Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis

Alexander Schulan, Jan-Christoph Heilinger
{"title":"Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis","authors":"Alexander Schulan, Jan-Christoph Heilinger","doi":"10.1007/s10806-024-09932-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This primarily diagnostic paper offers, from the perspective of relational egalitarianism, a normative analysis of three major injustices in the context of adaptation finance. Adaptation finance includes payments provided by the affluent countries of the Global North to low-income countries in the Global South, countries particularly exposed to the harms of climate change. Relational egalitarianism is the normative view that interactions between people and between institutions have to respect the equal moral status of every human being. The first injustice, from this perspective, consists in the sheer fact that adaptation measures are required at all to deflect harm from people who did not significantly contribute to the causes of climate change. The second injustice consists in the persisting, even increasing adaptation finance gap, as countries of the Global North do neither provide adequate financial means to reduce climate risks, nor even fulfil their commitments to adaptation finance pledged in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009. The third injustice emerges from current procedures to determine criteria for distributing scarce financial resources that consolidate structural injustice. The paper concludes by providing the contours of a practical response to these injustices that respects the demands of relational egalitarianism.</p>","PeriodicalId":501152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-024-09932-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This primarily diagnostic paper offers, from the perspective of relational egalitarianism, a normative analysis of three major injustices in the context of adaptation finance. Adaptation finance includes payments provided by the affluent countries of the Global North to low-income countries in the Global South, countries particularly exposed to the harms of climate change. Relational egalitarianism is the normative view that interactions between people and between institutions have to respect the equal moral status of every human being. The first injustice, from this perspective, consists in the sheer fact that adaptation measures are required at all to deflect harm from people who did not significantly contribute to the causes of climate change. The second injustice consists in the persisting, even increasing adaptation finance gap, as countries of the Global North do neither provide adequate financial means to reduce climate risks, nor even fulfil their commitments to adaptation finance pledged in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009. The third injustice emerges from current procedures to determine criteria for distributing scarce financial resources that consolidate structural injustice. The paper concludes by providing the contours of a practical response to these injustices that respects the demands of relational egalitarianism.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适应性融资的三大不公--关系平等主义分析
这篇主要是诊断性的论文从关系平等主义的角度出发,对适应资金背景下的三大不公正现象进行了规范性分析。适应资金包括全球北方富裕国家向全球南方低收入国家提供的付款,这些国家尤其容易受到气候变化的危害。关系平等主义是一种规范性观点,认为人与人之间以及机构与机构之间的互动必须尊重每个人的平等道德地位。从这一角度看,第一种不公正在于需要采取适应措施来转移那些对气候变化成因没有重大贡献的人所遭受的伤害。第二个不公正在于适应资金缺口持续存在,甚至不断扩大,因为全球北方国家既没有提供足够的资金来减少气候风险,甚至也没有履行其在 2009 年《哥本哈根协议》中对适应资金的承诺。第三种不公正产生于当前确定稀缺资金分配标准的程序,这些程序巩固了结构性不公正。本文最后提出了对这些不公正现象的实际应对措施的轮廓,这种应对措施尊重关系平等主义的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis Interspecies Justice within a Normative Sustainable Development Framework–Animal-Friendly Energy Systems as a Test Case Value-Able Valuers: Anthropogenic Climate Change and Expanding Community to the “Radically Other” When Cows Become Heroes: The Construction of Animal Subjectivity and Environmental Sustainability in the Swedish Organic food Sector Correction: Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1