We thank those who commented on our article for helping foster our goal of initiating greater discussion about global climate change (GCC) and non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD). We see Gupta’s comment (Gupta 2011, this issue) as reinforcing our points, but with the benefit of providing more understanding of Gandhi’s influence in policies and actions that should be useful in future discourse about GCC and NVCD. Likewise, Ott seems to be in basic agreement with our views (Ott 2011, this issue). However, he reminds us that the general media needs to increasingly raise questions about mitigation and do a better job of framing GCC in an ethical context, along with the need to obtain solidarity with people in other nations, such as those of the European Union. Ott (2011) also raises questions we had not dealt with, namely: Should laws in the USA be rigidly applied to discourage NVCD as much as possible? Or, should laws better tolerate NVCD by removing protestors from
我们感谢那些评论我们文章的人，他们帮助我们实现了发起关于全球气候变化(GCC)和非暴力公民不服从(NVCD)的更大讨论的目标。我们认为古普塔的评论(古普塔2011年，本期)加强了我们的观点，但也有助于我们更好地理解甘地在政策和行动方面的影响，这对未来关于海湾合作委员会和NVCD的讨论应该是有用的。同样，Ott似乎与我们的观点基本一致(Ott 2011, this issue)。然而，他提醒我们，一般媒体需要越来越多地提出有关缓解的问题，并在道德背景下更好地构建海湾合作委员会，同时需要与其他国家的人民，如欧洲联盟的人民团结一致。Ott(2011)也提出了我们没有处理过的问题，即:美国的法律是否应该严格适用，以尽可能多地阻止NVCD ?或者，法律应该更好地容忍NVCD，把抗议者从
{"title":"Responses to the Comments on global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience","authors":"J. Lemons, Donald A. Brown","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00115","url":null,"abstract":"We thank those who commented on our article for helping foster our goal of initiating greater discussion about global climate change (GCC) and non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD). We see Gupta’s comment (Gupta 2011, this issue) as reinforcing our points, but with the benefit of providing more understanding of Gandhi’s influence in policies and actions that should be useful in future discourse about GCC and NVCD. Likewise, Ott seems to be in basic agreement with our views (Ott 2011, this issue). However, he reminds us that the general media needs to increasingly raise questions about mitigation and do a better job of framing GCC in an ethical context, along with the need to obtain solidarity with people in other nations, such as those of the European Union. Ott (2011) also raises questions we had not dealt with, namely: Should laws in the USA be rigidly applied to discourage NVCD as much as possible? Or, should laws better tolerate NVCD by removing protestors from","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"39-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654596","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}
This paper is a reflection on the article by John Lemons and Donald A. Brown: Global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience (Lemons & Brown 2011, this issue). The authors suggest that ‘a new approach to bring about action [on global climate change] might be required’: namely, non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD). For this purpose, they proposed that their arguments and lines of discussion should be a ‘conversation starter’ because the idea of civil disobedience ‘has not been dealt with in the scientific or environmental peer-reviewed literature and because, [...] it warrants discussion.’ (Lemons & Brown 2011, p. 3). For the most part, non-violent civil disobedience is preoccupied with the idea of political obligation. Generated from ‘special bonds’ that people may have in a community — whether by consent, by being a member of a political group or benefiting from it — it is claimed that individuals have an obligation towards the state and to each other. On the other hand, the legitimate authority in the prescriptive sense entails a moral right to command and, the right to be obeyed (Wolff 1970). The demand of the state to be obeyed logically correlates to the citizen’s political obligations (Simmons 1999) and is defined ‘to be obligations of obedience and support owed to one particular government or community (our own), above all others’ (Simmons 1996, p. 250). In standard terminology, according to Thomas Nagel, this is an associative obligation when ‘justice is something we owe through our shared institutions only to those with whom we stand in a strong political relation’ (Nagel 2005, p. 121). Furthermore, when it concerns one’s duty owed to each other irrespective of institutional affiliations, these associative obligations or special ties among co-citizenries are not necessarily in contradiction with those of cosmopolitan requirements for ‘individualism, universality and generality’ (Pogge 1992, p. 48–49). Besides the climate adaptation fund which is sponsored by developed nations, for example, new and additional financing of climate change for developing nations ‘refers to the idea that financial resources raised for one objective, such as climate change, should not substitute or divert funding from other important objectives, in particular economic and social development’ (Moncel et al. 2009, p. 5). However, these guiding principles in transnational political duty are in order to support each other, and they ‘ought to be formulated and applied through a collective political authority. Otherwise, however well-intended, these [...] claims will always result unilaterally and consequently fail to be binding’ (Ypi 2010, p. 178). Similarly, ‘these principles should be those that one would choose for one’s own political society. This is something like Rawls’s original position’ (Miller 2010, p. 1785). Following such internally1 demanding requirements, when a duty to support co-citizenries is stronger compared with foreigners, I shall fi
