Online research in philosophy

Although the United States is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, a multitude of alternative domestic approaches to combat climate change have emerged at all levels of government. The article takes as given that climate change is a serious environmental problem that requires a legal response. Building on conference presentations at a USF symposium in March 2007, this article evaluates the most significant existing federal and state measures, including federal voluntary measures, California's vehicle emissions standards and global warming legislation, and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The article also addresses three litigation initiatives: Massachusetts v. EPA, Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher, and the states' public nuisance actions against electric utilities and auto manufacturers. The article not only highlights the key features of federal, state, and litigation initiatives; it also addresses their respective roles. In responding to climate change, the nation must confront profound institutional questions about the relationship between federal and state regulation, as well as the relationship between democratic processes and the courts. In the article, I conclude that each of our legal institutions, including the federal government, the states, and the courts, has a role to play. Letting them play their respective roles increases the likelihood that our legal institutions will respond effectively to the fundamental challenge posed by global climate change.

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.

In this article, a framework is suggested to deal with the analysis of global environmental risk governance. Climate Change is taken as a particular form of contemporary environmental risk, and mobilised to refine and characterize some salient aspects of new governance challenges. A governance framework is elaborated along three basic features: (1) a close relationship with science, (2) an in-built reflexivity, and (3) forms of governmentality. The UNFCCC-centered system is then assessed according to this three-tier framework. While the two-first requisites are largely met, the analysis of governmentality points to some institutional weak spots.

Most studies on climate change response have examined reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet these studies do not take into account ecosystem services constraints and biophysical disruptions wrought by climate change that may require broader types of response. By studying a firm in the wine industry and using a research approach not constrained by structured methodologies or biased toward GHG emissions, the findings suggest that both “inside out” and “outside in” actions are taken in response to climate change. While attempts are made by the firm to curtail and reverse climate change through management of carbon emissions, evidence suggests a clear pattern of actions designed to adjust to the adverse consequences of climate change as well. The results both confirm and extend previous findings and suggest that the level and breadth of response to climate change is shaped by situated attention, structural controls, and industry type.

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.

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.

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.

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is the only multi-lateral treaty that deals specifically with the energy sector. It must be carefully reviewed to see if it can play a role in addressing climate change. The importance of international investment in the energy sector in the developing countries has been a theme of the discussions on climate change for many years. The developing countries are rapidly becoming major sources of GHG emissions with China surpassing the United States in emissions in 2007. There is a consensus that enormous investments in the developing countries will be required to foster the development of clean sustainable energy to arrest the increase in GHG emissions and avoid the worst case climate change scenarios. The Kyoto Protocol which set binding GHG limits for the industrialized countries for the 2008-2012 period does not set binding emission reduction targets for the developing countries. The developing countries, most recently at the UN conference in Bali in December of 2007, have steadfastly refused to be bound by GHG emissions caps and have instead remained committed to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It behooves the developing countries to combat climate change by fostering foreign investment to mitigate GHG emissions in their countries. Consideration should be given to whether the developing countries should be urged to accede to the ECT, in its current or modified form, and whether such accession would contribute significantly to the attractiveness of investment in the developing countries and serve to reduce the cost of such investments making more investment possible.

In this paper I discuss ethical issues related to mitigation of climate change. In particular, I focus on mitigation of climate change to the extent this change is caused by livestock production. I support the view—on which many different ethical approaches converge—that the present generation has a moral obligation to mitigate climate change for the benefit of future generations and that developed countries should take the lead in the process. Moreover, I argue that since livestock production is an important contributing factor to climate change, we should undertake mitigation measures also in this sector and not only in, for example, the transport and energy sectors. However, technological solutions do not seem sufficient in the livestock sector, leaving us with the option of reduced meat production and consumption. In order to reach significant results in mitigation of climate change, political steering seems necessary. With this in mind, I argue in favor of a tax on meat consumption.