In recent contributions to climate studies, the tragedy of the commons principle (TCP) has provided a common understanding of people’s overuse of free-access natural resources (Hardin 1968). However, in this paper I argue that TCP conveys an insufficient framework for understanding the social and political dynamics involved in the mismanagement of natural resources. The paper suggests an alternative framework which I coin the tragedy of the few principle (TFP). The TFP argues that the challenge of environmental and climate sustainability is not a question of free access to natural resources but rather of limited access (Ostrom et al. 1994; Sagoff 2008). The tragedy of the few draws attention to the fact that owners of land, surface and technological equipment have an unjust access to subtraction and depletion of resources to which they have no full ownership (Risse 2012). Empirical research substantiates this challenge. Studies have shown that 1 billion people have insufficient access to subsistence and sustainable natural resources (Pogge 2010) and that 90 global energy companies cause 63% of global CO2 emissions (Heede 2013). The TFP reinterprets how to balance the basic rights to life, health and subsistence (Shue 1980; Caney 2010) with territorial and property rights (Miller 2011). This is done by arguing that climate justice is not merely about intergenerational responsibility and emission targets but about just distribution of access to sustainable natural resources. Unpacking just governance of natural resources, the paper shows that both normative and factual circumstances of resource management should be addressed. Arguably, the relevant bundle of rights varies according to the resource’s physical and moral properties (Ostrom 2003; Kaul & Mendoza 2005).
