Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10003
Zhongmin Zhang
Sancang Publishing House is mainly engaged in the publication and distribution of Chinese international open source journals. The journals cover engineering technology, mathematics and physics, humanities and society, information science, economics and management, medicine and health, agriculture, global environment and other disciplines, with the help of Internet thinking and modern Information technology, based on the scientific research needs of domestic universities and research institutions, strives to promote the exchange and dissemination of knowledge in the Chinese academic community. It can be published in journals, published papers, and published quickly. Sancang Publishing welcomes scientific research scholars to join us, participate in manuscript review, co-run journals, submit manuscripts, and grow and grow together with Chinese journals. If you have any comments or suggestions on the journal, please contact service@sciepublish.com.
{"title":"Private Property and Public Commons: Narrowing the Gap","authors":"Zhongmin Zhang","doi":"10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10003","url":null,"abstract":"Sancang Publishing House is mainly engaged in the publication and distribution of Chinese international open source journals. The journals cover engineering technology, mathematics and physics, humanities and society, information science, economics and management, medicine and health, agriculture, global environment and other disciplines, with the help of Internet thinking and modern Information technology, based on the scientific research needs of domestic universities and research institutions, strives to promote the exchange and dissemination of knowledge in the Chinese academic community. It can be published in journals, published papers, and published quickly. Sancang Publishing welcomes scientific research scholars to join us, participate in manuscript review, co-run journals, submit manuscripts, and grow and grow together with Chinese journals. If you have any comments or suggestions on the journal, please contact service@sciepublish.com.","PeriodicalId":244043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Civilization","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136114818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10002
K. Bosselmann
: Private property and public commons each represent strongly felt concepts of society but in very different ways. While the protection of private property is at the heart of the capitalist system and deeply embedded in our laws, the protection of the public commons is a mere subset of government policies and often lacks firm regulations. Critically, natural commons such as air, water, biodiversity, and a habitable earth, are hardly protected at all. Environmental laws regulate use and protection of natural “resources” in a strict instrumental fashion, ignoring the intrinsic value of Nature and take Earth’s ecological systems for granted. This article traces the “hidden logic” of environmental law and explores some of the history of property and the commons in the European context. It then shows the fundamental importance of ecological integrity for all efforts towards sustainable societies. The overall thesis is that property and commons must be based on ecological sustainability as a fundamental norm of law.
{"title":"Private Property and Public Commons: Narrowing the Gap","authors":"K. Bosselmann","doi":"10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10002","url":null,"abstract":": Private property and public commons each represent strongly felt concepts of society but in very different ways. While the protection of private property is at the heart of the capitalist system and deeply embedded in our laws, the protection of the public commons is a mere subset of government policies and often lacks firm regulations. Critically, natural commons such as air, water, biodiversity, and a habitable earth, are hardly protected at all. Environmental laws regulate use and protection of natural “resources” in a strict instrumental fashion, ignoring the intrinsic value of Nature and take Earth’s ecological systems for granted. This article traces the “hidden logic” of environmental law and explores some of the history of property and the commons in the European context. It then shows the fundamental importance of ecological integrity for all efforts towards sustainable societies. The overall thesis is that property and commons must be based on ecological sustainability as a fundamental norm of law.","PeriodicalId":244043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Civilization","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130207681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10001
Ryszard F. Sadowski
: Research into the sources of contemporary ecological crisis as well as ways to overcome it has been conducted for several decades. Rich academic literature provides numerous attempts to identify the causes of the crisis and its solutions. The ecological crisis is extremely complex and variously conditioned. Therefore, I focus on determining only two sources of the crisis and, respectively, two solutions. Since the late 1960s, monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular, have been made responsible for the environmental crisis. Christianity is accused of forwarding two theses which are harmful to the environment: 1. The sole purpose of nature is to serve man. 2. By God’s will, man is endowed with unlimited power over nature. I attempt to overcome this understanding of the source of the crisis by showing the interpretation of the Bible which contradicts the above-mentioned theses. Moreover, I show “the ecological potential” of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. As the second source of the crisis I indicate modern thought: 1. Man’s alienation from nature as the result of the Cartesian division of reality into res cogitans and res extensa . 2. Francis Bacon’s program: the study of nature is the task of natural sciences alone; nature is devoid of value in itself. 3. The mathematization of nature made it possible for the natural and technical sciences to develop rapidly, which contributed to the industrial revolution. I look for an antidote to this cause of the crisis in Klaus M. Meyer-Abich’s idea of man’s peace with nature which he developed as part of the practical philosophy of nature. I believe that revealing our inseparable bond with nature and showing compassion towards nature may help overcome the destructive consequences of modern thought.
对当代生态危机的根源和克服方法的研究已经进行了几十年。丰富的学术文献提供了许多尝试，以确定危机的原因及其解决方案。生态危机是极其复杂的，条件是多种多样的。因此，我着重于确定危机的两个根源，并分别提出两个解决方案。自20世纪60年代末以来，一神论宗教，特别是基督教，被认为对环境危机负有责任。基督教被指责提出了两个对环境有害的论点:1。大自然的唯一目的是为人类服务。2. 根据上帝的意志，人类被赋予了超越自然的无限力量。我试图通过展示与上述论点相矛盾的圣经解释来克服对危机根源的这种理解。此外，我还展示了犹太教-基督教和穆斯林传统的“生态潜力”。作为危机的第二个来源，我指出现代思想:1。人与自然的异化是笛卡儿将现实划分为“认知者”和“外延者”的结果。2. 弗朗西斯·培根的纲领:研究自然是自然科学的任务;自然本身没有价值。3.对自然的数学化使自然科学和技术科学得以迅速发展，从而促成了工业革命。我在Klaus M. Meyer-Abich关于人类与自然和平的观点中寻找解决危机的方法，他将这一观点发展为自然实践哲学的一部分。我相信，揭示我们与自然密不可分的联系，对自然表示同情，可能有助于克服现代思想的破坏性后果。
{"title":"Roots of (and Solutions to) our Ecological Crisis. A Humanistic Perspective","authors":"Ryszard F. Sadowski","doi":"10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10001","url":null,"abstract":": Research into the sources of contemporary ecological crisis as well as ways to overcome it has been conducted for several decades. Rich academic literature provides numerous attempts to identify the causes of the crisis and its solutions. The ecological crisis is extremely complex and variously conditioned. Therefore, I focus on determining only two sources of the crisis and, respectively, two solutions. Since the late 1960s, monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular, have been made responsible for the environmental crisis. Christianity is accused of forwarding two theses which are harmful to the environment: 1. The sole purpose of nature is to serve man. 2. By God’s will, man is endowed with unlimited power over nature. I attempt to overcome this understanding of the source of the crisis by showing the interpretation of the Bible which contradicts the above-mentioned theses. Moreover, I show “the ecological potential” of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. As the second source of the crisis I indicate modern thought: 1. Man’s alienation from nature as the result of the Cartesian division of reality into res cogitans and res extensa . 2. Francis Bacon’s program: the study of nature is the task of natural sciences alone; nature is devoid of value in itself. 3. The mathematization of nature made it possible for the natural and technical sciences to develop rapidly, which contributed to the industrial revolution. I look for an antidote to this cause of the crisis in Klaus M. Meyer-Abich’s idea of man’s peace with nature which he developed as part of the practical philosophy of nature. I believe that revealing our inseparable bond with nature and showing compassion towards nature may help overcome the destructive consequences of modern thought.","PeriodicalId":244043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Civilization","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131081612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10004
Philipp G黱ther, Felix Ekardt
: Drastically reducing emissions is essential to achieve the Paris Agreement’s (PA) goal of keeping global temperature well below 2 °C, ideally at 1.5 °C. With regard to residual emissions, however, a demand for negative emission technologies (NETs), also known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), remains. NETs are particularly necessary to reach net-zero goals by offsetting emissions in hard-to-abate sectors. This article examines the distinction between “engineered” and “nature-based” removals from the perspective of international climate change law. To that end, the relevant legal norms in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol (KP), and the PA are interpreted—with a particular emphasis on two engineered removals: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). We posit that the three treaties establish a normative hierarchy that is more favorable towards so-called nature-based removals and less favorable to engineered removals (and even more favorable towards emission reductions).
{"title":"The Priority of Nature-based over Engineered Negative Emission Technologies: Locating BECCS and DACCS within the Hierarchy of International Climate Law","authors":"Philipp G黱ther, Felix Ekardt","doi":"10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35534/ecolciviliz.2023.10004","url":null,"abstract":": Drastically reducing emissions is essential to achieve the Paris Agreement’s (PA) goal of keeping global temperature well below 2 °C, ideally at 1.5 °C. With regard to residual emissions, however, a demand for negative emission technologies (NETs), also known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), remains. NETs are particularly necessary to reach net-zero goals by offsetting emissions in hard-to-abate sectors. This article examines the distinction between “engineered” and “nature-based” removals from the perspective of international climate change law. To that end, the relevant legal norms in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol (KP), and the PA are interpreted—with a particular emphasis on two engineered removals: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). We posit that the three treaties establish a normative hierarchy that is more favorable towards so-called nature-based removals and less favorable to engineered removals (and even more favorable towards emission reductions).","PeriodicalId":244043,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Civilization","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126406616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：