本文是对John Lemons和Donald a . Brown的文章《全球气候变化与非暴力公民不服从》(Lemons & Brown 2011，本期)的反思。这组作者提出，“可能需要一种新的方法来(对全球气候变化)采取行动”:即非暴力的公民不服从(NVCD)。为此，他们提出，他们的论点和讨论路线应该成为“对话的开端”，因为公民不服从的想法“在科学或环境同行评议的文献中尚未得到处理，因为，[…]它值得讨论。(Lemons & Brown 2011，第3页)。在很大程度上，非暴力的公民不服从被政治义务的观念所占据。它产生于人们在一个社区中可能拥有的“特殊纽带”——无论是出于同意、作为一个政治团体的成员还是从中受益——它声称个人对国家和彼此都有义务。另一方面，规定性意义上的合法权威需要一种道德上的命令权和被服从的权利(Wolff 1970)。服从国家的要求在逻辑上与公民的政治义务相关(Simmons 1999)，并被定义为“服从和支持一个特定政府或社区(我们自己的)的义务，高于所有其他的义务”(Simmons 1996, p. 250)。在标准术语中，根据托马斯·内格尔的说法，当“正义是我们通过我们共同的制度只对那些与我们有强烈政治关系的人所欠的东西”时，这是一种联想义务(内格尔2005，第121页)。此外，当涉及到一个人对彼此的义务时，无论其机构隶属关系如何，共同公民之间的这些联合义务或特殊联系并不一定与“个人主义、普遍性和一般性”的世界主义要求相矛盾(Pogge 1992, p. 48-49)。除了由发达国家赞助的气候适应基金之外，例如，为发展中国家提供新的和额外的气候变化融资“指的是为一个目标(如气候变化)筹集的财政资源不应取代或转移其他重要目标，特别是经济和社会发展的资金”(Moncel et al. 2009, p. 5)。这些跨国政治责任的指导原则是为了相互支持，应该通过一个集体的政治权威来制定和实施。否则，无论这些[…]]索赔总是单方面产生的，因此不具有约束力”(Ypi 2010，第178页)。同样，这些原则也应该是人们为自己的政治社会所选择的原则。这有点像罗尔斯的原始立场”(Miller 2010, p. 1785)。根据这些内部要求，当支持同国籍公民的义务比支持外国人的义务更强烈时，我将首先讨论公民不服从
{"title":"Global climate change: interests of foreigners in civil disobedience","authors":"Amarbayasgalan Dorjderem","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00116","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a reflection on the article by John Lemons and Donald A. Brown: Global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience (Lemons & Brown 2011, this issue). The authors suggest that ‘a new approach to bring about action [on global climate change] might be required’: namely, non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD). For this purpose, they proposed that their arguments and lines of discussion should be a ‘conversation starter’ because the idea of civil disobedience ‘has not been dealt with in the scientific or environmental peer-reviewed literature and because, [...] it warrants discussion.’ (Lemons & Brown 2011, p. 3). For the most part, non-violent civil disobedience is preoccupied with the idea of political obligation. Generated from ‘special bonds’ that people may have in a community — whether by consent, by being a member of a political group or benefiting from it — it is claimed that individuals have an obligation towards the state and to each other. On the other hand, the legitimate authority in the prescriptive sense entails a moral right to command and, the right to be obeyed (Wolff 1970). The demand of the state to be obeyed logically correlates to the citizen’s political obligations (Simmons 1999) and is defined ‘to be obligations of obedience and support owed to one particular government or community (our own), above all others’ (Simmons 1996, p. 250). In standard terminology, according to Thomas Nagel, this is an associative obligation when ‘justice is something we owe through our shared institutions only to those with whom we stand in a strong political relation’ (Nagel 2005, p. 121). Furthermore, when it concerns one’s duty owed to each other irrespective of institutional affiliations, these associative obligations or special ties among co-citizenries are not necessarily in contradiction with those of cosmopolitan requirements for ‘individualism, universality and generality’ (Pogge 1992, p. 48–49). Besides the climate adaptation fund which is sponsored by developed nations, for example, new and additional financing of climate change for developing nations ‘refers to the idea that financial resources raised for one objective, such as climate change, should not substitute or divert funding from other important objectives, in particular economic and social development’ (Moncel et al. 2009, p. 5). However, these guiding principles in transnational political duty are in order to support each other, and they ‘ought to be formulated and applied through a collective political authority. Otherwise, however well-intended, these [...] claims will always result unilaterally and consequently fail to be binding’ (Ypi 2010, p. 178). Similarly, ‘these principles should be those that one would choose for one’s own political society. This is something like Rawls’s original position’ (Miller 2010, p. 1785). Following such internally1 demanding requirements, when a duty to support co-citizenries is stronger compared with foreigners, I shall fi","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"31-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654685","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}
