1 / 29

Climate capabilities A conceptual framework for a climate change ethic david.kronlid@did.uu.se

Climate capabilities A conceptual framework for a climate change ethic david.kronlid@did.uu.se. Klimaträttvisa - VVV - Cemus, 16 Februari 2009. History and context. Cabinet Maker. Social worker. Musician ( www.kvartettraktor.se ). Researcher in ethics.

mechelle-cabrera
Télécharger la présentation

Climate capabilities A conceptual framework for a climate change ethic david.kronlid@did.uu.se

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Climate capabilitiesA conceptual framework for a climate change ethicdavid.kronlid@did.uu.se Klimaträttvisa- VVV - Cemus, 16 Februari 2009

  2. History and context Cabinet Maker Social worker Musician (www.kvartettraktor.se) Researcher in ethics Centre for Environment- and Development Studies(www.cemus.uu.se) Institute for Research in Education and Sustainable Development (www.did.uu.se/iresd)

  3. Agenda 7. Discussion 1. The project climate capabilities 2. Some background info 6. Some preliminary results 3. Olika etiska hållningar 5. The capabilities approach 4. Distributiv klimaträttvisa

  4. Minor Field Studies!4 SIDA MFS stipendier Lå 09/10 The Timothy Method (TTM)? Other methods? Zanzibar, Ahmedabad,Grahamstown Comparative (crossdisciplinary)climate capability analysis Capability case studies CLIMATE CAPABILITIESSwedish Research Council Formas Capability text analysis of Summary for Policymakers FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4 2009 2008 2010 Feb 4 MFS funded by SIDA. 3/11 Minor Field Studies funding application (SIDA).

  5. Background • Fair distribution of climate change burdens, benefits, and access to negotiations is central in the discourse of climate change ethics (Shue 1999, Gardiner 2004, Grasso 2004). • The questions of who is to be held accountable, who is to be held responsible for dealing with the present and future mess and suffering caused by GHG emissions, and how to distribute this responsibility have been given main attention (Page, 2007) (Kronlid, manuscript).

  6. Cont. • Global climate change raises questions of justice associated with climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation (Metz 2000; McCarthy et al. 2001, Pichs et al. 2000). • Accordingly, “the language of equity has permeated the UN negotiations on climate change”(Ashton & Wang 2002) (Kronlid, Project Description, 2007).

  7. Challenging ethics • Climate change challenges current ethics and makes it inadequate and/or inappropriate (Jamieson 1992, Van De Veer & Pierce 1998). • Existing theories of distributive justice may still be adequate for addressing climate change justice (Page, 2007).

  8. Hänger samman i praxis Skiljs åt i teori Various ethics approaches • Intragenerational climate change justice. • Intergenerational climate change justice (Page, 2007). • Distributive climate change justice • Procedural climate change justice • The capabilities approach

  9. Intergenerational distributive justice • Scope • Shape • Currency

  10. Scope of IG-justice • The scope of justice concerns the “entities that we identify as the legitimate recipients of benefits and burdens in society”. • Humans here, there, now and later • Other entities such as nonhuman animals, ecosystems, places, etc. Vems eller vilkas välfärd, frihet, resurser, eller fördelar är det som bör räknas?

  11. Shape of IG-justice • The “pattern of benefits that a theory of distribution recommends” (Page, 2007, pp. 78-98). • Efficiency (effektiv, verksam fördelning) • Equality (jämlik fördelning) • Priority (fördelning enligt en prioritetsordning) • Sufficiency (fördelning upp till en tillräcklig nivå) Enligt vilket mönster eller vilka principer bör fördelningen ske?

  12. Currencies of IG-justice • “[T]he aspect of well-being, or unit of benefits or advantage, on which our distributive concerns should focus” (Page, 2007, pp. 50-77). • Welfare (fair distribution of welfare - health, happiness, etc.) • Resources (fair distribution of resources - material and immaterial goods) • Basic capabilities (fair distribution of individual positive freedoms) • Midfare (fair distribution of access to given advantages in life and capabilities) Vad är det som bör fördelas?

