I den här uppsatsen görs en jämförelse mellan två aktörer på den klimatpolitiska arenan, den svenska staten och miljörörelsen. Syftet är att jämföra och analysera aktörernas syn på klimatfrågan med särskilt fokus på säkerhetisering och klimaträttvisa i ljuset av ekologisk modernisering som dominerande diskurs i det klimatpolitiska samtalet. Genom en diskursanalys av Sveriges första klimatpolitiska handlingsplan samt textmaterial från Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen och Extinction Rebellion visar denna studie på hur frågor om säkerhet och rättvisa nedprioriteras i statens sätt att prata om klimatfrågan. Detta förstås utifrån att ekologisk modernisering alltmer blivit den dominerande diskursen i svensk klimatpolitik. Det är i jämförelsen med miljörörelsens sätt att prata om klimatfrågan som detta blir som tydligast. / In this thesis, a comparison is made between two actors in the climate policy arena, the Swedish state and the environmental movement. The purpose is to compare and analyze the actors’ perspectives on the climate issue, with a particular focus on securitization and climate justice in the context of ecological modernization as the dominant discourse in the climate policy conversation. Through a discourse analysis of Sweden’s first climate policy action plan, as well as textual material from two different environmental groups in Sweden, Naturskyddsföreningen and Extinction Rebellion, this study demonstrates how issues of security and justice are deprioritized in the state’s discourse of climate issue. This finding is understood in the light of ecological modernization as the dominant discourse in Swedish climate policy. It is in the comparison with the environmental movement’s way of talking about the climate issue that this becomes most evident.

After years of proposals for a Loss and Damage fund meant to deliver climate justice for developing states being blocked, such a fund was established at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on November 20, 2022. Based on constructivist theories of norm diffusion and persuasion, complemented by theories on strategic negotiating and normative discussions of justice, this thesis conducts a directed content analysis to examine the discourses used by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the EU in negotiations for the Loss and Damage fund. The results show that AOSIS has shifted from using multiple discourses to mainly justice-based arguments sometimes used strategically and was aided by a process favorable to discussing Loss and Damage at COP27. The EU, which represents itself as a leader in COPs, opposed creating new mechanisms to address loss and damage until COP27. Afterward, it positioned itself as an important contributor to the outcome. To evaluate the outcome, while the fund is aimed at distributive justice and climate justice is recognized in the COP27 text, justice discourse is absent from the Loss and Damage section. It remains to be seen whether the fund will advance climate justice.

This article aims to provide both efficient and just ways of sharing mitigative and adaptive climate burden costs. Time is an important factor when constructing policies which are set out to turn negative temperature trends around. Justice is another crucial value to consider when deciding who ought to carry out these climate burdens. Moreover, how we consider efficient and just sharing of burden costs, relies on practicality in relation to moral responsibility. Moral responsibility can be applied to those who have polluted and those who have benefitted from pollution. However, there are practical issues that hide between the lines. Justice grounded only on moral responsibility, such as ‘the polluter pays principle’ and ‘the beneficiary pays principle’, can only account for a limited portion of climate burdens. Because there are leftover burdens that need to be shared, and a climate window of opportunity to regard, we need to allocate the burdens both fairly as well as efficiently, such as ‘the ability to pay principle. In this paper, I will present a case that takes all of these dimensions into account and I will illustrate that it indeed can be effective to be just when sharing all climate burdens. / Denna artikel strävar efter att visa både effektiva och rättvisa sätt att fördela klimatbördan på. Denna börda innebär kostnaderna av att reducera utsläpp och anpassa samhället efter klimatförändringarna. Tid är en viktig faktor när vi konstruerar lagar och regler som syftar till att ändra riktning på den negativa temperaturutveckling forskare varnar oss för. Rättvisa är också en viktig komponent vi behöver ta hänsyn till när vi överväger vilka som bör axla klimatbördan. Hur vi överväger effektiva och rättvisa klimatfördelningar, beror på praktikalitet i relation till moraliskt ansvar. Moraliskt ansvar kan bland annat tillskrivas de som förorenar och de som gynnas av att förorena. Däremot finns det praktiska svårigheter som gömmer sig mellan raderna. Rättvisa som endast grundas på moraliskt ansvar, såsom ’förorenaren betalar’, ’den som gynnas av att förorena betalar’, kan enbart stå för en begränsad del av klimatbördan. Eftersom resterande börda också behöver fördelas blir vi tvungna att distribuera återstående börda både rättvist och effektivt, såsom ’de som2kan betala också ska’. I denna uppsats överväger jag dessa delar och kommer illustrera att det sannerligen är effektivt att vara rättvis när vi fördelar all klimatbörda.