{"title":"Is civil disobedience appropriate in the case of climate policies","authors":"K. Ott","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00111","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"23-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654529","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}
J. Lemons and D. A. Brown, 2 admittedly timid scholars, pose the question of whether non-violent civil disobedience is now ethically justified in the case of climate change (Lemons & Brown 2011, this issue). In order to get to a position where an individual must decide on whether non-violent civil disobedience is in fact justified and necessary, what can be called an ‘I gotta do something’ moment, one must first see themselves clearly, especially in relation to others, so as to be impelled to act. The role of higher education is paramount in developing the self-vision required for individuals to arrive at the ‘I gotta do something’ moment. This is why universities, where young people explore who they are and what they value, are hotbeds of civil disobedience. A curricular strategy built around the concept of positionality compels the self-reflection necessary for students to see themselves clearly and perhaps arrive at an ‘I gotta do something’ moment. Positionality is the practice of recognizing one’s own position — gender, social status, race, sexuality, and so forth — and its relation to other beings and things, including the planet. Positionality refers to the recognition that position in life often determines one’s production of knowledge. Positionality often avoids solipsism, i.e. the tendency toward discounting, or not acknowledging at all, any experience other than your own. Solipsism should be avoided because it discourages seeing the conditions of others and being empathetic; solipsism encourages being aloof to injustice. If, however, we are to resolve the climate crisis and ‘swerve’, as eminent science studies scholar Donna Haraway states, ‘from the established disorder of finished, deadly worlds,’ we must first be able to recognize the deadly conditions our existence creates (Haraway 1994, p. 66). Those of us who reside in cultures of high consumption must recognize the repercussions of a high consumption lifestyle and how our existence affects others outside our experience. We must, for example, recognize the ravages of climate change on peoples in far off lands such as Tuvalu, the Maldives, and in coastal Alaska. A curriculum based on positionality would quickly reveal that wealthier peoples are largely to blame for climate chaos because of the higher consumption that usually accompanies wealth and that those of us in positions of privilege have the duty to act first and shoulder the burden for climate action. By extension, people living a privileged life have the ethical responsibility to work for change. This ethical reasoning again brings us to answer the question posed by Lemons & Brown (2011): Is non-violent civil disobedience ethically justified in the case of climate change? Yes, especially for those who possess the unfortunate facts about climate change and their society’s contribution to the crisis, and who understand that greenhouse gas emissions anywhere threaten life everywhere. The privileged few, like Lemons and Brown,
两位公认胆小的学者j·莱蒙斯和d·a·布朗提出了一个问题，即在气候变化的情况下，非暴力的公民不服从是否在道德上是合理的(莱蒙斯和布朗2011年，本期)。为了达到一个个人必须决定非暴力的公民不服从是否实际上是合理和必要的位置，可以被称为“我必须做点什么”的时刻，一个人必须首先清楚地看到自己，特别是与他人的关系，以便被推动采取行动。高等教育在培养个人达到“我要做某事”时刻所需的自我愿景方面发挥着至关重要的作用。这就是为什么大学是年轻人探索自己是谁和自己看重什么的温床。围绕位置概念建立的课程策略迫使学生进行必要的自我反思，以清楚地看到自己，并可能达到“我必须做点什么”的时刻。定位是认识到自己的位置——性别、社会地位、种族、性取向等等——以及它与其他存在和事物，包括地球的关系的实践。位置性是指认识到生活中的位置往往决定了一个人的知识产出。立场主义通常避免唯我论，即倾向于贬低或根本不承认自己以外的任何经验。我们应该避免唯我论，因为它会阻碍我们去观察他人的处境并产生同理心;唯我论鼓励人们对不公正保持冷漠。然而，如果我们要解决气候危机并“转向”，正如著名的科学研究学者唐娜·哈拉威所说，“从已完成的、致命的世界的既定混乱中”，我们必须首先能够认识到我们的存在创造了致命的条件(哈拉威1994，第66页)。我们这些生活在高消费文化中的人必须认识到高消费生活方式的影响，以及我们的存在如何影响我们经验之外的其他人。例如，我们必须认识到气候变化对图瓦卢、马尔代夫和阿拉斯加沿海地区等偏远地区人民造成的破坏。基于位置性的课程很快就会揭示出，富裕人群在很大程度上要为气候混乱负责，因为富裕通常会带来更高的消费，而我们这些处于特权地位的人有责任首先采取行动，承担气候行动的负担。推而言之，享有特权的人有道德责任为变革而努力。这种道德推理再次让我们回答了莱蒙斯和布朗(2011)提出的问题:在气候变化的情况下，非暴力的公民不服从在道德上是合理的吗?是的，特别是对于那些了解气候变化的不幸事实以及他们的社会对这场危机的贡献的人，以及那些明白任何地方的温室气体排放都会威胁到任何地方的生命的人。像莱蒙斯和布朗这样享有特权的少数人，可以使用非暴力的公民不服从，让这些事实变得可见，创造出面对这些事实所必需的紧张局势，并用马丁·路德·金(King 1963, p. 3)的话来说，避免大多数人的“骇人听闻的沉默”和冷漠。King(1963)提出了公民不服从的四步过程，这也是基于位置性的课程的逻辑延伸:(1)收集事实:找出不公正存在的地方并揭露它。(2)谈判:努力通过对话化解紧张局势。如果这些都失败了，(3)自我净化:为自己的行为带来的后果做好准备——问问自己是否能“接受打击而不报复”;然后(4)直接行动:公开反对不公正。关于气候变化的事实很久以前就提交了。气候变化科学及其可怕的影响
