The Second Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011

Florida A & M University Law Review, Dec 2012

By Albert Mumma, Published on 01/01/12

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://commons.law.famu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=famulawreview

The Second Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011

Vol. The S econd Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011 Comparative Dimensions of Environmental Justice 0 Albert Mumma 0 0 Thi s Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida A & M University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information , please contact , USA DISTINGUISHED LECTURE FLORIDA A&M ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND JUSTICE SYMPOSIUM NOVEMBER 3-4, 2011 Dr.Albert Mumma Associate Professor,University of Nairobi Faculty of Law Thank you all for being here today for this symposium. The title of this symposium is on the question of environmental justice. The question of environmental justice today must be considered in the context of sustainable development, which is the governing philosophy for the management of environmental resources at this point in time. Sustainable development is about using resources of today without compromising the ability of future generations to use those resources. This concept has been particularly strong when we think about the future. It has not been too strong when we think about questions of justice in the context of the generations of today. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of sustainable development is with respect to justice and equity among present generations. So for today, I would like to address the issue of equity in the context of climate change governance. As you know the international community has been striving for consensus on a protocol to manage climate change issues after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires. The concept of intergenerational equity must be considered in this regard. Implicit in the concept of intergenerational equity is the need for justice and the need to distribute benefits that arise out the use of Earth's resources in society today. But along with the concept of distribution of benefits is the question of responsibility for the management of these resources. What we have not been able to find is a formula that balances both the benefits and the responsibilities for stewardship in regard to the management of those resources. And that is what I would like to focus on today: the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. The history of the climate change convention is well known. In 1979, the first international climate conference identified climate change as an international environmental problem. Considerable research went into this problem and by 1988 there was sufficient consensus about the need for international action and the UN declared climate change as a common concern of mankind. In 1990, under the auspices of the UN General Assembly, a negotiation text for the convention of climate change was drafted. The text was presented to the parties that attended the Rio Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992 for adoption, and it entered into force in 1994 having received the required number of ratifications. Building on that international consensus, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December of 1997. The objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Article 2 states that the ultimate objective of the convention is to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Based on this objective, the Kyoto Protocol imposed certain obligations on states. Many of these obligations relate to development of national inventories, formulations of programs, and technology transfer. But the key objective that the Kyoto Protocol introduced was the reduction commitments articulated in Article 3 of the Protocol. What Article 3 provides is that certain countries are required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 5% below 1990 levels by the year of 2012. In my view, the ability to introduce these gases into the atmosphere represents activity that uses the atmosphere's capacity to absorb these gases. That capability is the global resource that is available to all of human society. One objective that the Kyoto Protocol has sought to achieve is to apportion that resource only to the industrialized countries. The Kyoto Protocol has provided developing countries unlimited rights of access to the global commons. What this means in regards to developing countries is that there is no emissions reduction obligation. Therefore, this design is flawed because it regulates the use of a global resource for some countries but not for others. The Kyoto Protocol regime is designed to give effect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which is relatively new to international environmental law. The targets and timetables to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions for industrialized countries are much more stringent as compared to those for developi (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://commons.law.famu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=famulawreview

Albert Mumma. The Second Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011, Florida A & M University Law Review, 2012, Volume 7, Issue 2,