Abstract
The aim of this perspective is to argue that carbon pricing is not unjust. Two important dimensions of justice are distributive and procedural (sometimes called “participatory”) justice. In terms of distributive justice, it is argued that carbon pricing can be made distributionally just through revenue recycling and that it should be expected that even neutral reductions in emissions will generate progressive benefits, both internationally and regionally. In terms of procedural justice, it is argued that carbon pricing is in principle compatible with any procedure; however, there is also a particular morally justifiable procedure, the Citizens’ Assembly, which has been implemented in Ireland on this precise question and has generated broad agreement on carbon pricing. It is suggested that this morally matters because such groups are like “ideal advisors” that offer morally important advice. Finally, an independent objection is offered to some ambitious alternatives to carbon pricing like Green New Deal-type frameworks, frameworks that aim to simultaneously tackle multiple social challenges. The objection is that these will take too long to work in a climate context, both to develop and to iterate.
Finally, it defends carbon pricing policies from the objection that they are insufficiently systemic changes
That sounds like the hard part. But perhaps it did not accurately represent the argument made, because it seems to have been removed from the abstract as present at that url now.
Add some paragraphs for my eyes to hold on to, I’m begging you.
So it is just a plain stupid idea then?
Why do you believe it is stupid?
Because it pretends that people in the business of selling carbon tax credits actually give a shit about making sure the carbon capture they are doing actually works. There is ZERO incentive for that and the whole idea collapses because of that shoddy foundation.
