Online research in philosophy

Climate change is now a global problem that can no longer be ignored. As climate change signals a civilization failure, the emerging reality will spur cultures everywhere to re-examine their traditions and rediscover the ecological wisdom of the ancients. Daoism will be no exception. This paper tries to explain the Daoist response to climate change by focusing on the manifestation of Dao, the responsibility of humankind and the ideal life. It shows that in its tenets and practices, Daoism articulates ideas that emphasize conservation, envision a post-consumerist existence and inform a climate ethics, which can help with the cultural adaptations that are now necessary for a sustainable future.

In 2006, a group of prominent evangelicals issued a statement calling for a greater response to climate change. Soon thereafter, another group of prominent evangelicals responded with their own statement urging caution before taking any action against climate change. This division among evangelicals concerning climate change may be surprising for a community that is usually portrayed as homogenous and as indifferent or hostile toward environmental regulation. Yet there is an ongoing debate among evangelicals regarding the severity of climate change, its causes, and the appropriate response. Why? The answer to this question is important because of the increasing prominence of both evangelicals and climate change. After years of forsaking the political process, evangelicals have now gained significant political importance. In their own words, - never before has God given American evangelicals such an awesome opportunity to shape public policy in ways that could contribute to the well-being of the entire world. Those outside the evangelical community recognize the same phenomenon, albeit with varying levels of approval or disapproval. At the same time, climate change has achieved a central role in political debates. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2007 that the evidence for climate change is now - unequivocal - and that it is almost surely caused in part by human activities. Six weeks later, former Vice President Al Gore testified before Congress that climate change - is a planetary emergency - a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth. Both the IPCC and Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. The sudden prominence of evangelicals and of climate change has also been matched by a recognition of the relationship between the two. One scholar has observed that - it's the evangelicals, with their closes ties to the GOP, who 'have the power to move the debate. They could produce policies more palatable to people who have not been moved by secular environmental groups.' - Prominent environmental organizations are boasting of their connections with evangelicals who are interested in responding to climate change. The emergence of evangelical interest in climate change has intrigued observers accustomed to linking evangelicals to social issues and the Republican Party. But other evangelicals are notably cool to calls for responding to climate change. This essay explores three possible explanations for the division among evangelicals with respect to climate change: (1) theological differences, (2) views of how science affects public policy, and (3) the role of legal and political institutions. I hope to provide insight into the contemporary relationship between religious faith and public policy. My undertaking here is descriptive, not normative. But I am hopeful that a better understanding of the contrasting views within the evangelical community will lead to more

Behind the global climate change debate are views of divine sovereignty. Those who believe that God is in charge of everything believe there is no change in the climate, but those who believe that God's sovereignty entails that we are responsible for working with the divine are willing to admit there is global climate change.

In this article, the author draws attention to the fact that the climate change net is being drawn increasingly tighter around the public and private sectors in order to chase down their climate change footprint. Set in the context of the Stern Review Report and the 2007 IPCC Reports, the author reviews: climate legislation which is seeking to impose deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; the emergence of climate change litigation; corporate governance obligations for climate change; and the responsibilities for climate change arising as a result of corporate social responsibility. In particular, the role, and power, of institutional investors to require action and disclosure is examined.

For over two decades, international environmental equity - the fair and just sharing of the burdens associated with environmental changes - has been the subject of much debate by philosophers, activists and diplomats concerned about climate change. It has been manifested in many international environmental agreements, notably the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. The question arises as to whether it is being put into practice in this context. Are the requirements of international environmental equity merely words and principles in international instruments, or are they having a practical effect on the policies of state governments? This article aims to start answering these questions. It examines whether the European Union (EU) and its member states are sharing the burdens of climate change. The article introduces equity in the context of the climate change agreements and looks at some normative and practical considerations. It suggests that Europe has been a leader on international equity in the climate change negotiations over the last decade, and it points to what European states and the EU have done to take on some of the burdens of climate change. Europe's actions are briefly assessed from practical and normative perspectives. Europe is doing more than any other part of the world to address climate change and to share the burdens associated with it. Nevertheless, Europe is not doing as much to address this problem as it can and should do. Both practical and normative imperatives demand more urgent action by Europe to implement climate equity.

