Suchergebnisse

Within the past 25 years, climate change has evolved from an issue of interest primarily to some natural scientists into one of the top priorities on the global policy agenda. Research in political science and related fields offers systematic and empirically well-supported explanations for why solving the climate problem has turned out to be more difficult than originally anticipated. After reviewing this research, I focus on four areas in which we know less: (a) institutional design features that may help in mitigating or overcoming fundamental problems in the global cooperative effort; (b) factors that are driving variation in climate policies at national and subnational levels; (c) driving forces of climate policy beyond the state, in particular civil society, the science–policy interface, and public opinion; and (d) sociopolitical consequences of failing to avoid major climatic changes. The article concludes by identifying key questions at the micro, meso, and macro levels that should be addressed by political scientists in the coming years. In view of the fact that governance efforts at the global level are progressing very slowly, greater attention to bottom-up dynamics appears useful, both for analytical reasons (there is lots of variation to be explained) and for normative reasons.

Climate change and justice are so closely associated that many people take it for granted that a global climate treaty should--indeed, must--directly address both issues together. But, in fact, this would be a serious mistake, one that, by dooming effective international limits on greenhouse gases, would actually make the world's poor and developing nations far worse off. This is the provocative and original argument of Climate Change Justice. Eric Posner and David Weisbach strongly favor both a climate change agreement and efforts to improve economic justice. But they make a powerful case tha

'Sound and solid case studies on vulnerability and adaptation have been woefully lacking in the international discourse on climate change. This set of books begins to bridge the gap.' Achim Steiner UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme 'Important reading for students and practitioners alike.' Martin Parry Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 'This book fills an important gap in our understanding ... It is policy-relevant and deserves to be widely read.' Richard Klein.

In the course of the last four years, finance ministries have increasingly become involved in the international climate change negotiations. Their involvement has to a large degree been an outcome of the framing of climate change as a market failure. This framing calls for an active climate change policy and is at odds with the framing of climate change policy that was previously predominant in finance ministries: that it constitutes expenditure to be avoided. The persistence of both framings has led to clashes within and between finance ministries with respect to climate change. The article calls for further research focusing on the role of the two frames and of finance ministries as actors in climate change politics.

