climate Policy: How to Realise Timely Participation to Meet Stringent Climate Goals?”, Climate Policy, 1(4), 465-480.
- Bode, S. (2004), “Equal Emissions Per Capita Over Time – A Proposal to Combine Responsibility and Equity of Rights for Post-2012 GHG Emission Entitlement Allocation”, European Environment, 14(5), 300-316.
- Byrne, J. (2005), “Ellul and the Weather”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 25(1), 4-16.
- Byrne, J., C. Martinez, and L. Glover (2002), “A Brief in Environmental Justice”, Ed. John Byrne, Cecilia Martinez and Leigh Glover, Environmental Justice: Discourses in International Political Economy, Volume 8 Energy and Environmental Policy Series. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers, 3-17.
- Commission of the European Communities (2009), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen, Brussels, 28.01.2009, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0039:FIN:EN:PDF, (Erişim: 002013).
- DeSombre, E. R. (2004), Response to the Global Warming Tragedy Global Warming: More Common than Tragic”, Ethics and International Affairs, 18(1), 41-46.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | June 1, 2013 |
| Submission Date | November 2, 2014 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2013 Volume: 8 Issue: 2 |