There is general consensus among the philosophical and international political communities that developed nations should bear the bulk if not the entirety of the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, whereas developing countries ought to pay comparatively less if anything. However, there is substantial philosophical disagreement about the details. Are the historic emissions (i.e. those emissions from 1750-1970) of developing countries morally significant? What is the basis of this difference in moral responsibility between developed countries and developing countries – is it because developed countries have polluted more? – is it because developed countries have greater ability to pay? – something else? Also, there is disagreement as to who, exactly has this greater obligation – is it a collective obligation (the nation as a whole), or does the obligation belong to individuals in the developed world? In an essay of approximately 200 words, give an argument about the above that you find to be the most plausible. The argument need not and should not solely be your own – draw on ideas from Stephen Gardiner and Simon Caney in justifying your view, but do more than merely summarize their arguments and do not rely on excessive quotations (but do cite when using others’ ideas); argue for what you think is most correct.
Use Stephen Gardiner and Simon Caney as sources.
No plagiarism!!!