This thesis analyzes how the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) evolved in response to the European Green Deal, with a particular focus on climate justice. In previous trading periods, the ETS faced extensive criticism from researchers and international environmental organizations, who argued that the system exacerbated social and economic inequalities. However, as part of the Green Deal, the ETS underwent reforms with stricter regulations, clearer targets, and the inclusion of more sectors. The aim of this thesis is to analyze these changes and assess whether the system could now be considered just. The analysis is conducted using a critical approach and an ideal-type analysis, evaluating the ETS according to two justice-based criteria: effectiveness and the equitable distribution of climate change responsibilities. The results indicates that the current form of the emission trading system fails to meet the standards of fairness on both criteria.

design_destruct is a look at industrial design education, straight from the source; it tries to understand the relationship between conscious, radical intentions and the continued embrace of a status quo that upholds and deepens structures of destruction.  it focuses in on corporate collaborations as a central culprit to this acceptance, and encourages design to be a tool to build for a structurally sustainable world, instead of the world as it is (and physically, socially, and environmentally can't continue to be). it is a call to action, to question, to reject and to refuse, and to protest. the knowledge gained—both through and despite the education—is turned against the structures we are taught to fit into, resulting in a collection of designs that use text, typography, space and form to educate and mobilise.

This thesis examines the discourses surrounding the subject of climate change, with particular emphasis on the discourse(s) of the emerging social movement for climate justice. Positioned within the social constructivist and critical research paradigms, the methodology involves a Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis in which discourse is defined as a historically-situated, materially-embodied, and power-imbued set of statements and rules that comprise a unique and coherent representation of the world. A review of the climate change-related literature reveals four primary discourses on the phenomenon of rising greenhouse gas emissions: early scientific, climate modernization, climate change denial, and climate justice. The statements and rules of these four discourses, as well as the theoretical trends and sociopolitical, economic, and ecological factors affecting their historical development are described. A deeper analysis using 26 primary documents representing every major climate justice organization reveals that rather than a single coherent discourse, the climate justice movement encompasses four individual sub-discourses: global, peasant-oriented, Indigenous, and civil rights. Focussed on climate-related inequities in developing countries of the Southern Hemisphere, the global discourse constructs climate change as a problem of the structures and logic of the globalized capitalist economy. The peasant-oriented discourse emphasizes inequities to peasant farmers, and represents climate change as largely the result of industrialized agriculture and food systems. With specific concern for the wellbeing of Indigenous communities, the Indigenous discourse locates the cause of climate change in the “violation of the sacred” and the loss of harmony with Mother Earth. The United States-based civil rights discourse primarily emphasizes the rights and interests of African American communities and constructs climate change as a problem of externalized ecological costs and failure to incent a “green” economy. The relations of power between the four climate justice sub-discourses and the prevailing climate modernization discourse are tentatively explored on the basis of three indicators of strength (internal coherence, material foundations, and adaptive capacity), on which basis several questions related to discursive resistance are proposed as possible avenues of future research. / Thesis (Master, Environmental Studies) -- Queen's University, 2012-10-11 09:45:29.397

L’objectif général de ce travail est d’étudier certains problèmes d’éthique et de philosophie politique soulevés par le changement climatique et de proposer des politiques susceptibles de réduire les injustices climatiques. La première partie vise à justifier les devoirs majeurs de justice climatique à partir d’une approche centrée sur les droits humains menacés par le changement climatique. Les données des sciences du climat et des œuvres de fiction littéraires et cinématographiques servent comme fondement de la réflexion philosophique. La deuxième partie explore certaines pistes de réformes institutionnelles à même de réaliser ces devoirs de justice globale et intergénérationnelle. Il s’agit d’exclure certaines réponses proposées au changement climatique, comme la géoingénierie et la compensation, mais aussi et surtout de développer des politiques justes, efficaces et faisables de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, comme un cadre normatif pour évaluer les engagements des pays, un mécanisme de marché hybride et un rôle politique accru accordé à la société civile. Si ce travail s’inspire des recherches des scientifiques, des écrivains, des économistes et des spécialistes des relations internationales, il dialogue principalement avec les auteurs les plus influents en justice et en éthique climatiques. Au final, bien que les défis moraux et politiques posés par le changement climatique soient sans précédent, l’approche non idéale de la justice climatique développée ici montre qu’il est encore temps d’agir pour éviter les scénarios les plus nuisibles pour les pauvres du monde et les générations futures. / The main objective of this work is to highlight key philosophical problems raised by climate change and to propose policies that could reduce climate injustices. In the first part, I justify major duties of climate justice by constructing a normative approach focusing on basic human rights threatened by climate change. My philosophical reflections draw on data provided by climate sciences as well as works of literary and cinematographic fiction. In the second part, I explore possible institutional reforms that could realize these duties of global and intergenerational justice. My point is to reject false solutions such as geoengineering and offsetting, but also and mostly to develop just, efficient and feasible policies such as a normative framework to assess the equity of countries’ pledges, a hybrid market mechanism and an increased political role given to civil society. While this work draws on researches made by scientists, writers, economists and international relations scholars, it also critically engages with the theories of the most influent authors in climate justice and climate ethics. The non-ideal approach of climate justice I develop explains that even if the moral and political challenges raised by climate change are unprecedented, it is not too late to prevent the realization of the most harmful scenarios for the global poor and future generations.

