<p>I seek to answer a specific question of justice: namely, how to find an equitable division of the Earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, here termed as the global carbon sink. The dominant approach to date has been a variation of equal per-capita emissions. My aim is to expand on the Rawlsian legacy by presenting a viable alternative to the dominant approach in the form of an adaptation of Rawls’s <em>difference principle </em>in the form of a <em>climatic difference principle</em>. The climatic difference principle takes the conceptual idea behind the difference principle – of justifying inequalities so long as they result in a compensating benefit for everyone, with a particular concern for the least advantaged – and applying it to the problem of how to divide the global carbon sink.</p> <p>I begin with a critique of the dominant approach in order rectify the lack of critical scrutiny that the scheme has enjoyed in order to illustrate that the scheme fails for two reasons: first, it violates the ideal that it purports to promote; second, the reasons to support the proposal rest on shallow, rather than deep, reasons alone. Next, I engage in a critique of past attempts to globalize the difference principle, for if it were possible to merely globalize the difference principle, we wouldn’t need a distinct principle to guide emissions allocations.</p> <p>The climatic difference principle itself takes the distributive outcomes of equal per-capita emissions, as measured on the Human Development Index (HDI), as a baseline to judge alternative schemes. My conjecture is that the way emissions are used will have an effect on the amount of net benefits that we can derive per unit of the global carbon sink. Shares of the global carbon sink can be used more or less efficiently, and incentives in the form of a greater share of the sink will spur technological innovation. However, Rawls was correct to insist that the most efficient scheme is not necessarily just.</p> <p>A division of the global sink is considered <em>just </em>if we can compensate everyone (in particular the least advantaged) for accepting an unequal share. Specifically, when judged by improvements from the baseline created by the distributive outcomes of equal per-capita emissions, as measured on the Human Development Index (HDI). In order to realize the distributive obligations of the climatic difference principle, a green-technology transfer program will be advanced along with other forms of aid and compensation.</p> / Master of Philosophy (MA)

The current study analyzes the impact of ethical work climates (caring, law and code, rules, instrumental and independence climates) and perceptions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) on workplace deviance (organizational and interpersonal deviance) which is associated with huge financial, social and psychological costs for the organizations and organizational members. The findings of the research are based on a quantitative survey conducted among 219 employees in a public organization. The results obtained after controlling the significant effect of demographic variables revealed that it was only the perceptions of procedural justice that had a significant negative impact on organizational deviance. Distributive and interactional justice predicted neither interpersonal nor organizational deviance. Among the ethical work climates, caring climate was found to be the only ethical climate type that predicted organizational deviance. The remaining types of ethical work climates had significant relationships with neither one of the interpersonal or organizational deviance. Results also showed that ethical work climate was a better predictor of organizational deviance than interpersonal deviance.

The objective of this thesis was to establish how, in an emerging era of sinking islands andincreasing environmental degradation, ideas concerning climate justice have been developedin pacific small island states. These ideas have been analysed from a framework of southernand justice theory and, hence, been put in comparison to the global framework of climatejustice and the notion that sovereign states, no matter location or historical circumstances, areleft alone to deal with the worst effects of climate change.The research questions used to achieve the objective were: what ideas of climate justiceare produced in Kiribati, Fiji and the Maldives; in what way do these ideas affect their local adaptation strategies and how can these ideas be understood in light of southern theory? Thedata consisted of three national policies from the countries of interest in this thesis – Kiribati,Fiji and the Maldives – and manifest each country’s approach to dealing with the impacts of achanging climate and, especially, rising seas. These were analysed through a qualitativecontent analysis where an abductive approach was used to establish the themes that guided theanalysis. The result was that ideas of climate justice in the three countries are affected by thechanging tides, both by nature and the international community, but differ depending onnational leadership. It was also found that the adaptation strategies, while being nationalpolicies, all emphasise the need for international solidarity if being able to solve the issue ofdisappearing islands. This is something that has yet to take place within the global frameworkof climate change, where the global North do not want to acknowledge any responsibility forthe fate of small island states but rather aids affected countries based on goodwill and not oflaw.

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.