This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
15 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Andrew Brook (2011). Spent Fuel An Extra Problem: A Canadian Initiative. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (3):301 - 306.
    Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 14, Issue 3, Page 301-306, October 2011.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Simon Caney (2010). Climate Change and the Duties of the Advantaged. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13 (1):203-228.
    Climate change poses grave threats to many people, including the most vulnerable. This prompts the question of who should bear the burden of combating 'dangerous' climate change. Many appeal to the Polluter Pays Principle. I argue that it should play an important role in any adequate analysis of the responsibility to combat climate change, but suggests that it suffers from three limitations and that it needs to be revised. I then consider the Ability to Pay Principle and consider four objections (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Robert K. Garcia (2014). Towards a Just Solar Radiation Management Compensation System: A Defense of the Polluter Pays Principle. Ethics, Policy and Environment 17 (2):178-182.
    In their ‘Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering’ (2014), Toby Svoboda and Peter Irvine (S&I) argue that there are significant technical and ethical challenges that stand in the way of crafting a just solar radiation management (SRM) compensation system. My aim in this article is to contribute to the project of addressing these problems. I do so by focusing on one of S&I’s important ethical challenges, their claim that the polluter pays principle (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Constantine Hadjilambrinos (2000). An Egalitarian Response to Utilitarian Analysis of Long-Lived Pollution: The Case of High-Level Radioactive Waste. Environmental Ethics 22 (1):43-62.
    High-level radioactive waste is not fundamentally different from all other pollutants having long life spans in the biosphere. Nevertheless, its management has been treated differently by policy makers in the United States as well as most other nations, who have chosen permanent isolation from the biosphere as the objective of high-level radioactive waste disposal policy. This policy is to be attained by burial deep within stable geologic formations. The fundamental justification for this policy choice has been provided by utilitarian ethical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Ramona Cristina Ilea (2009). Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (2):153-167.
    By 2050, global livestock production is expected to double—growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector—with most of this increase taking place in the developing world. As the United Nation’s four-hundred-page report, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options , documents, livestock production is now one of three most significant contributors to environmental problems, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, water pollution, and increased health problems. The paper draws on the UN report as well as a flurry of other (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  6. Aaron Lercher (2004). Is Anyone to Blame for Pollution? Environmental Ethics 26 (4):403-410.
    By making use of a distinction between “making something happen” and “allowing it to happen,” a polluting act can be defined as making something happen with widely scattered externalized costs. Not all polluting acts are blameworthy, but we can investigate which polluting acts are sufficiently badly performed as to be blameworthy. This definition of polluting act permits us to justify the belief we often have that behavior concerning pollution may be blameworthy, even when we do not know whether the behavior (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Philip Olson (2014). Flush and Bone: Funeralizing Alkaline Hydrolysis in the United States. Science, Technology, and Human Values 39 (5):666-693.
  11. Matthew Rendall (2015). Carbon Leakage and the Argument From No Difference. Environmental Values 24 (4):535-52.
    Critics of carbon mitigation often appeal to what Jonathan Glover has called ‘the argument from no difference’: that is, ‘If I don’t do it, someone else will’. Yet even if this justifies continued high emissions by the industrialised countries, it cannot excuse business as usual. The North’s emissions might not harm the victims of climate change in the sense of making them worse off than they would otherwise be. Nevertheless, it receives benefits produced at the latter’s expense, with the result (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Alex Sager & Alex Zakaras (2014). The Hanford Advisory Board: Participatory Democracy, Technology, and Representation. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 4 (2):142-155.
    The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) is a broadly representative, deliberative body that provides formal policy advice on Department of Energy (DOE) proposals and decisions at the Hanford nuclear cleanup site near Richland, Washington. Despite considerable skepticism about the effectiveness of citizen advisory boards, we contend that the HAB offers promising institutional innovations. Drawing on our analysis of the HAB’s formal advice as well as our interviews with board members and agency officials, we explore the HAB’s unique design, outline a normative (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2001). Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
    Scientists are divided on the status of hypothesis H that low doses of ionizing radiation (under 20 rads) cause hormetic (or non-harmful) effects. Military and industrial scientist s tend to accept H, while medical and environmental scientists tend to reject it. Proponents of the strong programme claim this debate shows that uncertain science can be clari ed only by greater attention to the social values in uencing it. While they are in part correct, this paper argues that methodological analyses (not (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Toby Svoboda & Peter Irvine (2015). Response to Commentaries on ‘Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering’. Ethics, Policy and Environment 18 (1):103-105.
  15. Toby Svoboda & Peter Irvine (2014). Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering. Ethics, Policy and Environment 17 (2):157-174.
    As a response to climate change, geoengineering with solar radiation management has the potential to result in unjust harm. Potentially, this injustice could be ameliorated by providing compensation to victims of SRM. However, establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe challenges. First, there is scientific uncertainty in detecting particular harmful impacts and causally attributing them to SRM. Second, there is ethical uncertainty regarding what principles should be used to determine responsibility and eligibility for compensation, as well as determining how (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations