On the Alleged Insufficiency of the Polluter Pays Principle

Several theorists of climate change justice have argued that the polluter-pays principle fails to assign duties that, if fulfilled, would be sufficient to prevent or compensate for all climate change-induced harm to persons. This paper contends that their argument for this claim rests on a faulty account of how the costs of rectifying a collectively-caused harm or threat of harm should be allocated among agents who have incurred duties of corrective justice to bear these costs. Given a more plausible account of how these costs should be allocated, it is likely that the polluter-pays principle does in fact assign duties that, if fulfilled, would be sufficient to prevent or compensate for all climate change-induced harm to persons.

Recent Case Law of The Romanian Courts of Law And The European Court of Justice Related To The Objective Environmental Liability

Although the economic interests have played a major political role in the recent period, in a number of litigations the courts applied the “polluter pays” principle and rendered favorably judgments to the claimants which suffered a damage caused by pollution. In this respect, it is worth analyzing the case law of the European Court of Justice which has recently provided the presumption of liability for pollution of the operators which operates installations on land adjacent to a polluted area. As the Romanian case law is concerned, given the novelty of the framework of an objective environmental liability and the low number of cases related to this issue, it is to be developed a constant jurisprudence as the decision rendered by the Romanian Court of Appeal as of March 9, 2009, which forced a polluter to remedy totally and in kind the damage caused to an individual’s house.

The Just Allocation of Climate Burdens

<p>Human-induced climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people. Preventing the worst effects of climate change and compensating those who will suffer are tasks that should be taken up by individuals, firms and states, tasks that constitute a burden. In this thesis I suggest the use of particular principles for justly allocating this "climate burden". I first defend my use of an orthodox ethical approach from Dale Jamieson’s challenge that the ethics of climate change must be revisionary. I also reply to Luc Bovens’ Lockean argument that a history of high emitting justifies giving past polluters more rights to emit. Then, I propose a two-track theory under which the climate burden is divided in two. These two different parts are allocated by a contribution-based "polluter pays" principle and by an "ability to pay" principle. The "fault burden" is the burden from greenhouse gas emissions produced since it became reasonable to suppose that such emissions were harmful, except for the emissions from the very poor, which are not included. The fault burden should be allocated to those who have contributed to it, in proportion to their contribution. The "no fault burden" is the remaining portion. The no-fault burden should be allocated by an "ability to pay" principle which requires all parties (except for the very poor) to shoulder burdens that constitute an equal drop in whatever goods we deem most relevant. Finally I defend the two track theory from the claim that a "beneficiary pays" principle better allocates the burden caused by past emissions.</p>

The Just Allocation of Climate Burdens

<p>Human-induced climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people. Preventing the worst effects of climate change and compensating those who will suffer are tasks that should be taken up by individuals, firms and states, tasks that constitute a burden. In this thesis I suggest the use of particular principles for justly allocating this "climate burden". I first defend my use of an orthodox ethical approach from Dale Jamieson’s challenge that the ethics of climate change must be revisionary. I also reply to Luc Bovens’ Lockean argument that a history of high emitting justifies giving past polluters more rights to emit. Then, I propose a two-track theory under which the climate burden is divided in two. These two different parts are allocated by a contribution-based "polluter pays" principle and by an "ability to pay" principle. The "fault burden" is the burden from greenhouse gas emissions produced since it became reasonable to suppose that such emissions were harmful, except for the emissions from the very poor, which are not included. The fault burden should be allocated to those who have contributed to it, in proportion to their contribution. The "no fault burden" is the remaining portion. The no-fault burden should be allocated by an "ability to pay" principle which requires all parties (except for the very poor) to shoulder burdens that constitute an equal drop in whatever goods we deem most relevant. Finally I defend the two track theory from the claim that a "beneficiary pays" principle better allocates the burden caused by past emissions.</p>

