Search

Empirical research on environmental justice often simplifies normative implications, and ethical investigations in these fields often lack real-world complexity. A new working group bridges these gaps., GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 30 (2), ISSN:0940-5550

Evidence of observed negative impacts on natural and human systems from anthropogenic climate change is increasing. However, human systems in particular are dynamic and influenced by multiple drivers and hence identifying an anthropogenic climate signal is challenging. Here we analyze the case of lake Palcacocha in the Andes of Peru, which offers a representative model for other glacier lakes and related risks around the world because it features a dynamic evolution of flood risk driven by physical and socioeconomic factors and processes. Furthermore, it is the object of a prominent climate litigation case, wherein a local Peruvian citizen sued a large German energy producer over risk of flooding from lake Palcacocha. Adopting a conceptual model of cascading impacts and multiple drivers of risk, we first study climatic and other geophysical drivers of flood risk. We find that an anthropogenic signal from flood risk to greenhouse gas emissions is traceable. In parallel, flood risk has been strongly shaped (and increased) by interacting socioeconomic, institutional and cultural processes over the past few decades. The case raises important questions about the differentiation of responsibilities relating to flood risk of both global and local agents, which are, however, difficult to address in cases like Palcacocha, where we reveal a complex network of interlinked global, national and local drivers. Following from this, we outline a normative framework with a differentiated perspective on responsibility, implying that global emitters commit to support strengthening capacities in affected regions and localities and that local institutions and societies engage in local risk reduction measures and policies in collaboration with and driven by local communities.

Dynamically developing digitization initiatives among public institutions and private companies necessitate a balanced approach to digital ethics. Several frameworks and legal regulations have been adopted to clarify and define the various ethical challenges in digital contexts. These initiatives often accentuate one of three components: data security, data governance, or digital strategy. However, an integrated approach is required to meet the current demand for an ethical and sustainable approach to digitalization and address the growing number of challenges occurring in handling data and related peripheral components. This paper develops the concept of an integrated framework to incorporate all relevant aspects of digital ethics by combining three categories of digital contexts: law and regulations, ethics and justice, and environmental sustainability. The core of this integrated framework, the Fribourg sustainable digital ethics framework (FSDEF), consists of two boundary conditions of sustainable development: social thresholds of justice and ecological planetary boundaries. It also incorporates numerous other frameworks and standards, including value-based engineering and IEEE standards.

Adaptation to changing and new environmental conditions is of fundamental importance to sustainability and requires concerted efforts amongst science, policy, and practice to produce solution-oriented knowledge. Joint knowledge production or co-production of knowledge have become increasingly popular terms to describe the process of scientists, policy makers and actors from the civil society coming together to cooperate in the production, dissemination, and application of knowledge to solve wicked problems such as climate change. Networks are particularly suited to produce knowledge in a joint fashion. However, the process of joint knowledge production (JKP) in networks has rarely been examined. In this paper, we present a sketch of the adaptation network landscape and assess how joint knowledge production supports the development of solution-oriented knowledge in climate change adaptation networks. We conclude that the processes of JKP are diverse, complex, and highly dependent on the interests and roles of actors within the network. To keep such processes alive, signposts in form of analysis and intermediary products along the network lifetime should be positioned as means of stocktaking and monitoring for the future.

Addressing the problem of climate change and food insecurity, this book includes contributions that cover some of the recurring topics presented at EurSafe Congresses, spanning the ethics of animal production, veterinary practice and use of gene editing and genetic modification technologies as well as covering specific ethically relevant issues that relate to agriculture and food production systems. This book is divided into five sections discussing: (1) climate mitigation, geoengineering, and food security;(2) adapting agriculture to sustain food security;(3)animal ethics, veterinary ethics, and food security;(4) methodology and further challenges to environmental ethics;and (5)new directions for ethics and food security during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Im letzten Teil der Falltexte des Buches widmen sich vier Praxisfalle Fuhrungs- und Personalfragen im Kontext von offentlichen Organisationen und ein Fall analysiert eine ethische Entscheidungssituation. Dieser funfte Praxisfall widmet sich der Beurteilung von Interessenskonflikten aus einer ethischen Perspektive. Dabei wird die Debatte zwischen unterschiedlichen Akteuren im Bereich Gewasserrevitalisierung von der fachlichen Ebene entkoppelt und in eine ethische Auseinandersetzung uber moralische Rechte und Pflichten uberfuhrt.

