Discussion of historic responsibility for climate change is often couched in the terminology of ‘ecological debt’. This concept is employed by academics, campaigners, indigenous peoples and politicians. But what does it mean for a country (or individual) to be in possession of an ecological debt?
Plausibly, ecological debts arise upon ‘overuse’ of natural resources. To identify ecological debts we thus need to defend a system of prior entitlements to natural resources, in order to determine when violations take place – and at whose expense. Many theorists argue that ecological debts should be calculated on the basis of equal per capita entitlements (EPC); to ecological space as a whole (Hayward), or a particular aspect such as the earth’s assimilative capacity for GHG emissions (Neumayer). This is problematic given that both forms of EPC have been extensively criticised (Miller, Armstrong, Caney). Alternatively, one might calculate ecological debts using an assumption of permanent sovereignty (PS), as appears to be advocated by the Global Footprint Network. However, PS is also a principle of dubious merit (Armstrong, Barry).
In this paper I will discuss how to understand the concept of ecological debt if we take fair entitlements to natural resources to be determined by principles that lie somewhere between the extremes of EPC and PS. In particular, I will examine a view based on a more benign principle of collective self-determination; one acknowledging the importance of collective control over territory and resources for enabling political communities to avoid domination, but which also shows adequate concern for the interests of outsiders. I will discuss how ecological debts can be seen to arise on this view and – most importantly – how ecological debts can be ‘repaid’ once we acknowledge that resource rights are primarily rights of control rather than rights to a share of equal value.