Development of Contract Archaeology in Southern Africa

Contract archaeology (CA) is a relatively new concept in world archaeology. It first became prominent in the United States five decades ago and in southern Africa four decades ago. Many archaeologists in the region are employed as contract archaeologists. CA has contributed significantly to the development of archaeological methods and techniques and, to a lesser extent, theory. The development of CA in southern Africa experienced an important transition five decades ago. Despite the progression of CA in the region, the quality and standards of reports are major problems. CA structures have to be developed in order to protect cultural heritage from destructive projects. The elaboration of a relevant and active CA program that engages stakeholders is also vital. The future of CA depends on several factors, including strong legislative frameworks and policies that make pre-development studies mandatory, funding of projects, public consultations, and protection of cultural resources. In addition to implementing several cultural heritage structures, the “polluter pays” principle should be reinforced to safeguard southern African cultural heritage. It is important to develop CA statutes that move beyond archaeological studies, pay attention to heritage, and stress intangible heritage.

Examining the Carbon Trading Potential in Nigerian Oil Fields

Nigeria holds reserves circa 200 TCF of gas, the largest gas reserve in Africa. With this comes the challenge of managing the environmental impacts of flaring associated with oil production. The Federal Government of Nigeria in recognition of the urgency to address the growing environmental concerns attending gas flaring in Nigeria and response to its commitment made further to the endorsement of UNFCC's Paris Agreement and the Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative by the World Bank declared a national flare out target of 2020. In 2016, the Federal Executive Council approved the implementation of the Nigerian Gas Flare Commercialization Programme (NGFCP) which was the flagship programme for the implementation of the Government's flare-out policy. The programme seeks to, via a competitive and transparent bid process, grant the right to access the gas at the flare-stack. The issues of relevance to this study include – The development and subsequent enactment of new regulations guiding the treatment of flare gas in Nigerian oilfields – The regulations implemented a new flare payment regime adopting the polluter pays principle which internalized to a significant extent the environmental cost of flaring thereby motivating a behavioral change by operators. Also, the recognition of the carbon benefits that will follow the implementation of projects under the NGFCP and the stance of the government that any such benefits will be vested in the state. This study examines the carbon trading potentials of flare gas in Nigeria. This is key because players in the sector now seek all revenue opportunities that accrue to the implementation of flare down/ out project. In doing so, Carbon benefits now feature among potential revenue streams. This study models several composition scenarios to quantify the extent (if any) of any such benefits. The study also examines gas use cases and their carbon sequestration potentials to create a realistic band estimating the carbon benefits that will emanate from all use scenarios.

PENERAPAN PRINSIP PENCEMAR MEMBAYAR DALAM PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PENCEMARAN LIMBAH B3 OLEH PT. PRIA MOJOKERTO (Implementation Polluter Pays Principle of B3 Waste Pollution Responsibility by PT. PRIA Mojokerto)

Environmental pollution carried out by economic actors in the economic process needs to be borne by the economic actors who pollute, namely responsibility for the restoration of a polluted environment. PT PRIA as a B3 waste management company that has carried out landfilling which has caused environmental pollution is obliged to provide an accountability for the impacts that have been caused. The application of the polluter pays principle is required by PT PRIA in this accountability. Because the principle of polluter pays itself is closely related to the provisions of responsibility for pollution to the environment. This study uses a normative juridical method with descriptive analysis. This method is carried out by examining library materials on legal principles or legal principles. The results of this study indicate that as a form of responsibility for the many negative impacts caused by B3 waste by PT. PRIA, the PT is obliged to provide compensation for the impacts that have been caused. This responsibility is in line with the provisions of the UUPPLH which regulates the polluter pays principle which is part of the corporate responsibility in environmental management. Pencemaran lingkungan yang dilakukan oleh pelaku ekonomi dalam proses ekonomi perlu dibebankan kepada pelaku ekonomi yang melakukan pencemaran yaitu pertanggungjawaban akan pemulihan lingkungan yang tercemar. PT PRIA sebagai perusahaan pengelolaan limbah B3 yang telah melakukan penimbunan yang menimbulkan pencemaran lingkungan wajib untuk memberikan pertanggung jawaban atas dampak yang telah ditimbulkan. Penerapan prinsip pencemar membayar diperlukan oleh PT PRIA dalam pertanggungjawaban tersebut. Karena prinsip pencemar membayar sendiri erat hubungannya dengan ketentuan pertanggungjawaban atas pencemaran terhadap lingkungan hidup.Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan analisis deskriptif. Metode ini dilakukan dengan meneliti bahan pustaka terhadap asas-asas hukum atau prinsip-prinsip hukumnya. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa sebagai bentuk pertanggung jawaban atas banyaknya dampak negatif yang ditimbulkan dari limbah B3 oleh PT. PRIA, maka PT tersebut wajib memberikan ganti rugi atas dampak yang telah ditimbulkan.Pertanggungjawaban tersebut sejalan dengan ketentuan UUPPLH yang mengatur tentang sistem pencemar membayar (polluter pays principle) yang merupakan bagian dari tanggung jawab korporasi dalam pengelolaan lingkungan.