Was ist Gerechtigkeit? Wie könnten gerechte Regelungen aussehen für die Katastrophen und Leiden, die der Klimawandel auslöst bzw. auslösen wird? Diese sind häufig ungerecht, weil sie oft deutlich stärker diejenigen treffen, die am wenigsten zur Klimaveränderung beigetragen haben. Doch was genau verstehen wir unter dem Schlagwort: 'Klimawandel'? Und kann dieser wirklich den Menschen direkt treffen? Ein kurzer naturwissenschaftlicher Abriss klärt hier die wichtigsten Fragen. Da es sich hierbei um eine philosophische Arbeit handelt, muss zunächst geklärt werden, ob der Mensch überhaupt die Ursache von so etwas sein kann wie z.B. der Klimaerwärmung. Robert Spaemanns These dazu ist, dass der Mensch durch seinen freien Willen mit seinen Einzelhandlungen das Weltgeschehen verändern kann. Hans Jonas fügt dem hinzu, dass wir durch diese Fähigkeit, verantwortlich sind für die gewollten und ungewollten Folgen unserer Handlungen. Damit wäre aus naturwissenschaftlicher Sicht (1. Teil der Arbeit) und aus philosophischer Sicht (Anfang 2. Teil) geklärt, dass der Mensch mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit die Ursache des Klimawandels ist und diese Verursachung moralische Konsequenzen für ihn hat. Ein philosophischer Gerechtigkeitsbegriff wird aus der Kantischen Rechts- und Moralphilosophie entwickelt, weil diese die einzige ist, die dem Menschen überhaupt ein Recht auf Rechte zusprechen kann. Diese entspringt der transzendentalen Freiheitsfähigkeit des Menschen, weshalb jedem das Recht auf Rechte absolut und immer zukommt. Gleichzeitig mündet Kants Philosophie wiederum in dem Freiheitsgedanken, indem Gerechtigkeit nur existiert, wenn alle Menschen gleichermaßen frei sein können. Was heißt das konkret? Wie könnte Gerechtigkeit in der Realität wirklich umgesetzt werden? Die Realisierung schlägt zwei Grundrichtungen ein. John Rawls und Stefan Gosepath beschäftigen sich u.a. eingehend mit der prozeduralen Gerechtigkeit, was bedeutet, dass gerechte Verfahren gefunden werden, die das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben regeln. Das leitende Prinzip hierfür ist vor allem: ein Mitbestimmungsrecht aller, so dass sich im Prinzip alle Bürger ihre Gesetze selbst geben und damit frei handeln. In Bezug auf den Klimawandel steht die zweite Ausrichtung im Vordergrund – die distributive oder auch Verteilungs-Gerechtigkeit. Materielle Güter müssen so aufgeteilt werden, dass auch trotz empirischer Unterschiede alle Menschen als moralische Subjekte anerkannt werden und frei sein können. Doch sind diese philosophischen Schlussfolgerungen nicht viel zu abstrakt, um auf ein ebenso schwer fassbares und globales Problem wie den Klimawandel angewendet zu werden? Was könnte daher eine Klimagerechtigkeit sein? Es gibt viele Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien, die vorgeben, eine gerechte Grundlage für die Klimaprobleme zu bieten wie z.B. das Verursacherprinzip, das Fähigkeitsprinzip oder das Grandfathering-Prinzip, bei dem die Hauptverursacher nach wie vor am meisten emittieren dürfen (dieses Prinzip leitete die bisherigen internationalen Verhandlungen). Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist, herauszufinden, wie die Klimaprobleme gelöst werden können, so dass für alle Menschen unter allen Umständen die universellen Menschenrechte her- und sichergestellt werden und diese frei und moralisch handeln können. Die Schlussfolgerung dieser Arbeit ist, dass Kants Gerechtigkeitsbegriff durch eine Kombination des Subsistenzemissions-Rechts, des Greenhouse-Development-Rights-Principles (GDR-Prinzip) und einer internationalen Staatlichkeit durchgesetzt werden könnte. Durch das Subsistenzemissions-Recht hat jeder Mensch das Recht, so viel Energie zu verbrauchen und damit zusammenhängende Emissionen zu produzieren, dass er ein menschenwürdiges Leben führen kann. Das GDR-Prinzip errechnet den Anteil an der weltweiten Gesamtverantwortung zum Klimaschutz eines jeden Landes oder sogar eines jeden Weltbürgers, indem es die historischen Emissionen (Klimaschuld) zu der jetzigen finanziellen Kapazität des Landes/ des Individuums (Verantwortungsfähigkeit) hinzuaddiert. Die Implementierung von internationalen Gremien wird verteidigt, weil es ein globales, grenzüberschreitendes Problem ist, dessen Effekte und dessen Verantwortung globale Ausmaße haben. Ein schlagendes Argument für fast alle Klimaschutzmaßnahmen ist, dass sie Synergien aufweisen zu anderen gesellschaftlichen Bereichen aufweisen wie z.B. Gesundheit und Armutsbekämpfung, in denen auch noch um die Durchsetzung unserer Menschenrechte gerungen wird. Ist dieser Lösungsansatz nicht völlig utopisch? Dieser Vorschlag stellt für die internationale Gemeinschaft eine große Herausforderung dar, wäre jedoch die einzig gerechte Lösung unserer Klimaprobleme. Des Weiteren wird an dem Kantischen Handlungsgrundsatz festgehalten, dass das ewige Streben auf ideale Ziele hin, die beste Verwirklichung dieser durch menschliche, fehlbare Wesen ist. ; What is justice? What could be fair regulations concerning the catastrophes and the suffering that will be evoked/are already evoked by climate change? These are often unfair, because they strike most likely the people who contributed the less to climate warming. But what do we mean with the term 'climate change'? Can this phenomenon really strike human beings directly? A short scientific introduction explains the most important questions. Like this is a philosophical analysis, there has to be clarified if mankind can be the origin of something like global warming. The statement of Robert Spaemann is that a person can change the world affairs by a single action. Hans Jonas adds to this that this capacity imposes us the responsibility for the wanted and the unwanted effects of our action. With this first part of the work (scientific introduction) and the beginning of the second part (philosophical part) it is proved that human beings can be the reason for climate change and that this causation has a moral impact on them. I extracted a philosophical term of 'justice' out of the moral theory of Immanuel Kant because to my mind, this is the only philosophical and scientific approach which is able to grant us a right of rights. The right of rights belongs absolutely and under every circumstance to every person because it originates in the transcendental capacity of freedom of human beings. At the same time it ends up in the thought of freedom like justice can only exist if every human being can be free. What does this mean precisely? How could justice be implemented in the reality? The realization drives in two principal directions. John Rawls and Stefan Gosepath examined thoroughly the procedural justice that means that fair procedures have to be found to organize the living together in a society. The main principle here above all is the participation of decision making of all members of the society like that everybody could have decided the rules himself. Therefore everybody acts after his own decisions and freely. Concerning climate change, the second possibility of justice is more crucial – the justice of distribution. Material goods have to be allocated the way that all people can be acknowledged as moral subjects. Likewise everybody can be free despite of empirical differences. But are these philosophical conclusions not way to abstract to be applied for a complex and global problem like climate change? What could be a concrete climate justice? There are a lot of principles of justice that are supposed to give a fair basis within the sector of climate problems like the polluter-pays-principle, the ability-to-pay-principle, the grandfathering-principle. The last one allows the main polluters to still emit the majority of the worldwide emissions in the future. This view of orientation led mainly all the international negotiations in the past. The aim of this thesis is to find out how climate problems can be solved the way that every person can be assured of his basic human rights. Consequently everybody would have the possibility to act freely and morally. The conclusion of this written work is that the meaning of justice in the sense of the Kantian theory can be realized by a combination of the subsistence emissions right, the greenhouse-development-rights-principles (GDR-principle) and international institutions. The subsistence emissions right guaranties every person the right to use as much energy and therefore produce as many emissions, the person needs to lead a dignified life. The GDR-principle faces the worldwide responsibility to mitigate climate change and calculates the portion of responsibility of each country or even of each citizen. It does this by adding the quantity of historical emissions (the climate debt) to the current financial capacity of each country or citizen (responsibility). The implementation of international committees is necessary because climate warming is a global, boarder passing problem which possible solutions have inadvertently global dimensions. A crucial argument for nearly all mitigation measures is that they almost always offer synergetic effects to other social sectors like health or the fight against global poverty which demand as well urgently the enforcement of our basic human rights. But is this solution not totally idealistic? This proposition would pose a big challenge to the international community. At the same time it is the only fair solution to climate change for all human beings. Furthermore and eventually, we have to focus on the Kantian solution that the eternal striving towards this idealization is the best way human fallible beings can achieve to realize utopic solutions.

