{"title":"On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions","authors":"Dominic Lenzi","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"45 1","pages":"123 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80671166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs","authors":"P. Sandin, C. Munthe, Karin Edvardsson Björnberg","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1865085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1865085","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objections to the current EU regulatory system on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in terms of high cost and lack of consistency, speed and scientific underpinning have prompted proposals for a more technology-neutral system. We sketch the conceptual background of the notion of ‘technology neutrality’ and propose a refined definition of the term. The proposed definition implies that technology neutrality of a regulatory system is a gradual and multidimensional feature. We use the definition to analyze two regulatory reform proposals: One proposal from the Netherlands for improving the exemption mechanism for GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC, and one from the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, outlining a new stratified risk assessment procedure. While both proposals offer some degree of improved technology neutrality in some dimensions compared to current EU regulation, in some extents and dimensions, they do not. We conclude that proposals for more technology-neutral regulation of GMOs need, first, to make explicit to what extent and in what dimensions the proposal improves neutrality and, second, to present arguments supporting that these specific improvements constitute desirable policy change against the background of objections to current policy.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"13 1","pages":"52 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87770597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Looking Forward and Backward at Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Policy","authors":"Greg Lusk","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How the science of probabilistic extreme event attribution might inform climate change adaptation is hotly debated. Central to these debates is an understanding that event attribution’s backward-looking orientation aligns poorly with the forward-facing goals of adaptation policy. Here, I analyze two new philosophical arguments that challenge this understanding and claim that probabilistic event attribution is not only forward-looking, but has a potentially significant role in risk-pooling adaptive strategies. I argue the purported forward-looking capabilities of event attribution are based on a mischaracterization of the scientific methodology, and one consequence of this mischaracterization is a limited role in adaptive risk-pooling schemes.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"4000 4 1","pages":"37 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86692447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic(s)","authors":"J. B. Callicott","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1904532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904532","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Anthropocene and the Holocene are coeval. Preserving the Holocene/Anthropocene climate is the overarching concern of twenty-first-century environmental philosophy and ethics. The second wave of the environmental crisis—ozone thinning, biodiversity erosion, and climate change—crested in the mid-1980s and is global in scale. The land ethic is local in scale. Therefore, an earth ethic is needed. Leopold sketched several in 1923: a three-pronged virtue ethic, a care ethic for posterity, an ethic of respect for the living planet. An individualistic ethic for distant future generations falls afoul of the non-identity paradox. Fiduciary care for global civilization can serve as a surrogate.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"150 1","pages":"27 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77421800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Kantian Perspective on Individual Responsibility for Sustainability","authors":"K. Wallace","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1904531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904531","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I suggest that the Kantian categorical imperative can be a basis for an ethical duty to live sustainably. The universalizability formulation of the categorical imperative should be seen as a test of whether the principle underlying a way of life is self-destructive of the system of living and acting which makes the way of life possible. In exploring this interpretation the self should be conceptualized as a socially and system-constituted being, rather than an atomized will. In this sense, a self which lives in a way that is destructive of the system of life, is also in principle willing its own self-destruction.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"12 2","pages":"44 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904531","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72409989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ethics, Adaptation, and the Anthropocene","authors":"M. Hourdequin","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1904530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904530","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Some proponents of the Anthropocene argue that it is time adopt a future-oriented outlook: natural baselines no longer matter, and humans should remake the planet for the better. This raises questions about whose vision should guide such remaking, and whether the past deserves any consideration in adapting for the future. I argue that the past remains relevant, because the natural, cultural, and social worlds people enter into – shaped by those who came before us – matter. On this view, there are reasons to value ‘nature’, even in a human-altered world, and climate adaptation should take that into account.