Martin Kowarsch

The 2°C Target Reconsidered

While the 2°C target has become an important reference point in the international climate-policy arena, as stated for example in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, its scientific underpinning and its legitimacy is heavily debated in the scientific community. In this chapter, outstanding experts in the field, representing opposing viewpoints within the scientific community, present their view on the 2°C target. While Mike Hulme casts doubt on the usefulness of the very idea of a specific temperature target as guidance for mitigation policy, Claus Leggewie and Dirk Messner claim that the 2°C target has an important instrumental value in the discourse surrounding climate-related risks. We discuss both contributions and argue that climate stabilisation goals provide a useful framework for a consistent discussion of climate policy choices. We point out that the 2°C objective has two major merits: first, as a global climate stabilisation goal it provides a useful framework around which to structure the global climate policy debate. Second, we consider it an appropriate climate policy goal enabling currently available scientific knowledge to be combined with some explicit value judgements. Nevertheless, further research and public debate are required to reduce uncertainties and substantiate this conjecture.

A Global Carbon Market and the Allocation of Emission Rights

Given that the 2°C target implies that a certain budget of emissions may be permitted, there is debate over how these emission rights could be allocated among the nations. The national emission reduction commitments and possible allocation rules of an emission budget play a major role in international negotiations. The idea prevails that these allocations will determine the distribution of the burden of climate protection. In this chapter we emphasise the importance of an international emission trading scheme (ETS). We also analyse a number of allocation schemes and their influence on regional mitigation costs based on an intertemporal general equilibrium model. Major differences can be discerned between the schemes pursuing the “allocation of emission rights” versus those based on “allocation of reduction efforts” relative to a baseline level. The allocation rule however, accounts for only some of the overall mitigation costs: the full assessment of these costs is much more complex, depending also on technological progress and the effect on trade of the devaluation of fossil resources resulting from emission restrictions. We evaluate the ethical presumptions and their implications on the assessment of the different allocation schemes in terms of justice. We also discuss the institutional requirements for a global cap and trade system.

Triangle of Justice

A consistent and comprehensive general concept of justice is developed in this chapter. It can be useful for solving conflicts of claims and interests which are crucial for climate and development policy. Our theory of justice is based on the core of human rights understood as everyone’s equal right to have the inviolable freedom to live a flourishing life. This core is systematically developed into three dimensions of justice: basic needs fulfilment, sufficient opportunities (operationalised as equal and effective access to processes, education and some economic goods) and fair procedures. In principle, none of these three dimensions of justice predominate, because all of them are inherent aspects, irreducible to one another, of the ethical viewpoint chosen here. If justice is to be achieved, the demands of all three dimensions have to be fulfilled at the same time. Furthermore, it is shown how these three dimensions are interrelated in terms of moral rights as well as duties, and how they can be applied to intra-generational and inter-generational issues.

Climate Change Mitigation: Options, Costs and Risks

Over the last few years political declarations by the European Union (EC (European Community), Climate change – Council conclusions 8518/96 (Presse 188-G) 25/26. VI.96, 1996), the G8 (Major Economics Forum, Declaration of the leaders of the major economies forum on energy and climate, MEF, 2009. http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/MEF_Declarationl.pdf) and in the Copenhagen Accord (UNFCCC, Draft decision -/CP.15: Proposal by the President. Conference of the Parties, Fifteenth session, Copenhagen, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf) have referred to the 2°C target as a potential goal for climate protection. Such an objective is undoubtedly highly ambitious but has not been made a binding target under international law. The Copenhagen Accord also failed to address the willingness of nations to take the necessary measures to attain this target. If the 2°C target is to be pursued by policy-makers, a robust assessment by the scientific community of the side risks and benefits of achieving this mitigation target will be required. This includes the careful evaluation of different technology options and the associated costs of mitigation.

Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms

Deliberation platforms are an important component of the multi-actor science-policy interface within the realm of environmental governance, increasingly characterized by the engagement of a diversity of actors. Deliberation platforms provide a mechanism through which stakeholders with diverse perspectives can both discuss problems and explore potential solutions related to environmental governance, integrating scientific and other knowledge. This study employs a Qualitative Content Analysis of 16 semi-structured interviews to investigate which elements of deliberation platforms are most central to their success and how these elements interact with one another from the perspective of public engagers. This fills a gap in the literature on the qualification of knowledge and experience of public engagers regarding the organization of multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms. Elements to consider in the organization of deliberation platforms were ranked, and five central elements were identified: (1) the selection of participants relevant to the topic and conducive to positive interactions, (2) openness as an attitude in both organizers and participants, (3) facilitation of interactions and the role of the facilitator, (4) communication and transparency between organizers and participants, and (5) fostering dialog between participants through various means. Different manifestations of these five central elements which can fit best within different particular contexts and suit various objectives are also investigated based on the interview material. The discussion summarizes the lessons learned with regards to organizing deliberation platforms from the perspective of public engagers, and explores the potential for trade-offs and co-benefits between central elements as a means to improve the efficiency and efficacy of organizing such platforms. Furthermore, the links between the central elements and social learning, as a particular, overarching objective of deliberation platforms, are discussed. This study is an important step towards further analysis of deliberation platforms, necessary in order to avoid the risks of convening actors with diverse perspectives to discuss politically-relevant topics. It provides insights relevant to public engagers and to future studies analyzing these increasingly important venues for engagement in environmental governance.

Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis

Climate policy advice is being undermined by value-laden choices over risky mitigation strategies, warn Dominic Lenzi and colleagues.Climate policy advice is being undermined by value-laden choices over risky mitigation strategies, warn Dominic Lenzi and colleagues.

Einzelthemen der Angewandten Ethik: Tier- und Umweltethik

Tieren, Pflanzen, Okosystemen und weiteren Bestandteilen der Natur wird in der tier- und umweltethischen Diskussion oftmals ein eigener moralischer Status zuerkannt. Menschen haben danach direkte Pflichten gegenuber Tieren und der Natur, und nicht lediglich Pflichten gegenuber anderen Menschen. Zumindest bezogen auf Tiere ist diese Auffassung auch in unserer Alltagsmoral weit verbreitet. So wird davon ausgegangen, dass wir schmerzempfindliche Tiere nicht sinnlos qualen durfen. Dies wird nicht (oder zumindest nicht nur) damit begrundet, dass das Qualen der Tiere die Gefuhle anderer Menschen verletzt. Stattdessen geht es dabei direkt um das Leiden der Tiere, die demnach einen moralischen Status besitzen, der zu direkter moralischer Rucksichtnahme auffordert.