Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing our world today, and it has far-reaching consequences for both the environment and the economy. While most of the world population is adversely affected by climate change, some industries in some countries end up benefiting from the warming climate—a complexity often ignored in climate justice. In this article, Kian Mintz-Woo and Justin Leroux tackle the complex issue of what climate winners owe to climate losers.

Traditionally, discussions of climate change have focused on the negative impacts, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and ecosystem disruptions. This is natural because negative impacts are predominant—and many of them are truly devastating. However, there are also some positive effects, such as longer growing seasons, expanded shipping routes, and increased property values in certain areas. For example, a warming climate can make agriculture viable in northern latitudes of Canada and Russia, but also in mountainous areas in the tropics [1].

SUGGESTED READING What economists get wrong about climate change By Steve Keen

Indeed, climate changes have led some to proclaim southern England as the new Champagne for its sparkling wine. Similarly, tourism opportunities could emerge in areas that are not currently suitable. Lastly, access to previously inaccessible commercial trade routes, like the Northwest Passage between Greenland and Canada’s Arctic islands, could potentially benefit all through lower shipping costs [2]. We should be able to hold in our minds both facts: that climate change is overall harmful and that it is, for some regions and industries, a benefit. We should, in short, develop theories that include both climate winners and losers.

How should climate justice address this variety of climate winners and losers? Can a comprehensive theory reflect this complexity? In recent academic articles, we propose a new principle to distribute these impacts, one that recognizes the positive effects of climate change but also takes into account the negative impacts on vulnerable populations. The principle we propose is called the "Polluter Pays Then Receives" (PPTR) principle (pronounced “Peter”), a principle which differs from the standard principles in the climate ethics discussion and provides a fuller accounting of climate impacts.