In a recent paper in this journal I argued that the distribution of the burdens involved in combating climate change should be determined by a combination of a particular version of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and a particular version of the Ability to Pay Principle. Carl Knight has presented three objections to my analysis. In what follows, I argue that he largely misinterprets my arguments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Caney (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: