Ivo Wallimann-Helmer

From a nonideal justice perspective, this article investigates liability and compensation intheir wider theoretical context to better understand the governance of climate loss anddamage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). The usual rationale for considering compensation takes a backward-looking understanding of responsibility. It links those causing harm directly to its remedy. Thisarticle shows that, under current political circumstances, it is more reasonable to understandresponsibility as a forward-looking concept and thus to differentiate responsibilitieson grounds of capacity and solidarity. The article argues that loss and damage entitlementsinUNFCCCgovernance should be understood as entitlements to a threshold of capabilitiesfor resilience. While compensation merely means redressing the situation ex ante a threat,entitlements to capabilities for resilience can entail more demanding responsibilities ofsupport. This means that Article 8 of the Paris Agreement has much more demandingimplications than it might at first appear

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is a key principle in inter- national climate and environmental governance. This paper explores the normative impli- cations of the differentiation of responsibilities. I explain how responsibility as a four-digit relation can be used to reconstruct the complex networks of responsibilities in climate and environmental governance. I argue that depending on the area, governance level and concrete case of climate and environmental governance, other or differently specified norms become relevant for the differentiation of responsibilities. However, I show that the attribution of responsibility must always consider the actors’ ability for responsibility. I argue that it is not only the fairness of the attribution of responsibilities that matters, but the capacity for responsibility of the relevant agents and their dependence on networks and institutions of responsibility.

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, methods 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 suggestions 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.

This paper discusses two approaches to climate ethics for practical reflection and decision-making in concrete local climate change governance. After a brief review of the main conceptual frameworks in climate ethics research, we show that none of these leading approaches is sufficiently context specific and pluralistic to provide guidance appropriate for concrete local climate governance. As alternatives, we present principlism as a methodology of mid-level principles and environmental pragmatism as an ethical approach. We argue that the two methodologies of principlism and pragmatism offer a new pluralistic framework that allows real-world conditions and contexts to be properly integrated into ethical analysis and decision-making in climate governance.

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.

This white paper resulted from a risk dialogue project with climate scientists and experts on the subject of climate engineering – conducted by the neutral and independent Risk-Dialogue Foundation St. Gallen between April 2016 and March 2017. The aim was to identify the current state of research on the topic as well as related risk and to evaluate a potential need for wider public deliberation. The project was carried out on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Climate Division. In line with views expressed during the dialogue, the sole objective of this paper is to argue for an open and public deliberation process and not to favour or promote any technologies or deployment thereof. The views expressed in this report are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect any official positions.

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

Die Klimakrise, der Biodiversitätsverlust und viele weitere ökologische Herausforderungen verlangen sofortiges politisches Handeln. Doch die meisten Staaten – auch Demokratien – hinken den notwendigen Maßnahmen hinterher. In Demokratien wäre unter Umständen eine Lösung des Problems, Heranwachsende zu Umweltbürger:innen auszubilden. Dieser Aufsatz zeigt, weshalb eine solche Bildungsmaßnahme aus dem liberalen Gerechtigkeitsparadigma heraus nur schwer gerechtfertigt werden kann. Problematisch ist, dass viele Vorschläge zur Reform demokratischer Institutionen zugunsten von mehr Nachhaltigkeit Nachhaltigkeits-Kompetenzen zur Voraussetzung für die Beteiligung an denselben machen. Sie riskieren Gleichheit und Freiheit als Grundwerte liberaler Demokratie zu untergraben. Wir können deshalb legitimerweise nur auf die selbständige Ausbildung der nötigen Tugenden unter den Bürger:innen hoffen.

Initiatives advocating for nature-based solutions, such as increased urban biodiversity, aim to promote public health as a part of creating sustainable cities. These initiatives are supported by a plenitude of scientific literature demonstrating the link between human health and nature contact. Despite these findings, positive human-nature interactions are declining worldwide, negatively effecting human development and health. We support an embodied approach to mental health. Taking this approach seriously illuminates how cities can be enhanced by modifying environmental and social affordances and the ways in which urban dwellers interact with urban natural greenspaces. We argue that urban nature experiences can be used to promote mental health, but that indicators of environmental injustice need to addressed.

Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Klimaschutz oder der Kampf gegen den Verlust von Biodiversität verlangen politische Entscheide, die langfristig sind und in die Zukunft weisen. Solche Entscheide belasten aber häufig die Bürgerinnen und Bürger von heute. Deshalb laufen Demokratien Gefahr, langfristigen Massnahmen auszuweichen. Dies liegt an ihrer institutionellen Struktur. Cite as: Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo (2020): Institutionen einer Nachhaltigen Demokratie, in: Bulletin der Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 26,3, S. 33–36.

In Zeiten in denen in Protesten die Klimapolitik be¬klagt und radikale Systemänderungen gefordert werden, in Zeiten in denen medizinisches und pfle¬gerisches Handeln mehr und mehr kritisch hinter¬fragt wird, in Zeiten in denen die Sensibilisierung für Wertekonflikte zu steigen scheint, ist die angewandte Ethik als inter- und transdisziplinäres Unterrichtsfach an Hochschulen besonders nötig aber auch heraus¬gefordert. Herausgefordert ist die Ethik als Unterrichtsfach, weil in diesen Kontexten die Versuchung gross ist, die ei¬gene Werthaltung zum wissenschaftlichen Status quo der aktuellen Debatte zu erheben oder normati¬ve Aussagen einzig und alleine auf der eigenen Wert¬haltung zu basieren.

Umweltherausforderungen beinhalten Risiken. Sie reichen von Schäden und Verlusten an materiellen und immateriellen Gütern bis hin zu Beeinträchtigungen der Gesundheit und Todesfällen. Die Gefahr von Murgängen bedeutet ein erhöhtes Risiko für die exponierten Hauseigentümer. Überschwemmungen können Kulturgüter unwiederbringlich schädigen. Erhöhte Abgaswerte sind eine Gefahr für die Gesundheit, insbesondere von Kleinkindern. Klimabedingte Hitzewellen erhöhen die Todesraten. In den meisten Fällen lassen sich solche Risiken nur minimieren, nicht aber voll und ganz vermeiden. Insbesondere wenn es um Schutz- und andere Anpassungsmaßnahmen geht, verhandelt die Umweltpolitik deshalb immer auch den fairen Umgang mit Risiken. Da Risiken in den wenigsten Fällen unter allen potentiell Betroffenen gleich verteilt werden können, geht es in diesen Verhandlungen um die gerechte Verteilung von Umweltrisiken bzw. um die faire Differenzierung der Verantwortlichkeiten bei Investitionen in Schutz- und Anpassungsmaßnahmen

Climate change is expected to lead to rising sea levels, higher frequency of natural hazards, extended phases of drought, and many other negative impacts. To minimize these threats, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris agreed that the global mean temperature must be kept “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels” (United Nations 2015). For this target to be feasible, most climate models assume not only heavy cuts in emissions but also negative emissions via the large-scale capture and storage of carbon dioxide (K. Anderson and Peters 2016). This chapter investigates the considerations of ethics and justice that are relevant to the fair governance of the carbon capture and storage technologies required to produce negative emissions.1 I argue that the governance of these negative emission technologies (NETs) demands the fair distribution of the additional burdens and risks associated with them and that their ethical evaluation requires the appropriate involvement of those most directly affected. The main argument justifying these claims relies on the infeasibility of achieving justice in the governance of NETs. However, the solutions recommended for dealing with this challenge also face some feasibility constraints. I demonstrate how challenges of feasibility shape the directions of moral thinking about this area of climate action.

Global climate change is one of the biggest threats humankind faces today. Changing climatic conditions are expected to lead to rising sea levels, a higher frequency of natural hazards, extended phases of drought, and a greater risk of many other sudden and slow-onset events. These threats will impact not only economic development but also the livelihood and cultures of many communities and regions of the world. Governing climate change to minimize these risks not only concerns understanding its science but also analyzing policy options with methods from social sciences and economics. This in turn means making evaluative judgments about what policy measures can be considered just and fair. These kinds of judgments are normative; they concern ethics. The aim of this article is to lay out some of the most important aspects of justice and responsibility in governing transitions to renewable energy as a means of reducing global emissions.

