The Earth’s climate is a global commons, and a pure public good. No one can legitimately be excluded from it, as its use and preservation are essential to human well being. After a period of stability (the ten thousand years or so of the Holocene), the atmosphere is currently changing rapidly due to anthropogenic forces — through the accumulation of greenhouse gases in particular.
To bring climate change under control, the atmosphere must be brought under some form of common governance This would require the establishment of a moral community and commitment to some form of justice. To protect the resource and to protect themselves, the parties would have to grant each other the right to a fair share, and accept enforcement of a mutually agreed limit.
The world’s system of political sovereignty is still defined by the system of nation-states, although International entities, such as the United Nations, have increased in importance since 1945. International scientific bodies, such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), established in 1988, have provided scientific information on climate change to inform negotiation of international accords such as the Kyoto Protocols (1997, ratified 2005, the Paris Agreements (2015), and subsequent COP (Congress of the Parties) meetings.
As Thomas Nagel points out, collective bodies such as these cannot be expected to uphold global forms of justice. They do not apply equally to all. They have no enforcement mechanisms, and they have an indirect relationship to individuals, mediated by the different sovereign states. (Thomas Nagel, “the Problem of Global Justice” ) International bodies such as these remain voluntary associations, without coercively imposed collective authority. Global or regional network do not have a responsibility of social justice for the combined citizenry of all the states involved, a responsibility that if it existed would have to be exercised collectively by the representatives of the member states. Rather, the aim of such institutions is to find ways in which the member states, or state-parts, can cooperate to better advance their separate aims, which will presumably include the pursuit of domestic social justice in some form. Very importantly, they rely for enforcement on the power of the separate sovereign states, not of a supranational force responsible to all.
The concept of the Anthropocene is founded in part on the recognition of human impact on the planet and the distinct possibility of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. But in the light of differences among humans, the concept of anthropos as a coherent agent or political entity has been called into question. (see agency) The rhetorical “we” of climate discourse has become suspect. Who exactly does it refer to? (see Us, We, Them) One of the most commanding themes in contemporary political thought – popular and academic – is the idea that states of emergency are being wielded by powerful actors to advance their own interests at the expense of less-resourced and more vulnerable groups
The basic science of the “greenhouse” effect was initially studied by the Swedish chemist Svante Arhenius in 1898, but it was only around the middle of the twentieth century that the increasing concentrations of GHC began to be accurately measured and documented. The Keeling Curve is the primary document of that effort, which has since been supplemented by satellite observations and developments in computer modeling.
Increasing concentrations of Greenhouse gasses (GHG), especially Carbon Dioxide, have been the primary contributing factor towards Global warming in the modern era. Their main source has been the burning of fossil fuels, that fueled the industrial revolution since the mid-eighteenth century and subsequently began to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Although much is still not accurately known about the complex systems that determine the climate, the overwhelming consensus of Earth system scientists based on their observations has made Earth Systems Science into a widely accepted mainstream “normal science” (see paradigm). Given the complexity of its behavior, along with the unpredictable non-linear effects and “tipping points” of the climate system, Climate Science remains limited in its capacities for detailed local prediction.(see Lenton, Timothy M. et al.Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system)
Charles Keeling’s measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa observatory.
The industrial revolutions and their concomitant emissions of GHG have been major sources of wealth for the developed nations (along with their colonial exploitation of natural resources). But the capacity of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere to provide a “sink” for GHG is limited, and at this point, these would not absorb the increased emissions from the developing countries if they were to industrialize to the same levels as the developed nations.
The fundamental issues in attempting to craft international agreements to reduce GHG accumulation and to mitigating their effects derive from the profound differences in emissions between the rich developed nations one one hand, and the poor developing ones on the other. (also referred to as the “global North” and “global South”. (see illustration above). (see also Us, We, Them) These differences are both historical and current, and they are neither fair nor just. Prosperous nations have reasons to want more governance on a world scale, but they do not want the increased obligations and demands for legitimacy that may follow in its wake. Evidence from recent multilateral negotiations suggests that prevailing strategies for appealing to justice and equity may exacerbate long-standing divides among developed and developing
countries.
Limiting emissions, decarbonizing economies, and mitigating damages from climate change will entail significant costs. The countries that have benefited permanently (by increased wealth and infrastructure) can be considered as having a debt to pay. Any fair-minded international negotiations need to address the principle of “the polluter pays”, and in this case, the polluters are the developed nations, and the United States in particular, although the larger developing countries like China, India, and Brazil are rapidly increasing their emissions, primarily as a result of their rapid population growth. No global agreement about climate change is possible without the United States. But prior to the Rio Summit, President George H.W Bush clearly announced that “The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period.”
How could one envision a fair climate regime? Justice might exclude historical emissions made prior to establishing the links between emissions and climate change. Although it might seem rather late, 1995 has been suggested as a date when ignorance of their causal relations could no longer be reasonably excused. That date falls in the middle of the “great acceleration”, and the total emissions from the developed countries since that time pretty much equals the entire global amount of carbon dioxide emitted prior to it.
Because very significant economic and political interests are in play, criticism of climate science has been significantly shaped by outspoken skeptics and “Merchants of Doubt,” many of them beholden to energy companies and their political allies, that have funded vast PR and disinformation efforts. These deliberate efforts to confuse and to discount the dangers of climate change have influenced public opinion, especially in the United States.
Yet a “free rider” problem remains. A fair agreement would be based in equity. Not everyone in the developing world can emit at the high rates of the North, but why should developing countries agree to restrictions that bind them to their current, much lower per capita rates or that restrict their economic growth? What is an equitable solution to this dilemma?