Rectifying Climate Injustice

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

2 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 Conclusion

3 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 Conclusion

4 Reasons awaiting satisfaction

1 The continuity thesis and the continuity account

2 The continuity account and some objections against the polluter pays principle

3 Alternative accounts

3.1 Strict liability

3.2 Counterfactual liability

3.3 Outcome responsibility

4 Conclusion

5 Climate harm and attribution science

1 Attribution methods: the probabilistic and the storyline approach

2 The reaction and criticism of the PEA community toward the storyline approach

3 The storyline approach and the criticism of overstatement

4 On how the probabilistic approach is affected by similar objections

5 Conclusion

6 Toward a rectificatory policy mechanism for loss and damage

1 Toward 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 Conclusion

Final conclusions