{"title":"Higher education and non-violent civil disobedience","authors":"John Rosales","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00113","url":null,"abstract":"J. Lemons and D. A. Brown, 2 admittedly timid scholars, pose the question of whether non-violent civil disobedience is now ethically justified in the case of climate change (Lemons & Brown 2011, this issue). In order to get to a position where an individual must decide on whether non-violent civil disobedience is in fact justified and necessary, what can be called an ‘I gotta do something’ moment, one must first see themselves clearly, especially in relation to others, so as to be impelled to act. The role of higher education is paramount in developing the self-vision required for individuals to arrive at the ‘I gotta do something’ moment. This is why universities, where young people explore who they are and what they value, are hotbeds of civil disobedience. A curricular strategy built around the concept of positionality compels the self-reflection necessary for students to see themselves clearly and perhaps arrive at an ‘I gotta do something’ moment. Positionality is the practice of recognizing one’s own position — gender, social status, race, sexuality, and so forth — and its relation to other beings and things, including the planet. Positionality refers to the recognition that position in life often determines one’s production of knowledge. Positionality often avoids solipsism, i.e. the tendency toward discounting, or not acknowledging at all, any experience other than your own. Solipsism should be avoided because it discourages seeing the conditions of others and being empathetic; solipsism encourages being aloof to injustice. If, however, we are to resolve the climate crisis and ‘swerve’, as eminent science studies scholar Donna Haraway states, ‘from the established disorder of finished, deadly worlds,’ we must first be able to recognize the deadly conditions our existence creates (Haraway 1994, p. 66). Those of us who reside in cultures of high consumption must recognize the repercussions of a high consumption lifestyle and how our existence affects others outside our experience. We must, for example, recognize the ravages of climate change on peoples in far off lands such as Tuvalu, the Maldives, and in coastal Alaska. A curriculum based on positionality would quickly reveal that wealthier peoples are largely to blame for climate chaos because of the higher consumption that usually accompanies wealth and that those of us in positions of privilege have the duty to act first and shoulder the burden for climate action. By extension, people living a privileged life have the ethical responsibility to work for change. This ethical reasoning again brings us to answer the question posed by Lemons & Brown (2011): Is non-violent civil disobedience ethically justified in the case of climate change? Yes, especially for those who possess the unfortunate facts about climate change and their society’s contribution to the crisis, and who understand that greenhouse gas emissions anywhere threaten life everywhere. The privileged few, like Lemons and Brown,","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"17-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654584","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}
{"title":"Responding to global climate change: the Gandhian way","authors":"Abhik Gupta","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00110","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"19-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654515","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}
{"title":"Potential for conflicting interests in those who participate in NVCD","authors":"A. Bosworth","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00112","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"13-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654543","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}
Should we go beyond our knowledge of an ethical problem to act upon it? The answer to this question may seem, quite obviously, yes! If we do not act, then we cannot expect any ethical problems to be resolved, and the world will not get any better. But how to act? This issue of Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) features an article by John Lemons and Donald A. Brown entitled ‘Global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience’. Commentators from different countries and perspectives broadly agree with their conclusions. The claim is that we cannot expect certain governments to change their concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climate change because they have not taken sufficient actions over the past decades. Lemons & Brown (2011, this issue), supported by most commentators, argue that non-violent civil disobedience is a method that could be used to convince governments to act. One suggestion is that consumers start campaigns to boycott products produced by countries who fail to adopt international plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol. They also suggest mass public protests and other measures to demand change in climate-change policies. Lemons & Brown (2011) focus on the policies of the country they live in, the USA, and particularly criticize the policies of that country. ESEP is an open forum for discussion of ethical issues of science and environmental policies, and cannot condone any targeting of individuals, institutions or countries. It is for the readers to critically assess all points of view, and ESEP will welcome future responses to this and any other paper from all perspectives. In addition, we