Suchergebnisse

Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Erik Peterson und Carl Schmitt über die Möglichkeit einer "Politischen Theologie" erfährt nach wie vor viel Aufmerksamkeit. Der Beitrag analysiert ein Segment dieser Auseinandersetzung, das bisher wenig beachtet wurde: die Sicht der beiden Gelehrten auf das christliche Martyrium. Die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven des Theologen und des Juristen auf das gewaltlose Lebensopfer für den Glauben werden dargestellt und im jeweiligen Werk verortet. Diskussionswürdig ist die jüngst aufgestellte These, Schmitt verteidige mit seiner sich auf Thomas Hobbes berufenden Ablehnung des Martyriums Errungenschaften moderner Staatlichkeit, während Petersons Martyriologie ein theokratisches Gefälle aufweise. Schmitts Politische Theologie II legt dagegen nahe, dass auch der späte Schmitt sich nicht von einer totalitären Logik des Politischen gelöst hat, die darum für das christliche Martyrium und letztlich ein bekenntnisgebundenes Christentum keinen Platz hat.The controversy between Erik Peterson and Carl Schmitt about the meaning of a "Political Theology" attracts as much attention as ever. The article analyzes a somewhat neglected part of this controversy: the Christian martyrdom. The different perspectives held by the theologian and the legal scholar on the nonviolent self-sacrifice of Christian believers are reviewed and placed in the context of their respective thought. The recent proposal that Schmitt's rejection of the martyrdom (based on Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan) is a legitimate defense of the religious neutrality of the modern state, while Peterson's apocalyptic theology fails to acknowledge this very neutrality, is indeed highly questionable. Instead, Schmitt's Political Theology II shows that even the late Schmitt remained committed to a totalitarian account of the political that leaves no room for martyrdom and for Christianity based on normative convictions.

Climate change has been called the "biggest market failure the world has ever seen". Market failure justifies policy intervention, and many economists recommend carbon pricing as the optimal policy to address climate change. This thesis addresses current issues in climate policy, energy policy, and technology policy in order to help policy-makers to solve specific aspects of the extensive climate puzzle. ; Der Klimawandel wird als größtes Marktversagen der Geschichte bezeichnet. Marktversagen rechtfertigt regulatorische Eingriffe und zahlreiche Ökonomen empfehlen eine CO2-Bepreisung als die optimale Politik zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Diese Arbeit behandelt aktuelle Fragestellungen der Klima-, Energie- und Technologiepolitik, um politische Entscheidungsträger dabei zu unterstützen, bestimmte Aspekte des umfassenden Klimapuzzles zu lösen.

Global greenhouse gas emissions need to reach net-zero around mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. This decarbonization challenge has, inter alia, increased the political and societal pressure on companies to disclose their carbon footprints. As a response, numerous companies announced roadmaps to become carbon neutral or even negative. The first step on the journey towards carbon neutrality, however, is to quantify corporate emissions accurately. Current carbon accounting and reporting practices remain unsystematic and not comparable, particularly for emissions along the value chain (so-called scope 3). Here we present a framework to harmonize scope 3 emissions by accounting for reporting inconsistency, boundary incompleteness, and activity exclusion. In a case study of the tech sector, we find that corporate reports omit half of the total emissions. The framework we present may help companies, investors, and policy makers to identify and close the gaps in corporate carbon footprints.

Pricing carbon to address climate change sparks divisions like few other policy options. From street riots to academic debate, it has stirred both passionate and principled disagreement, leaving scarce room for compromise between advocates and critics. Among scholars, what used to be nearly unanimous support for carbon pricing has ceded way to a more bifurcated landscape. We review the growing literature on carbon pricing shortfalls, and suggest a conceptual framework to differentiate three dimensions of failure, based on different manifestations of human behaviour: Homo Economicus, Homo Irrationalis, and Homo Politicus. We also apply this framework to identify and classify principles to overcome the three dimensions of failure. Our Perspective offers an agent-based view on the constraints that prevent deployment and efficient operation of carbon pricing in practice, and identifies pathways for improved policy design and implementation.

Global greenhouse gas emissions need to reach net-zero around mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. This decarbonization challenge has, inter alia, increased the political and societal pressure on companies to disclose their carbon footprints. As a response, numerous companies announced roadmaps to become carbon neutral or even negative. The first step on the journey towards carbon neutrality, however, is to quantify corporate emissions accurately. Current carbon accounting and reporting practices remain unsystematic and not comparable, particularly for emissions along the value chain (so-called scope 3). Here we present a framework to harmonize scope 3 emissions by accounting for reporting inconsistency, boundary incompleteness, and activity exclusion. In a case study of the tech sector, we find that corporate reports omit half of the total emissions. The framework we present may help companies, investors, and policy makers to identify and close the gaps in corporate carbon footprints. ; ISSN:2041-1723