Satire erlaubt alles – so die Aussage einiger Comedians und Freunde des gepflegten Spöttelns. Doch wenn politisches Kabarett dazu beiträgt, Falschinformationen und Fehlinterpretationen zu verbreiten – darf Satire dann immer noch alles? Trägt nicht auch das politische Kabarett Verantwortung für eine adäquate Faktendarstellung anstelle einseitiger Politisierung? Satire blendet leider auch einige Fakten und Wirkbezüge in der Klimadebatte und den wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen aus. Dass diese Blindheit und Ignoranz nicht zwingend zuträglich für eine gesellschaftliche Entwicklung und die Aufgeklärtheit einer Gesellschaft sind, liegt auf der Hand – aller Freiheit politischer Satire zum Trotz. Auch wenn zu viel Informationen und Wissen, und erst recht ambigue und widersprüchliche Daten, zu Verwirrungen und häufig nicht zur Irritation der eigenen (festgefahrenen) Weltbilder führen können, soll dieser Beitrag die Vielfalt der Daten und Interpretationsspielräume aufzeigen und zu mehr factfulness in der Klimadiskussion motivieren. / Satire allows everything - so the statement of some comedians and friends of the cultivated mockery. But if political cabaret contributes to spreading misinformation and misinterpretations - is satire still allowed to do everything? Doesn't political cabaret also bear responsibility for an adequate presentation of facts instead of one-sided politicization? Unfortunately, satire also ignores some facts and causal relations in the climate debate and scientific knowledge. It is obvious that this blindness and ignorance is not necessarily conducive to social development and the enlightenment of a society - despite all the freedom of political satire. Even if too much information and knowledge, and even more so ambiguous and contradictory data, can lead to confusion and often not to the irritation of one's own (deadlocked) world views, this contribution is intended to show the diversity of data and scope for interpretation and motivate more factfulness in the climate debate.

No description available.

Die Bepreisung von Treibhausgasemissionen ist eine der am intensivsten diskutierten Strategien zur Mitigation des menschengemachten Klimawandels. Eine CO2-Steuer oder ein Emissionshandel nach dem „Cap and Trade“-Prinzip sind die prominentesten Vorschläge und stehen auch im Zentrum dieser Dissertation. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, näher zu beleuchten, was aus moralischer Sicht für und gegen die Bepreisung von Treibhausgasen spricht. Zu diesem Zweck werden in drei Kapiteln Argumente für die Bepreisung von Treibhausgasen untersucht und in drei weiteren Kapiteln Argumente gegen die Bepreisung von Treibhausgasen diskutiert. Hierbei baue ich auf der existierenden philosophischen Literatur zum Thema auf; bringe jedoch auch neue Argumente in die Debatte ein. Ich komme zu einem gemischten Fazit. Manche Argumente für die Bepreisung von Treibhausgasemissionen halten einer genaueren philosophischen Betrachtung nicht stand (Effizienz, Ausmaß der Freiheitseinschränkungen), aber auch nicht alle Argumente gegen die Bepreisung überzeugen (Kommodifizierung). Auf der anderen Seite ist festzuhalten, dass ein Argument für die Bepreisung schlüssig scheint (Effektivität) und zwei kritische Argumente zumindest in Teilen überzeugen (mangelnde Fairness, Auswirkung auf intrinsische Motivation). Die Dissertation soll wichtige Erkenntnisse für das aus moralischer Sicht optimale Design eines Preises auf Treibhausgasemissionen liefern. Eine endgültige Antwort auf die Frage, ob wir den Weg der Bepreisung von Treibhausgasemissionen relevanten Alternativen vorziehen sollten, kann nur nach einer interdisziplinären Debatte gegeben werden. Zu dieser soll die vorliegende Dissertation ein Beitrag sein. / Pricing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most intensely discussed strategies to mitigate climate change. Implementing a carbon tax or a ‚cap and trade‘ emissions trading scheme are the two most prominent proposals and the ones that this doctoral thesis focuses upon. Its goal is to contribute to a better understanding of the moral reasons that speak for or against carbon pricing. The first three chapters deal with moral arguments in favor of carbon pricing and the last three chapters with moral arguments against carbon pricing. In doing so, I build on the existing literature, but also develop new arguments. Some of the arguments in favor of carbon pricing turn out to be unconvincing (Least Cost Argument, Liberty Argument), but the same is true for one argument against carbon pricing (Commodification Argument). One of the arguments in favor of carbon pricing proves to be sound (Effectiveness Argument), while two of the arguments against it have at least some credibility (Solidarity Objection, Carbon Pricing and Motivation). This doctoral thesis aims to provide some insights into how to price carbon, but a final answer to the question of whether we should price carbon can only be given after an interdisciplinary debate to which this work of moral philosophy is but one contribution.