WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: rights-approach-in-climate-ethics, there is a "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 42) "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42), Stern argues here against the right to emit "some very small amount of GHGs," but NOT against the much stronger "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations" which, therefore, is NOT defeated. note "Rights are of great importance in ethics but they should be argued rather than merely asserted.", if there is a "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations," and if we have "shared responsibilities in a common world," then "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42) therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 42) "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42), "It is not clear why a common humanity in a shared world automatically implies that there are equal rights to emit GHGs (however low)." (42) questions (Stern) if there is a "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations," and if we have "shared responsibilities in a common world," then "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42), if the "poluter pays" principle "were applied to climate change, it would place at least a moral, if not a legal, responsibility on those groups or nations whose past consumption has led to climate change" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 42) we should "place at least a moral, if not a legal, responsibility on those groups or nations whose past consumption has led to climate change", if everyone has a right to protection from harm done by others, then "future generations have the right to enjoy a world whose climate has not been transformed in a way that makes human life much more difficult" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41-42, interpreted) "future generations have the right to enjoy a world whose climate has not been transformed in a way that makes human life much more difficult" (42), if everyone has a right to protection from harm done by others, then there is "legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41) there is "legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others", "this right, whilst it might seem natural to some, is ... merely asserted" questions (Stern) if there is a "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations," and if we have "shared responsibilities in a common world," then "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42), it would be better to qualify this conclusion: we have a right to emit only as far as we do not violate the right to climate protection of others friendly amendment "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42), this is absolutely right. There is no way that a "right to pollute" can be derived from a right to protection from harm. But this is not a counter- argument against the right to climate security of future generations and across the world. comments on "It is not clear why a common humanity in a shared world automatically implies that there are equal rights to emit GHGs (however low)." (42), everyone has a right to protection from harm done by others therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41) there is "legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others", "This is often applied whether or not the individual or firm was knowingly doing harm. A clear example is asbestos, whose use was not prohibited when it was placed in buildings with the worthy purpose of protecting against the spread of fire. Never- theless insurance companies are still today paying large sums as compensation for its consequences. supports if there is "legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others," then we should accept the "polluter pays" principle, if there is "legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others," then we should accept the "polluter pays" principle therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41, interpreted) we should accept the "polluter pays" principle, everyone has a right to protection from harm done by others therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41-42, interpreted) "future generations have the right to enjoy a world whose climate has not been transformed in a way that makes human life much more difficult" (42), there is a "right to climate protection or climate security of future generations" note this principle is "related" to the right of future generations "to a standard of living no lower than the current one." (42), Stern discusses this as part of an ethical argumentation, but this is a purely political argument objects such a proposition is not "likely to gain the approval necessary for it to be widely adopted", if everyone has a right to protection from harm done by others, then "current generations across the world have the right to be protected from environmental damage inflicted by the consumption and production patterns of others" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 41-42, interpreted) "current generations across the world have the right to be protected from environmental damage inflicted by the consumption and production patterns of others" (42), Key and LAM conventions see click on the small icon under this text box, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (UN, UDHR, Art.3) supports Everyone has the right to life and a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, we have "shared respon- sibilities in a common world" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Stern 2006c, 42) "collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level without incurring the duty to compensate." (42)