Le changement climatique est l’un des plus grands défis auxquels l’humanité est confrontée. En raison des concentrations de gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère, qui ont considérablement augmenté depuis l’industrialisation, les changements climatiques et les conséquences négatives qui en découlent se font déjà sentir. Si rien n’est fait, les pertes et les préjudices liés au dérèglement du climat seront inévitables, et ne cesseront de s’accroître. Afin d’éviter les conséquences négatives liées au changement climatique, il faut réduire la production de gaz à effet de serre, prendre des mesures d’adaptation et mettre en oeuvre des interventions technologiques pour agir sur le climat, c’est-à-dire des techniques de géo-ingénierie. La philosophie du changement climatique s’intéresse principalement aux implication éthiques et justice de la politique climatique. Cet article présente un aperçu des principales positions de l'éthique climatique.

Grünanlagen bzw. grüne Freiräume wie Parks, Uferböschungen von Flüssen oder Stadtwälder werden generell positiv bewertet. Dies geschieht aus ganz unterschiedlichen Gründen. Die einen nutzen den Stadtpark zum Joggen, die anderen feiern ein Fest oder Treffen sich in ihrer Community und für viele ist ein Park eine wichtige Oase der Erholung von der städtischen Betriebsamkeit. Ganz allgemein zeigen Studien, dass Grünanlagen zum Wohlbefinden der Stadtbevölkerung beitragen, sozialräumliche Polarisierung und sozialen Abstieg vermeiden helfen und darüber hinaus Umweltrisiken wie Überschwemmungen oder Hitzeextreme mindern können.

The rapid technological transition requires the adoptive approach to the digital conduct of public and private institutions. Countries and companies strive to integrate a balanced understanding of digital ethics and sustainability concepts from various standpoints, which results in a dispersed and uncategorized knowledge base. This work presents a literature review on digital ethics published from 2010 to 2020 in three technical libraries and one library maintained by the community of philosophers. The investigation process integrates a thorough review of digital ethics concepts in the leading academic libraries using keywords representing various concept applications. This study’s outcome is a quantitative and sectorial categorization of works on digital ethics, followed by a holistic review of concepts, maturity level, and conclusions on each category. This work aims to understand the trends from a technological and philosophical perspective towards designing a sustainable digital ethical frame-work applied in digital services that fulfill sufficiency thresholds of justice and do not foster overshooting of planetary boundaries. The first version of a holistic framework based on the literature review is presented at the end of this work. It will be extended in future work.

Avoiding severe impacts from anthropogenic climate change requires not only substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but also further implementation of adaptation measures. In many regions with smallholder farming systems adaptation can help ensure food security despite significantly changing climatic conditions. However, the space for adaptation measures has limits. In this paper, we investigate hard and soft adaptation limits and discuss their relevance to food security in smallholder farming food systems. We argue that soft adaptation limits can be defined by sufficiency levels of justice like basic needs, capabilities, human rights or levels of well-being. Depending on social, cultural, political and economic conditions different communities realize different sufficiency levels of justice. Furthermore, as normative claims of justice, these sufficiency levels not only allow the social, cultural and political and economic conditions of social systems to be described but also define entitlements. We show that for smallholder farming systems with low social and economic standards these entitlements might mean that soft adaptation limits can define entitlements to social and economic improvements despite transformational adaptation to changing climatic conditions.

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.

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 has 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.

Both biofuels and BECCS serve the purpose of reducing the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, biofuels by reducing the quantity of CO2 newly added and BECCS by removing the CO2 already emitted. Both rely on the large-scale growth of biomass and hence compete with food production for arable land. Consequently, the implementation of both at large scales potentially endangers food security. Given this conflict and the need for climate action, this paper discusses whether there are differences between the ethical implications of mitigation by biofuels and geoengineering with BECCS. We apply a principlist approach, specifying and weighting four key principles of climate ethics: the polluter-pays principle, the ability-to-pay principle, the equal-per-capita principle, and the procedural involvement principle. Because the ethical and practical implications of BECCS and biofuels have many parallels, applying these four principles identifies relevant moral differences to decide between these two technologies.

Ethics reflects the moral aspects of any kind of challenge and especially of complex problems. Ethics asks, ’What should be?’ given the facts, dilemmas and normative claims. It is always worth analyzing complex problems through a normative-ethical lens since many, if not all, complex problems incorporate moral issues. The five-step model allows decision-making in situations in which our moral intuitions do not provide convincing guidance. Ethical analysis is not only a means to clarify your individual moral position but also to analyze the challenge you face from a moral point of view. Using the five-step model allows you to identify the ethical challenges, acquire a more encompassing understanding of them and make a well-reflected ethical decision