A core issue in the debate over what constitutes a fair response to climate change is the appropriate allocation of emission rights between the developed and the developing world. Various parties have defended equal emission rights per capita on grounds of equity. The atmosphere belongs to us all and everyone should be allocated an equal share. Others have defended higher emission rights per capita for developing countries on grounds of historical accountability. Developed countries are largely responsible for the threat of climate change due to their past emissions and, since they currently continue to enjoy the benefits thereof, they should be willing to accept lower emission targets.

However, in reality we see that developed countries currently have much higher emission rates per capita and will continue to have higher rates than developing countries for some time to come. There is talk of “grandfathering” – setting emission targets for developed countries in line with their present or past emission levels. What, if anything, can be said in defense of grandfathering?

In Chapter 4 of this book Caney discusses grandfathering and puts the matter very bluntly: “No moral and political philosopher (to my knowledge) defends grandfathering, presumably assuming that it is unjust.” Grandfathering can at best be defended by means of pragmatic arguments. In Realpolitik we need to make some concessions in order to get all the parties on board. But this is like making concessions in negotiations with the Mafia.