Economics Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

Author Item Summary Meta data
Norgaard I 331
Adaption/Climate Change/Climate Justice/Ecological Theories: The logic of adaptation as a matter of justice is, at one level, quite straightforward: if a person or community has been put at risk from anthropogenic climate change, and that risk can be reduced or eliminated by some kind of proactive investment supported by those who have caused the risk, there is a moral obligation to make that investment. (…) the obligations implied by ‘adaptation’ could be justified by an ‘ability to help’ principle, even in the absence of causal responsibility for the imposition of risk (Jamieson 1998(1); Caney 2009(2)).
VsAdaption: (…) because the populations most at risk from anthropogenic climate change are by and large the same populations most at risk from ‘normal’ climatic variability and extreme weather events, it is conceptually very difficult if not impossible to separate investments that address only the ‘additional’ risk from anthropogenic change. (…) where it is possible to separate those who are most vulnerable to anthropogenic climate change, offering them protection through pro‐active adaptation implies directing assistance not to those who are most vulnerable to climate‐mediated harm, but to those whose vulnerability is increased by anthropogenic warming.
Adaption/Development: It is widely recognized that ‘adaptation’ looks very similar to ‘development’. Indeed, it is one of the ironies that the logic of effective adaptation implies integrating adaptation funding and activities with existing development planning, policies, and projects (so‐ called ‘mainstreaming—e.g. Huq et al. 2004(3); Yamin 2005(4)), while the desire of developing countries
Norgaard I 332
to increase the level of transfers and their control over it has led to demands for adaptation assistance to be separated from and demonstrably ‘additional’ to existing development aid, and under the control of new, UNFCCC‐directed institutions.

1. Jamieson, D. 1998. Global responsibilities: Ethics, public health and global environmental change. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 5: 99–120.
2. Caney, S. 2009. Human rights, responsibilities and climate change. In C. R. Beitz and R. E. Goodin (eds.), Global Basic Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Huq, S. et al. 2004. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Climate Policy 4(1): 25–43.
4. Yamin, F. 2005. The European Union and future climate policy: Is mainstreaming adaptation a distraction or part of the solution? Climate Policy 5: 349–61.

Baer, Paul: “International Justice”, In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (eds.) (2011): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Ecological Theories
Norgaard I
Richard Norgaard
John S. Dryzek
The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford 2011

Send Link
> Counter arguments in relation to Adaption

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z