It is widely accepted by the scientific community and beyond that human beings are primarily responsible for climate change and that climate change has brought with it a number of real problems. These problems include, but are not limited to, greater threats to coastal communities, greater risk of famine, and greater risk that tropical diseases may spread to new territory. In keeping with J. S. Mill's 'Harm Principle', green political theorists often respond that if we are contributing a harm to others in contributing to climate change and its negative effects, we then have a negative duty to assist those we have harmed and to reduce our carbon emissions. In this paper, I will take seriously negative duties stemming from a contribution to climate change and demonstrate that our negative duties do not demand that we necessarily end our contribution to climate change if we were able to compensate those who may be affected by climate change. Thus, the conclusion of many green political theorists - that we must reduce our carbon emissions - does not necessarily follow from the view that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and its attended ill effects.

Since the 1970s, climate change has dominated the international scientific and political agenda. In particular, the foundation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the end of the 1980s played a major role for the further enhancement of efforts in the field of climate change sciences. However, to understand the interaction of the worldwide coordination of climate change sciences as well as the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its consequences, it is worthwhile to take a look at the self-conception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s tasks and work. This paper gives an idea of the history of international climate change science, its representation in public discourse and the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by comprehensively illustrating its tasks, organization and self-image. Furthermore, the article tries to argue that the hitherto accepted concept of science followed within this body fails to integrate the idea of scientific ethics. It can be concluded that the conception of science represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has heavily influenced worldwide attention to climate change, its becoming part of the political agenda as well as the ethical consequences.

Climate change is one of the environmental issues that has increasingly attracted business attention in the course of the 1990s. Multinationals have developed different strategies over the years, initially more political, nonmarket in nature, but currently also market-oriented. This article examines the evolution of multinationals’ responses to climate change, paying attention to both market and non-market components. It first gives an overview of the main policy developments, followed by a characterisation of non-marketand market responses, based on a survey among the largest multinationals worldwide. The chapter also reflects on overall corporate responses to climate change, paying attention to the influence of the policy contexts on emergent market strategies, and taking respondent characteristics regarding country of origin and sector into account.

This article argues that, except in California, environmental justice considerations have not received sufficient attention in climate change policy debates. It explores the environmental justice implications of emerging domestic climate change policies and provides policymakers with specific suggestions on how to integrate environmental justice concerns. The article begins by introducing the environmental justice movement and its central principles, and then explores the limited integration of environmental justice concerns in existing climate change policies. The article then clarifies existing debates about the environmental implications of greenhouse gas cap and trade programs by providing a detailed assessment of their distributional benefits and risks. The article also includes specific mechanisms by which environmental justice could be integrated into cap and trade programs, and discusses the administrative and economic efficiency ramifications of such integration. Having addressed the environmental implications of cap and trade programs, the article then turns, more broadly, to the economic implications, both negative and positive, of a variety of existing or future climate change policies, including, but not limited to, cap and trade programs. This Part notes that climate change policies could result in significant economic and technological transformations that provide unique development opportunities for disadvantaged communities. The article ends by exploring the risks and opportunities presented by alternative technologies, with a particular focus on the risks presented by ethanol production and use. Given the likelihood that climate change policies will result in pervasive economic and environmental ramifications for the nation, it is incumbent upon decisionmakers to integrate distributional considerations into emerging policies.

The time is ripe for innovation in global health governance if we are to achieve global health and development objectives in the face of formidable challenges. Integration of global health concerns into the law and governance of other, related disciplines should be given high priority. This article explores opportunities for health policymaking in the global response to climate change. Climate change and environmental degradation will affect weather disasters, food and water security, infectious disease patterns, and air pollution. Although scientific research has pointed to the interdependence of the global environment and human health, policymakers have been slow to integrate their approaches to environmental and health concerns. A robust response to climate change will require improved integration on two fronts: health concerns must be given higher priority in the response to climate change and threats associated with climate change and environmental degradation must be more adequately addressed by global health law and governance. The mitigation/adaptation response paradigm developing within and beyond the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change provides a useful framework for thinking about global health law and governance with respect to climate change, environmental degradation, and possibly other upstream determinants of health as well.