Should we be paying for our personal carbon emissions?
Those of us who can pay for our greenhouse gas emissions should do so, says a political philosopher. It's as easy as stealing a bike!
We all contribute to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and do so out of basic human need. So should we be individually responsible for paying the cost of this contribution to global warming? Yes, says1 a political scientist at Göteborg University in Sweden. Or rather those who can afford to pay should do so.
According to Göran Duus-Otterström,…
“We find ourselves in a situation where the environmental consequences of subsistence emissions alone may be catastrophic. In the 1990s, this fear was not relevant. The question that I have studied is whether even the right to produce subsistence emissions now needs to be qualified in various ways.”
Duus-Otterström specialises in the field of normative political theory, which deals with the making of moral judgements in political contexts. In his work on climate justice, Duus-Otterström asks whether the production of greenhouse gas emissions is morally permissible, and if those who produce them should be exempt from responsibility for the consequences of their emissions.
The idea that these things are interrelated, and we cannot be held responsible for permissible actions is, says Duus-Otterström, is a mistake, and by way of illustration he provides the following analogy...
“If I have to steal your bicycle to rush to the emergency department due to a life-threatening condition, we can all agree that this would be morally permissible, but that does not mean that I don’t owe you anything. Even though I didn't do anything wrong, I should compensate you for stealing your bicycle and for any damage inflicted when I rushed to the emergency department on your bicycle.”
Distinguishing between moral permissibility and exemption from responsibility means we are morally permitted to produce subsistence emissions, and should compensate for these emissions if we can. This raises questions about means testing and scale, and how such compensation should be managed, but the essential point stands.
Duus-Otterström again…
“It is a mistake to think that we are not responsible for our emissions just because we have to produce them. We have a duty to offset even our subsistence emissions if we can do so without jeopardising our basic needs. It would be best if emissions compensation could be managed through our final tax bill each year, but in the meantime individuals should try to offset their emissions in the private market. And of course try to reduce their luxury emissions.”
The tension between subsistence emissions and climate change is not as great as one might think.
Göran Duus-Otterström, “Subsistence Emissions and Climate Justice”, British Journal of Political Science, 1-15 (2022); doi:10.1017/S0007123422000485.