Der anthropogene Klimawandel trifft die armen und armsten Weltregionen und Bevolkerungsgruppen besonders hart (Olsson/Opondo/Tschakert u. a. 2014). Weder haben diese in der Vergangenheit viel zum Klimawandel beigetragen, noch ist ihr heutiger Treibhausgasausstos annahernd so hoch wie derjenige in den entwickelten Industrienationen und einigen Schwellenlandern. Benachteiligte Bevolkerungsgruppen sind den negativen Folgen des Klimawandels zudem haufig besonders stark ausgesetzt. Diese Auswirkungen sind bereits jetzt zu spuren und werden sich in Zukunft noch verstarken.

One of the major ethical issues in waste policy concerns the just distribution of waste facilities and the associated environmental risks. This essay provides an overview of the most important aspects to consider when assessing whether unequal exposure to waste facilities is unjust. It claims that the ethical principles that might warrant such injustices are problematic due to feasibility constraints. This is why appropriate democratic involvement in policy decisions about waste facilities is crucial. However, equal recognition of all affected is given only if they all can have an effective and equal voice in policy-making about waste facilities.

Ethics in managing climate change most often involves two issues that are tightly connected. The first involves considerations about the just distribution of entitlements and burdens, and the second concerns the fair differentiation of responsibilities. The chapter explains the most important ethical implications of international climate politics and shows why justice plays a key role in all areas of climate policy. Furthermore, it introduces the main domains of climate justice: historical, global, and intergenerational justice. Depending on the policy area at issue, different combinations of principles of climate justice seem most appropriate. The chapter concludes by showing that the differentiation of responsibilities depends not only on which principles of justice are employed but also on the particular climate policy area and level that are at issue.

The debate on "Loss and Damage" (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the "Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, meth ods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network - a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe - provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking sugges tions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation "game" by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of Transformation.

In Gesundheitsberufen ist Ethik allgegenwärtig und erhält in der Ausbildung zunehmend mehr Gewicht. Dieses Buch nimmt eine Schwierigkeit sehr ernst, die in der Ethik häufig vergessen geht: Ethiktheorien im Berufsalltag anzuwenden, ist nicht so einfach, wie es auf den ersten Blick erscheint. Dieses Buch gibt allen in Gesundheitsberufen Tätigen eine Entscheidungshilfe für ethische Fragestellungen. Die Autoren führen ein Raster zur Analyse von ­medizinischen Einzelfällen ein, das stark anwendungsbezogen aufgebaut ist und eine praxistaugliche Reflexionshilfe für den medi­zinischen Berufsalltag bietet. Anhand dieses Rasters stellt das Buch Fall­beispiele mit Lösungsvorschlägen für alle Berufe des Gesundheitswesens vor. Kontrollfragen und Arbeits­aufträge fördern das Ver­ständnis und die Diskussion. Die Raster zur Fall­analyse stehen zudem auch als Download zur Verfügung.

This chapter lays out what we take to be the main types of justice and ethical challenges concerning those adverse effects of climate change leading to climate-related Loss and Damage (L&D). We argue that it is essential to clearly differentiate between the challenges concerning mitigation and adaptation and those ethical issues exclusively relevant for L&D in order to address the ethical aspects pertaining to L&D in international climate policy. First, we show that depending on how mitigation and adaptation are distinguished from L&D, the primary focus of policy measures and their ethical implications will vary. Second, we distinguish between a distributive justice framework and a compensatory justice scheme for delivering L&D measures. Third, in order to understand the differentiated remedial responsibilities concerning L&D, we categorise the measures and policy approaches available. Fourth, depending on the kind of L&D and which remedies are possible, we explain the difference between remedial and outcome responsibilities of different actors.

