In order not to significantly overshoot maximum levels of warming like the 1.5 and 2°C target we must stay within a fixed emissions budget. How to fairly distribute the entitlements to emit within such a budget is perhaps the most intensely discussed question in all of climate justice. In our review we discuss the most prominent proposals in moral and political philosophy on how to solve this question and put a special emphasis on scholarly contributions from the last decade. We canvass the arguments for and against emissions egalitarianism, emissions sufficientarianism, and emissions grandfathering as well as the debates surrounding them. These are how to deal with non-compliance, how to split emissions between producers and consumers, how to best account for terrestrial carbon sinks, and whether emissions from having children should be subtracted from parents' emissions budgets. From the viewpoint of justice, it matters not only that we act against climate change but also how we do so. This review aims to elucidate one of the major ways in which our reaction to climate change could be just or unjust.

中文翻译：

---

分配正义和全球排放预算

为了不显着超过升温最高水平（例如 1.5 和 2°C 的目标），我们必须保持在固定的排放预算范围内。如何在这样的预算内公平分配排放权可能是所有气候正义中讨论最激烈的问题。在我们的评论中，我们讨论了道德和政治哲学中关于如何解决这个问题的最突出的建议，并特别强调过去十年的学术贡献。我们探讨了支持和反对排放平等主义、排放充足主义和排放祖父法的论点以及围绕它们的辩论。这些是如何处理违规行为，如何在生产者和消费者之间分配排放，如何最好地解释陆地碳汇，以及是否应该从父母的排放预算中减去生育孩子的排放量。从正义的角度来看，重要的不仅是我们应对气候变化的行动，还有我们如何行动。本次审查旨在阐明我们对气候变化反应公正或不公正的主要方式之一。