It is evident that the environment is experiencing immense consequences from the impact of pollution. One of the most challenging issues related to the degradation of the environment owing to pollution is the phenomenon of climate change. Climate change explains the adverse effects of environmental degradation and pollution is the principal cause of this life-threatening phenomenon. Despite the remarkable progress achieved in combating environmental pollution through environmental policy approaches, there is a need for climate justice in which the polluter will be held responsible for the damage caused to the environment.
In theory, this is the approach of the so-called Polluter Pays Principle. This approach appears relevant in addressing issues related to environmentally-mediated to humans. Despite the endless debate on issues of morality and justice, especially in America, the tenets of climate justice should be upheld by enforcing environmental policies that require the polluter to pay.
Therefore, this argumentative essay will present an array of aspects that explain why the polluter should pay. It will discuss property rights, economic efficiency, tradable permits, and provide the means on how polluters can pay.
At a glance
- Grade: 1.3 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Examines BP pollution cases involving its Ohio refinery and US refineries
- Discusses tradable permits, excise taxes and market-based incentives as payment approaches
- 14 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
The document does not contain a table of contents.
Objective and Topics
This argumentative essay examines why polluters should bear the costs of environmental harm and how the polluter-pays principle can support climate justice. It considers the principle through property rights, personal responsibility, economic efficiency and approaches to payment.
- Climate justice and environmental liability
- Property rights and compensation for harm
- Personal responsibility, justice and liberty
- Economic efficiency and environmental policy
- Tradable permits, excise taxes and market-based incentives
- BP pollution cases in the United States
Excerpt from the Book
Climate Justice through the Polluter-Pays Principle
One of the reasons the polluter should pay for the damages caused to the environment and other people is that, fundamental rights, including property rights do not permit people to cause harm to others. According to legal justice, a person must give consent to virtually all acts done to him by others including the use of their property. In practice, “no one has the right to harm another person or property of others or even to make use of other people’s property without their permission” (Cordato 2001, p. 9). In reality, polluters cause devastating damage to the health of other people. Interestingly, polluters reap economic benefits from the processes that cause pollution. On the other hand, the victim, in this case other people and the environment bears the harm (Moss 2009). According to the ordinary justice law, a person who incurs the harm is usually compensated for the damage caused in which the damage is expressed in monetary value. The monetary value is considered as a cost paid by the person who causes the damage, and this is believed to be a basic appeal to fair play and sense of justice. Cordato (2001, p. 9) observes “It is a simple extension of the idea that people should be held accountable for their actions, and if one person does harm to another, then compensation is in order.” Therefore, demanding forcing the polluters to pay appears to be consistent with the eternal verities of moral justice. This is so because; polluters will provide full restitution for other people’s suffering owing to the consequences of the harmful effects of pollutants.
However, it is worth noting that the argument of the opponents to the polluter pays principle that identifying who is the polluter and the harmed present’s ambiguity does not have grounds in the basic environmental policy. In the new approach to climate justice, it is evident that the environmental policy is consistent with personal and property rights. As such, these principles justify the approach by environmental policy that demands the polluter to pay. Cordato (2001, p. 9) refutes the aspect of ambiguities related to the identification of the polluter by stating “in that context, ambiguities about what kinds of emissions or by-products of production processes should be characterized as pollution, who should be identified as a polluter, and what the polluter should pay and to whom are greatly reduced.”
Chapter Summary
The essay has no separately titled chapters. It introduces the polluter-pays principle, develops arguments based on rights, justice and economic efficiency, and discusses payment approaches and BP cases before concluding.
Keywords
climate justice, polluter-pays principle, environmental liability, property rights, compensation, personal responsibility, economic efficiency, environmental policy, tradable permits, excise taxes, market-based incentives, Kyoto Protocol, BP
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the essay about?
It argues that polluters should bear the costs of harm caused to people and the environment.
What are its central themes?
Its themes include climate justice, property rights, personal responsibility, economic efficiency and ways of making polluters pay.
What is the essay’s primary objective?
It aims to explain why polluters should pay for environmental damage and to discuss how payment might be implemented.
What research method does the author use?
The author presents an argumentative essay supported by cited literature and examples; the document does not describe original empirical research.
What does the main discussion cover?
It considers compensation and rights, justice and liberty, economic efficiency, payment mechanisms and examples involving BP.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include climate justice, the polluter-pays principle, environmental liability, property rights, economic efficiency and tradable permits.
Which payment approaches does the essay discuss?
It discusses tradable permits, excise taxes and market-based incentives as approaches through which polluters can pay.
How does the essay use the Kyoto Protocol?
It connects the protocol to the polluter-pays principle and discusses tradable permits in that context.
What example involving BP does the author include?
The essay discusses pollution cases involving BP’s Ohio refinery and its US refineries.
- Quote paper
- Patrick Kimuyu (Author), 2018, Climate Justice through the Polluter-Pays Principle, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/413653
