Pros And Cons Of Thomas Caney's Hybrid View

Carl Knight (Knight, 2011) contradicts Caney’s ‘hybrid view’ of both these principles and proposes three major limitations while discussing where mitigation and costs of climate change should fall. He argues that firstly the hybrid view does not discern between hard to and easy to avoid emissions, for instance Shue explains the harm caused by dead ancestors or natural calamities like in cold countries it is biased to charge people full carbon cost of heating themselves making them disadvantaged for no individual fault comparatively to citizens in temperate countries who warm themselves at low carbon cost. (Shue, 1995)
Secondly it does not postulate a full vindication of climate justice given its only partial allusion to all things cogitated as justice such as a person who pollutes significantly less yet has benefited from great injustices will face a smaller liability than someone who pollutes abstemiously but otherwise leads a saint like life ardent to realizing the ends of justice. The prejudiced wealth of the lower polluter may enable him to even pollute less say for example they have spent their Nazi gold on wind turbines. (Arneson, 2011)
Lastly the ‘hybrid view’ consigns the

Global warming elicits a rising sea level, new precipitation patterns, more frequent extreme weather events and higher temperatures resulting in varying effects of the economics of southern Africa, the tropics and especially a downfall in a few island states. Scientists declared the earth’s surface heat will rise roughly by 2-6 degrees centigrade over the next century due to the concentration of greenhouse gases extant in the atmosphere. The only ambiguity is how swiftly climate change will befall, how it will manifest itself in various states and whether human interference can curb the level of global warming and its effects through the next century. (World Bank,