Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis

6Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This primarily diagnostic paper offers, from the perspective of relational egalitarianism, a normative analysis of three major injustices in the context of adaptation finance. Adaptation finance includes payments provided by the affluent countries of the Global North to low-income countries in the Global South, countries particularly exposed to the harms of climate change. Relational egalitarianism is the normative view that interactions between people and between institutions have to respect the equal moral status of every human being. The first injustice, from this perspective, consists in the sheer fact that adaptation measures are required at all to deflect harm from people who did not significantly contribute to the causes of climate change. The second injustice consists in the persisting, even increasing adaptation finance gap, as countries of the Global North do neither provide adequate financial means to reduce climate risks, nor even fulfil their commitments to adaptation finance pledged in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009. The third injustice emerges from current procedures to determine criteria for distributing scarce financial resources that consolidate structural injustice. The paper concludes by providing the contours of a practical response to these injustices that respects the demands of relational egalitarianism.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schulan, A., & Heilinger, J. C. (2024). Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-024-09932-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free