5. Non-State Actors: Environmental Rights, Liability, and Crimes

This chapter turns to some of the environmental rights and obligations which attach to individuals, corporations, and NGOs in international law. The chapter considers some alternative approaches to the implementation and enforcement of international environmental law. Relying less on interstate claims, or on mechanisms of international supervision, the development of human-rights approaches to environmental protection and the economic logic of the polluter-pays principle have made claims by individuals an increasingly attractive means of dealing with domestic or transboundary environmental problems. But the diversity of the issues needs emphasis in this context also. National remedies are not necessarily alternatives to the systems considered in the last chapter, but are more often complementary to it, and only in certain respects more useful. The variety of approaches now available for the resolution of international environmental disputes does indicate the increasing sophistication of the international legal system, the chapter argues.

The Implementation of Polluter Pays Principle in Indonesian Land Policy Regulation

Many lands are degraded; they are no longer productive, vital, damaged, or utilized and are instead overgrown with shrubs. The majority of the causes of this land degradation are irresponsible and arbitrary human actions. What is more perplexing is that these actors are not immediately punished for their actions but are instead allowed to roam freely outside. As a result, this research will discuss the accountability of land destroyers, which is based on one of the principles of international law, namely the “Polluter Pays Principle,” which requires an actor who is a land destroyer to be held accountable for all of his actions in an amount equal to the impact on the land itself. The application of the Polluter Pays Principle is hoped to improve the control and maintenance of land policy in Indonesia.

Polluter Pays Principle Terkait Pertanggungjawaban Corporate PTTEP Australasia Terhadap Pencemaran Minyak Di Laut Timur Indonesia

This research is aimed to analyze and determine the 16th provision principle of the declaration on environment and development, namely the polluter pays principle, as one of the state’s form of accountability towards the polluting across borders between PTTEP Australia and Indonesia. This is a juridical research, which analyzes the issue discussed through the use of many realted sources. The Polluter Pyas Principle, as a form of State responsibility in environmental pollution, has some advantages and disadvantages when applied as a recommendation by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). From a legal perspective, this principle can be applied as a civil liability law, whereas from an economic perspective, it can be viewed as effort to control pollution by means which the polluter has an obligation to pay for the environmental pollution that he/she caused. Even so this principle also has its weakness, in an economic approach this principle is difficult to determine the determination of the cost of loss. In some countries themselves have applied this principle in handling cases of environmental pollution. In the case of cross-border environmental pollution, the principle of good neighborliness and the principle of state responsibility in dealing with pollution cases as a sign of State’s goodwill to comply with existing international law. The case of environmental pollution itself is not only the State that can sue, but a group of people or the community can also sue, if they feel harmed by the pollution that occurs. One of them is by carrying out Class Action in holding accountable for the consequences of pollution that has occurred, and is detrimental to a group or large number of people. Even though international environmental law is a soft law, it can become hard law depending on the pollution case that occurs. Even so, International Environmental Law contained in the Stockholm Declaration, Rio de Jeneiro, Civil Liability Convention and other related international arrangements have been very good in their regulatory fields. Only the state which ratifies the convention applies according to the pollution case that occurs.