can see that a number of other countries cannot escape from similar criticisms. The commentators in this issue come from a variety of countries, ranging from Mongolia to Europe, and disciplines, including natural science, social science, law, philosophy and sociology. We can see a common framework of discourse being used in a variety of ways. Industries may also be considered as potential culprits in a similar vein of not adopting policies to mitigate climate change and pollution. In this case, there have been some consumer-led campaigns against particular products. How should consumers be educated about the risks and dangers of energy choices, and lifestyle patterns? The recent naturally induced disaster in Japan that affected several nuclear power plants is a serious challenge for ethics and energy choices. It is an industry that has been backstopped by governments because the insurance risks for the catastrophes that are not meant to happen are too large for private industry. Thus, these nuclear choices are public ones, since public funding is used. At the same time, governments have actively promoted campaigns to claim the safety of nuclear energy. ESEP does not take a particular position on the ethics of nuclear energy; however, we call now for papers in
{"title":"Civil disobedience, climate change and the risks of nuclear accidents","authors":"D. Macer","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00117","url":null,"abstract":"Should we go beyond our knowledge of an ethical problem to act upon it? The answer to this question may seem, quite obviously, yes! If we do not act, then we cannot expect any ethical problems to be resolved, and the world will not get any better. But how to act? This issue of Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) features an article by John Lemons and Donald A. Brown entitled ‘Global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience’. Commentators from different countries and perspectives broadly agree with their conclusions. The claim is that we cannot expect certain governments to change their concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climate change because they have not taken sufficient actions over the past decades. Lemons & Brown (2011, this issue), supported by most commentators, argue that non-violent civil disobedience is a method that could be used to convince governments to act. One suggestion is that consumers start campaigns to boycott products produced by countries who fail to adopt international plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol. They also suggest mass public protests and other measures to demand change in climate-change policies. Lemons & Brown (2011) focus on the policies of the country they live in, the USA, and particularly criticize the policies of that country. ESEP is an open forum for discussion of ethical issues of science and environmental policies, and cannot condone any targeting of individuals, institutions or countries. It is for the readers to critically assess all points of view, and ESEP will welcome future responses to this and any other paper from all perspectives. In addition, we can see that a number of other countries cannot escape from similar criticisms. The commentators in this issue come from a variety of countries, ranging from Mongolia to Europe, and disciplines, including natural science, social science, law, philosophy and sociology. We can see a common framework of discourse being used in a variety of ways. Industries may also be considered as potential culprits in a similar vein of not adopting policies to mitigate climate change and pollution. In this case, there have been some consumer-led campaigns against particular products. How should consumers be educated about the risks and dangers of energy choices, and lifestyle patterns? The recent naturally induced disaster in Japan that affected several nuclear power plants is a serious challenge for ethics and energy choices. It is an industry that has been backstopped by governments because the insurance risks for the catastrophes that are not meant to happen are too large for private industry. Thus, these nuclear choices are public ones, since public funding is used. At the same time, governments have actively promoted campaigns to claim the safety of nuclear energy. ESEP does not take a particular position on the ethics of nuclear energy; however, we call now for papers in ","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654697","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}
Despite knowledge of the risks of global climate change during the past 30 yr, the USA, among other nations, has failed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the risks to present and future generations. This is despite the fact that scientific and ethical literature makes the case that meaningful action is urgent. Consequently, we suggest that climate and environmental scientists, among others, consider whether non-violence civil disobedience should be used as a means to promote action on global climate change.
