Ivo Wallimann-Helmer

This paper discusses two approaches to climate ethics for practicalreflection and decision-making in concrete local climate changegovernance. After a brief review of the main conceptual frameworksin climate ethics research, we show that none of these leadingapproaches is sufficiently context specific and pluralistic to provideguidance appropriate for concrete local climate governance. Asalternatives, we present principlism as a methodology of midlevelprinciples and environmental pragmatism as an ethicalapproach. We argue that the two methodologies of principlismand pragmatism offer a new pluralistic framework that allows realworldconditions and contexts to be properly integrated into ethicalanalysis and decision-making in climate governance.

Es ist nicht immer so klar, welche Verantwortlichkeiten zum Klimaschutz den einzelnen Bürger:innen legitimerweise auferlegt werden können. Viele Forderungen scheinen leicht zu bewerkstelligen – z. B. die Umstellung der Essensgewohnheiten –, manche überfordern – z. B. die Wahl angemessener Ausnahmen – und wieder andere – z. B. die technische Entfernung von Klimagasen aus der Atmosphäre – sind ohne staatliche Unterstützung nicht zu bewerkstelligen. In diesem Aufsatz entwickeln wir ein Modell zur Unterscheidung zwischen den individuellen Klimaschutzverantwortlichkeiten und den Verantwortlichkeiten des Staates, wenn dieser netto null Emissionen anstrebt. Hierzu unterscheiden wir drei Emissionsniveaus: i.) die aktuell hohen Emissionen innerhalb eines Staates, ii.) die Emissionen, die Bürger:innen aktuell zur gleichberechtigten Teilhabe an einer Gesellschaft benötigen, iii.) die ohne technische Hilfsmittel nicht vermeidbaren Emissionen. Wir argumentieren, dass die einzelnen Bürger:innen ohne staatliche Unterstützung nur für die Reduktion ihrer aktuell hohen Emissionen verantwortlich gemacht werden können. Mit Blick auf alle anderen Emissionen kommt ihnen in erster Linie eine politische Verantwortung zu.

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.

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.

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.

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 norma-tive framework. This paper aims at developing such a framework. We suggest two conceptual dimensions defining the spectrum of different justi-fiable 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.

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

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.

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.