Exam 50: Henry Shue

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, some people object to the first principle of equity by claiming that:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -For Shue, questions of economic efficiency and questions of equity are essentially interchangeable.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, some people object to progressive payment rates on the alleged grounds that they:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -The third principle of equity assumes an existing state of:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue argues that it is unfair to expect people to help maintain a guaranteed adequate minimum in a society other than their own.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -A flat rate of contribution is the fairest possible way of arranging payments according to Shue.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, the three principles of equity that he discusses:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -What are some of the practical implications of Shue's view? How could wealthy countries go about putting Shue's principles into practice?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to the first principle of equity, those who have had costs unfairly imposed on them by others have:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, the third principle of equity assumes a state of radical inequality.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, progressive rates of contribution of the sort recommended by the second principle of equity can reduce incentive effects.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -How does Shue defend the third principle of equity? Is his defense compelling? Why or why not?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, some object to the third principle of equity on the alleged grounds that:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, the reasons for the second and third principles of equity are fundamentally the same, namely:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -What is the main objection to progressive payment rates and how does Shue respond to it? Is Shue's response convincing? Why or why not?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue argues that flat rate payment systems:

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Shue considers three counterarguments to the first principle of equity. Does Shue respond adequately to these counterarguments in your view? Why or why not?

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, wealthy industrialized countries should contribute __________ to the costs of environmental protection.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -According to Shue, persons or parties should not be held responsible for damage they did not do themselves.

Henry Shue: Global Environment and International Inequality In "Global Environment and International Inequality," Henry Shue is concerned with the question of how the costs and burdens of protecting the environment should be divided among the countries of the world, especially in light of the inequalities of wealth that currently exist between them. Shue's answer is that the costs should initially be borne by wealthy industrialized nations, which he defends on the basis of three principles of equity he takes to be commonsensical and philosophically uncontroversial. The first of these three principles states that any parties that gain an unfair advantage by imposing costs on others without their consent should bear the burden of correcting the inequalities their actions generated. According to the second principle, when several parties are engaged in a common project, those with the most resources should contribute the most. The final principle concerns conditions of what Shue calls "radical inequality." Radical inequality obtains between parties when (i) there are enough total resources for all parties to have more than enough to live decently; (ii) some parties have more than enough and in some cases much more than enough; and (iii) some parties have less than enough. Under such conditions, the third principle states that everyone should be guaranteed an adequate minimum standard of living. This principle can be interpreted in stronger and weaker forms, with the former requiring direct provisions of assistance and the latter only non-interference. But in either case according to Shue, the principle supports the same practical conclusion as the previous two: fairness requires that the costs of environmental protection be borne by wealthy industrialized states. -Do you agree with Shue that progressive payment rates do not necessarily undercut incentives? Why or why not?