|Norgaard I 330
Emissions/United States/Shue: (…) if the US has caps on its emissions and other countries with which it competes economically do not, its industries and thus the country as a whole will be unfairly harmed. The counter‐argument depends on a different assessment of the background conditions. In particular, the underlying rationale for the entire UNFCCC framework of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities,’ reflected in the Kyoto Protocol and other aspects of the convention, is that the extent of poverty in developing countries justifies exempting them from emissions reduction obligations that might reduce their rate of economic growth. Moreover, (…) it is hard to ethically justify the complete (prior to 2009 in any case) refusal of the US to reduce its emissions (Brown 2002(1); Shue 1994(2)).
1. Brown, D. A. 2002. American Heat: Ethical Problems with the United States' Response to Global Warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
2. Shue, H. 1994. After you: May action by the rich be contingent on action by the poor? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 1: 343–66.
Baer, Paul: “International Justice”, In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.) (2011): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
John S. Dryzek
The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford 2011