Advertisement

Global Climate Justice

Chapter

Abstract

Based on the optimal temperatures for the agriculture, industry and service sectors productivity as well as climate projections of the year 2100 under the business as usual path per country, this chapter reveals for the very first time climate winners and losers around the world from now on until the year 2100. Overall and simply seen from a narrow-minded GDP perspective, the world will macroeconomically benefit more from climate change until 2100 than lose. Winning and losing from a warming earth is significantly positively correlated with the Paris COP 21 emissions country percentage of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) for ratification. The chapter concludes with introducing the climatorial imperative—advocating for the need for fairness in the distribution of the global earth benefits among nations based on Kant’s imperative to only engage in actions one wants to experience themselves being done to oneself. While the method to measure the gains from climate change can certainly be refined in future studies, the following research is meant as very first preliminary step to open a gate to find climate mitigation incentives from a welfare redistribution perspective.

References

  1. Allais, M. (1947). Economie et intérét. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, P. T. (1957). Economic analysis and policy in underdeveloped countries. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bürgenmeier, B. (1994). Environmental policy: Beyond the economic dimension. In B. Bürgenmeier (Ed.), Economy, environment, and technology: A socio-economic approach (pp. 166–175). New York: Armonk Sharpe.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M., & Miguel, E. (2015). Climate and conflict. Annual Review of Economics, 7, 577–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centeno, M. A., Creager, A. N., Elga, A., Felton, E., Katz, St. N., Massey, W. A., et al. (2013). Global systemic risk: Proposal for a research community. Working paper. Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  6. Centeno, M. A., & Tham, A. (2012). The emergence of risk in the global system. Working paper. Princeton University.Google Scholar
  7. Chancel, L., & Piketty, T. (2015). Carbon and inequality: From Kyoto to Paris. Paris, France: Paris School of Economics.Google Scholar
  8. Downs, J. (2008). Discovery of Rosetta: The stone that unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egypt. London: Constable & Robinson.Google Scholar
  9. Ferreira, V. (2017). Climate induced migration: Legal challenges. In J. M. Puaschunder (Ed.), Intergenerational responsibility in the 21st century (pp. 107–121). Wilmington: Vernon.Google Scholar
  10. Flaherty, M., Gevorkyan, A., Radpour, S., & Semmler, W. (2016). Financing climate policies through climate bonds. New York: The Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. Unpublished Working paper #3. Forthcoming: Research in International Business and Finance.Google Scholar
  11. Harrod, R. F. (1948). Towards a dynamic economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kant, I. (1785/1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
  14. Klaassen, G. A. J., & Opschoor, J. B. (1991). Economics of sustainability or the sustainability of economics: Different paradigms. Ecological Economics, 4, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marron, D. B., & Morris, A. C. (2016). How to use carbon tax revenues. Washington, DC: Tax Policy Center Urban Institute & Brookings Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Mapping the global commons: The economics of climate change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nordhaus, W. D. (2008). A question of balance: Weighting the options on global warming. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B. C., Webster, M., & Agrawal, S. (2011). Climate change: The limits of consensus. Science, 317(5844), 1505–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical Letter Laudato Si of the Holy Father Francis on care for our common home. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf
  20. Puaschunder, J. M. (2016a). Intergenerational climate change burden sharing: An economics of climate stability research agenda proposal. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Economics and Commerce, 16(3), 31–38.Google Scholar
  21. Puaschunder, J. M. (2016b). Mapping climate justice. In Proceedings of the 2016 Young Scientists Summer Program Conference, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  22. Puaschunder, J. M. (2016c). On eternal equity in the fin-de-millénaire: Rethinking capitalism for intergenerational justice. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 13(2), 11–24.Google Scholar
  23. Puaschunder, J. M. (2016d). The call for global responsible intergenerational leadership in the corporate world: The quest for an integration of intergenerational equity in contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) models. In D. Jamali (Ed.), Comparative perspectives in global corporate social responsibility (pp. 275–288). Hershey: IGI Global Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage Book Series.Google Scholar
  24. Puaschunder, J. M. (2017). Macroeconomic approach towards climate justice: The fair distribution of climate change gains and losses in the United States, Europe and the World. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2939007
  25. Ramsey, F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal, 38(152), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rovenskaya, E. (2008). Optimal economic growth under stochastic environmental impact: Sensitivity analysis. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Interim Report. Laxenburg, Austria, January.Google Scholar
  28. Russell, J. A. (1957). Industrial operations under extremes of weather (Meteorological Monographs). American Meteorological Society.Google Scholar
  29. Sachs, J. D. (2014). Climate change and intergenerational well-being. In L. Bernard & W. Semmler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the macroeconomics of global warming (pp. 248–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Somanathan, E., Somanathan, R., Sudarshan, A., & Tewari, M. (2014). The impact of temperature on productivity and labor supply: Evidence from Indian manufacturing. Discussion Paper in Economics 14–10. Indian Statistical Institute, Economics and Planning Unit.Google Scholar
  31. The World Bank. (2015). Green bonds attract private sector climate finance, World Bank Brief.Google Scholar
  32. The World Economic Forum Report. (2015). Davos, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The New School & Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations