Rectifying Climate Injustice

Laura García-Portela is an assistant professor of philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Before that, she held postdoctoral positions at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT, Germany) and the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). She has also held visiting, research, and teaching positions at University of Valencia (Spain), Keele University (UK), and University of Washington (US). She graduated in summer 2021 from the Department of Philosophy and the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Climate Change, University of Graz. Her dissertation was awarded the Luis Díez del Corral Prize from the Center of Political and Constitutional Studies in Spain (research centered attached to the Spanish Ministry of Presidency) and the Roland Atefie Preis from the Austrian Academy of Science. Her work lies at the intersection between political philosophy, philosophy of climate science, and philosophy of climate law and is published in numerous international journals.

Introduction

1. An international mechanism for loss and damage

1.1 A brief history of loss and damage

1.2 Contributing to an International Mechanism for Loss and Damage

1.3 The contested role of compensation in climate negotiations

2. A terminological note

3. Philosophical Methodology

3.1 General methodology: reflective equilibrium

3.2 Climate justice specific methodology

4. Assumptions and limitations 4.1 The scope of justice: recipients and duty-bearers of climate justice

4.2 Sufficientarianism: background theory of distributive justice

5. Summary of chapters

Chapter One: A minimal capabilities-based approach

1. Life disruptions as harm and the minimal understanding of loss and damage

2. A minimal capabilities-based account of loss and damage.

3. Answering some challenges to an ex-post categorization of L&D

4. Conceptual clarifications and types of reparation for loss and damage

4.1 The notions of ‘loss’ and ‘damage’ in loss and damage

4.2 Reparations for economic damage, non-economic losses, and non-economic damage

5. Conclusions

Chapter Two: In search for a justified rectificatory justice principle

1. Two Objections against the Polluter Pays Principle

2. The Beneficiary Pays Principle and Some Intuitive Reactions to the Objections

3. The Causation Objection and the Beneficiary Pays Principle

4. The Excusable Ignorance Objection and Fairness Considerations

4.1 A fresh look at the Excusable Ignorance Objection

4.2 Fairness Considerations, the Beneficiary Pays Principle, and Replies to Some Objections.

5. Conclusions

Chapter Three: Reasons awaiting satisfaction

1. The continuity thesis and the Continuity Account

2. The Continuity Account and the objections against the Polluter Pays Principle

3. Alternative accounts

3.1 Strict liability

3.2 Counterfactual liability

3.3 Outcome responsibility

4. Conclusions

Chapter Four: Climate Harm and Attribution Science

1. Attribution methods: the probabilistic and the storyline approach

2. The reaction and criticism of the PEA community towards the storyline approach

3. The storyline approach and the criticism of overstatement

4. On how the probabilistic approach is affected by similar objections

5. Conclusions

Chapter Five: Towards a Rectificatory Policy Mechanism for Loss and Damage

1. Towards an adequacy-for-purpose view for attribution methods

2. An adequacy-for-purpose view for rectifying climate injustice

3. Distributing liability and achieving rectificatory justice

4. The Political Feasibility Objection

4.1 Introducing and exploring the feasibility concern

4.2 Motivational and psychological aspects of the Political Feasibility Objection

5. Conclusions

Final Conclusions

Index