A Justified Move: Defending the Beneficiary Pays Principle
Santiago Truccone
What the paper says
Laura García-Portela argues that shifting from the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) to the Beneficiary Pays Principle (BPP) in order to rectify climate injustice is unjustified if based solely on the latter’s ability to address the causation and excusable ignorance objections more effectively. She contends that defenders of the BPP must demonstrate that the benefits used to address losses and damages originate from the same source as the harms to be rectified. However, she deems this requirement unwarranted due to the difficulty of linking climate change to specific extreme weather events. Furthermore, she asserts that the excusable ignorance objection relates to the fairness of imposing unforeseen burdens on agents who emitted without knowledge of future responsibilities. Consequently, the BPP must address this issue in a manner similar to the PPP. Based on her insights, this paper argues that a shift to the BPP is nevertheless justified, especially if the Climate Enrichment Principle is adopted.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.