In this comment I challenge Kerr’s claim that a coherent expression of a ‘liberalism of freedom’ needs an extended first Rawlsian principle of justice incorporating the principle of fair equality of opportunity for two reasons. First, such an extended first principle leads to illiberal consequences by narrowing down the scope of individual responsibility for choice and effort way too much. Second, such an extended first principle misses a main Rawlsian insight, namely that in a theory of justice the principle securing basic liberties and the principle of fair equality of opportunity serve different purposes.

© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. The Paris Climate Agreement is an important step for international climate policy, but the compensation for negative effects of climate change based on clear assignment of responsibilities remains highly debated. From both a policy and a science perspective, it is unclear how responsibilities should be defined and on what evidence base. We explore different normative principles of justice relevant to climate change impacts, and ask how different forms of causal evidence of impacts drawn from detection and attribution research could inform policy approaches in accordance with justice considerations. We reveal a procedural injustice based on the imbalance of observations and knowledge of impacts between developed and developing countries. This type of injustice needs to be considered in policy negotiations and decisions, and efforts strengthened to reduce it.

There seem to be good reasons that democratic institutions must be reformed in order to minimize the danger of unsustainable policy decisions infringing upon duties of intergenerational justice. This is why there exist a number of different proposals of how to reform democratic states in order to foster their duties towards the future. However, the debate lacks a systematic assessment of these suggested reforms within a coherent theoretical and normative framework. This paper aims at developing such a framework. We suggest two conceptual dimensions defining the spectrum of different justifiable institutional reforms: the relation between democracy and justice as one dimension and the conditions considered relevant for viewing democracies as responsible collective agents as the other. Depending on how we understand this relation and these conditions, it is possible to substantiate a set of types of institutional reforms that will promote democracies’ capacities to comply with their responsibilities towards the future.

Zusammenfassung Kirsten Meyer: Bildung. Walter de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin 2011, 224 S.

This comment questions Lister's reading of the reciprocity condition in three respects. First, it challenges the view that this condition necessarily leads to egalitarian claims about just distribution. Secondly, it questions Lister's argument that the reciprocity condition is linked to substantial schemes of egalitarian distribution irrespective of context. Thirdly, it claims that entitlements to justice for people with mental or psychological impairments cannot be based on a distinction between willingness and unwillingness to contribute to the cooperative venture of a society.

In diesem Beitrag argumentiere ich fur die folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: Erstens, Quoten stellen keinen normativen Selbstzweck dar. Sie sind lediglich ein Mittel, um nicht-diskriminierende Auswahlverfahren sicherzustellen. Zweitens, in einer Demokratie sind Quoten vor allem dann plausibel, wenn sie fur die Besetzung derjenigen Amter eingesetzt werden, die den grosten Einfluss auf politische Entscheidungen haben. Drittens, Quoten fur junge Burgerinnen und Burger lassen sich rechtfertigen, weil die Diskurse der Jungen aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung Gefahr laufen, vernachlassigt zu werden. Viertens, Quoten fur junge Burgerinnen und Burger konnen die Legitimitat von politischen Entscheidungen und deren langfristige Folgen erhohen. Dessen ungeachtet bin ich aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung aber skeptisch, dass die politische Einflussnahme der Jungen durch im Rahmen der Demokratie rechtfertigbare Quoten entscheidend verbessert werden kann.

This volume brings together a collection of ten original essays which present new analyses of social and relational equality in philosophy and political theory. The essays analyze the nature of social equality, and its relationship with justice and with politics. Is equality valuable? This question dominates many discussions of social justice. These discussions tend to center on whether certain forms of distributive equality are valuable, such as the equal distribution of primary social goods. They tend to neglect what is known as social or relational equality. Social egalitarians often argue that this form of equality is a more fundamental notion of equality than distributive equality. Rather than being primarily about distribution, equality, they claim, is foremost about relationships and interactions between people. When we appeal to the value of equality, we primarily mean the value of egalitarian and non-hierarchical relationships, and not of distributions. The ideal of social equality features heavily in the history of the development of equality as an important part of political theory, and a number of contemporary philosophers have written about the significance of this form of equality. It has also played an important role in real-life egalitarian movements. However, as it has been relatively neglected – it requires much more theoretical attention. This collection is an attempt to help to redress this neglect by providing in-depth analyses on the nature and distinctiveness of socially egalitarian relationships.