Climate change is a global problem, yet it is experienced at the local scale, in ways that are both place-specific and specific to the accidents of weather history. This article takes the dichotomy between the global and the local as a starting point to develop a critique of the normative approach within climate science, which is global in various ways and thereby fails to bring meaning to the local. The article discusses the ethical choices implicit in the current paradigm of climate prediction, how irreducible uncertainty at the local scale can be managed by suitable reframing of the scientific questions, and some particular epistemic considerations that apply to climate change in the global South. The article argues for an elevation of the narrative and for a demotion of the probabilistic from its place of privilege in the construction and communication of our understanding of global warming and its local consequences.

Cooper reviews 'Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change' edited by James P. Bruce et al. A book review is presented of Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change edited by James P. Bruce et al.

Intro -- ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE NATIONAL STRATEGY AND PROGRESS -- ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE NATIONAL STRATEGY AND PROGRESS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 PROGRESS REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TASK FORCE: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF A NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGY -- LIST OF ACRONYMS -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- The Role of the Federal Government in Adapting to Climate Change -- The Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force -- Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles for Adaptation Policy and Actions -- Federal Policy Goals to Advance National Adaptation -- Next Steps: Building a More Resilient Nation -- PART ONE. INTRODUCTION -- PART TWO. THE IMPORTANCE OF ADAPTATION -- PART THREE. THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE -- PART FOUR. THE INTERAGENCY CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION TASK FORCE -- PART FIVE. STRATEGIC VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ADAPTATION POLICY AND ACTIONS -- Guiding Principles -- PART SIX. CURRENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF ADAPTATION -- Interagency Activities -- Agency Activities -- PART SEVEN. FEDERAL POLICY GOALS TO ADVANCE NATIONAL ADAPTATION -- Goal 1: Encourage and Mainstream Adaptation Planning across the Federal Government -- Recommended Action: Implement adaptation planning within Federal agencies -- Recommended Action: Employ a flexible framework for agency adaptation planning -- Recommended Action: Use a phased and coordinated approach to implement agency adaptation -- Goal 2: Improve Integration of Science into Decision Making -- Recommended Action: Create a "roadmap" of existing Federal science efforts that inform and support adaptation -- Recommended Action: Prioritize activities that address science gaps important to adaptation decisions and policies

This strategy sets out the preliminary actions and tools necessary to manage the consequences of climate change at Kakadu National Park. While the Australian Government is committed to acting in accordance with the strategy, the attainment of objectives is subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the strategy due to changes in knowledge and policy direction. ; Background -- Regional climate change projections -- Impacts of climate change for Kakadu National Park -- Recommended management actions -- Implementation and review -- References