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"61 1","pages":"60 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89847387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Age of Man Environmentalism and Respect for an Independent Nature","authors":"Ned Hettinger","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1904529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904529","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The debate about a new geological epoch ‘The Anthropocene’ has helped spawn ‘Age of Man Environmentalism’ (AME). According to AME, humans’ planetary impact indicates that respect for independent nature can no longer serve as a guiding value for environmentalism. Traditional goals of nature preservation and restoration are grounded in the illusory ideal of pristine nature. Humans are now fully integrated into nature and must become responsible managers of an earth we have created, governing it by our ideals. This essay repudiates AME, defending traditional environmental values of naturalness and respect for nature’s autonomy. AME’s exaggeration of human influence over Earth manifests an anthropocentric narcissism blind to nature’s ongoing agency. Rather than becoming gods or parents of a nature that allegedly needs us, human flourishing requires we strengthen our commitment to humility, restraint, and respect for nature’s gifted character. Naturalness becomes increasingly valuable the rarer it becomes, even in highly humanized areas. AME’s thoroughly managed future ignores the possibility of rewilding and turning nature loose. Its promotion of non-native species and ‘novel ecosystems’ attempts to polish the image of human-impacted nature and denigrates preserved wild areas. Taking seriously humans’ massive impact on earth does not require abandoning traditional environmental values.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"21 1","pages":"75 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74211945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Wildness without Naturalness","authors":"Alexander Lee, A. Amir, B. Hale","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1953342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1953342","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Some fear the Anthropocene heralds the end of nature, while others argue that nature will persist throughout the Anthropocene. Still others worry that acknowledging the Anthropocene grants humanity broad license to further inject itself into nature. We propose that this debate rests on a conflation between naturalness and wildness. Where naturalness is best understood as fundamentally a metaphysical category, wildness can be better understood as an inter-relational category. The raccoons in cities, the deer in suburban yards, the coyotes hunting cats and dogs: these all return wildness, where naturalness may have been lost.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"14 1","pages":"16 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90103882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Information and Virtue in the Anthropocene","authors":"J. Kawall","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2021.1904533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1904533","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To reliably choose morally sound policies, whether as a society or as an individual, will typically require a deep and wide-ranging base of relevant knowledge. In this paper I consider the epistemic demands for morally sound action and policy in the Anthropocene. I argue that these demands are likely to be unsatisfied, leading to a potential downward spiral of ineffective action in the face of worsening conditions; this seems a strong possibility both for individual lives, and for societies as a whole. Given the likely scale of ignorance in the face of rapid, poorly-understood change, the best efforts of future generations to act morally may often be little more than guesses, with a far lower chance of asuccess than in more stable conditions. As moral failures mount, and conditions continue to deteriorate, our epistemic efforts seem likely to be pressured and subject to various biases, leading to further errors and failures. Our ability to live virtuously and to act rightly is likely to be put under severe strain in the Anthropocene. Our approach to ethics will likely need to change to the extent that, for a wide range of cases, we will not know what the right action to perform will be; we will typically be acting without such moral knowledge. The final section of my paper addresses ways in which we might attempt to address or mitigate these worries.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"132 1","pages":"1 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89221102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"‘Don’t Think of Fukushima!’: The Ethics of Risk Reframing in ‘Nuclear for Climate’ Communications","authors":"Ryan M. Katz-Rosene","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1864800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1864800","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years an assemblage of nuclear energy proponents has coalesced around the notion of ‘Climate First’ – arguing that nuclear power is a necessary component of the fight against climate change. One noteworthy addition to the Climate First fold is the semi-formalized communications campaign Nuclear for Climate (N4C). This article builds upon a previous ethical critique of Climate First by conducting a comparison of the extent of risk concept disclosure seen within N4C’s key messaging and more ‘traditional’ Climate First texts. The article demonstrates how there has been a noticeable shift in the communications strategy of N4C vis-à-vis ‘traditionalists’, and moreover that models of environmental framing and affective heuristics help to explain the strategic value of this risk reframing for the nuclear industry. It further argues that this reframing of risk gives rise to an ethical paradox, wherein strategic advocates of nuclear energy as a climate mitigation tool could be compelled to withhold important aspects of the nuclear story from the public to promote what they understand to be an urgently-needed tool for saving the planet.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"40 1","pages":"164 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86369230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