{"title":"Global climate change and non-violent civil disobedience","authors":"J. Lemons, Donald A. Brown","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00109","url":null,"abstract":"Despite knowledge of the risks of global climate change during the past 30 yr, the USA, among other nations, has failed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the risks to present and future generations. This is despite the fact that scientific and ethical literature makes the case that meaningful action is urgent. Consequently, we suggest that climate and environmental scientists, among others, consider whether non-violence civil disobedience should be used as a means to promote action on global climate change.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"3-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654966","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}
I discuss why integration of global climate change and human development aid pro- grams requires consideration of some understudied uncertainties in making projections of future cli- mate and environmental conditions at local and regional scales, and further, the value-laden policy consequences of dealing with uncertainties for national and international development programs. Additionally, I propose that conflicts between the interests of humans and other species be given greater attention than has been done by those involved in human development aid.
{"title":"Integrating climate change adaptation and human development: a commentary.","authors":"J. Lemons","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00108","url":null,"abstract":"I discuss why integration of global climate change and human development aid pro- grams requires consideration of some understudied uncertainties in making projections of future cli- mate and environmental conditions at local and regional scales, and further, the value-laden policy consequences of dealing with uncertainties for national and international development programs. Additionally, I propose that conflicts between the interests of humans and other species be given greater attention than has been done by those involved in human development aid.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"10 1","pages":"47-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654904","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}
Bioprospecting is a current activity in Antarctica, especially in the Southern Ocean, where numerous genetic resources have already been extracted and patented. At the global level, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Convention on Biologi- cal Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are the normal legal instru- ments for bioprospecting. These instruments are all based on territoriality and incorporate govern- ment restriction of access to resources. However, in Antarctica, the Antarctic Treaty System has been built over the past 50 yr on fundamental ethical principles comprising peace, a freeze on territorial claims, freedom of scientific research, international cooperation, and environmental protection in the interest of mankind as a whole. How can bioprospecting be organized in Antarctica to match these ethical concerns without a sovereign governance structure that is predicated in the global instru- ments? At the global level, the current instruments seem inadequate because of the lack of accep- tance of territorial claims existing in Antarctica; at the regional level, the existing system of Antarctic law still lacks concepts and criteria necessary to underpin the development of this activity with respect to the ethical principles and in a form likely to be transferred into national legislation. The solution for bioprospecting in Antarctica therefore needs to be the creation of an ad hoc Antarctic legal regime.
{"title":"Ethics and bioprospecting in Antarctica","authors":"A. Guyomard","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00104","url":null,"abstract":"Bioprospecting is a current activity in Antarctica, especially in the Southern Ocean, where numerous genetic resources have already been extracted and patented. At the global level, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Convention on Biologi- cal Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are the normal legal instru- ments for bioprospecting. These instruments are all based on territoriality and incorporate govern- ment restriction of access to resources. However, in Antarctica, the Antarctic Treaty System has been built over the past 50 yr on fundamental ethical principles comprising peace, a freeze on territorial claims, freedom of scientific research, international cooperation, and environmental protection in the interest of mankind as a whole. How can bioprospecting be organized in Antarctica to match these ethical concerns without a sovereign governance structure that is predicated in the global instru- ments? At the global level, the current instruments seem inadequate because of the lack of accep- tance of territorial claims existing in Antarctica; at the regional level, the existing system of Antarctic law still lacks concepts and criteria necessary to underpin the development of this activity with respect to the ethical principles and in a form likely to be transferred into national legislation. The solution for bioprospecting in Antarctica therefore needs to be the creation of an ad hoc Antarctic legal regime.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"10 1","pages":"31-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69654715","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：