  13. Responsibility? Mitiation? Vulnerability? Resilience? Resources? Welfare? D I S T R I B U E R A S Basic capabilities? Midfare? Adaptation Effektivt? Jämlikt? Kommande mänskliga generationers Prioriterat? Upp till nivå?

  14. METHODOLOGICAL ETHICAL PLURALISM “Stone, who compares ethical theories with the theories of for instance geometry, chemistry, art, defines ethical pluralism as the idea that the field of environmental ethics is like a collection of different ‘...intellectual frameworks that support the analysis and solution of particular moral problems’ (Stone, 1987, p. 133)” (Kronlid 2003). Climate Capabilities Vantage point: It is important to introduce many conceptual frameworks of climate change ethics or justice to the climate change discourse

  15. the capabilities approach • A broad normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well-being and social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change in society. • Used in a wide range of fields, most prominently in development studies, welfare economics, social policy and political philosophy. • Used to evaluate several aspects of people’s well-being, such as inequality, poverty, the well-being of an individual or the average well-being of the members of a group.Robeyns 2005:94

  16. the capabilities approach The core characteristic of the capabilities approach is its focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be; that is, on their capabilities. This contrasts with philosophical approaches that concentrate on people’s happiness or desire-fulfilment, or on income, expenditures, or consumptionRobeyns 2005:94

  17. the capabilities approach According to the capabilities approach, the ends of well-being, justice and development should be conceptualized in terms of people’s capabilities to function; that is, their effective opportunities to undertake the actions and activities that they want to engage in, and be whom they want to be. Robeyns 2005:95 Vad är det i våra liv som har egenvärde?

  18. the capabilities approach These beings and doings, which Sen calls functionings, together constitute what makes a life valuable. Functionings include working, resting, being literate, being healthy, being part of a community, being respected, and so forth.Robeyns 2005:95

  19. Basic capabilities An open approach vs. a set list approach Sen argues that the benefit of an open approach is that it can be used in many different ways, depending on the context and the information that is available. ‘It is this combination of foundational analysis and pragmatic use that gives the capabilities approach its extensive reach’. Sen 1999, here from Qizilbash 2005:159

  20. Basic capabilities An open approach vs. a set list approach cont. A set list of capabilities is a list of what people are free to do and be according to their own choice (Robeyns 2003:61-62) and such lists are implied to express “a bare minimum of what respect for human dignity requires” (Nussbaum, 2005:5). One argument for a set list approach is that an open approach lacks “critical bite when it comes to assessing norms” (Qizilbash, 2005:159) and that it is at the risk of being incomplete (Nussbaum, 2005a:13-14) and vague (Nussbaum 2003:46-47). Based on an emphasis on the pragmatic dimension of TCA, several capability researchers argue for a specific set list of capabilities (Nussbaum 2003, 2005a, 2005b, Qizilbash 2005:157).

  21. Methodological framework A methodological procedure suggested by Robeyns (2003) A combination of an open approach with the idea of capability set lists. [t]he capability approach is not a full-fledged theory [hence] its specifications can be very diverse and … for each of these specifications, e.g. climate change [we] will need a relevant list of capabilities (Robeyns 2003:10). Following this, Robeyns suggests that we use five criteria when creating a pragmatic set list of climate capabilities.

  22. Five methodological criteria Different levels of generality A set list of capabilities in two stages: (a) an ideal list that is “unconstrained by limitations” of contextual circumstances and (b) a pragmatic list which takes context into account (Robeyns 2003:70-72). • Exhaustion and non-reduction • “states that the capabilities on the lists should include all elements” that are relevant. • intrinsic to well-being • Climate capabilities 5 1 4 2 Sensitivity to context Acknowledges the importance of speaking the language of the discourse in which we want to get involved and states that “the list should be pitched at the level of abstraction and within the theoretical framework that is most appropriate for the aim for which we use the capabilities approach” (Robeyns 2003:11). Methodological justification Concerns the importance of clarifying and scrutinizing the method that has generated the lists. This includes justification of the method as appropriate for the matter at hand. 3 Explicit formulation States that “the list[s] should be made explicit, discussed, and defended.” “…determining the dimensions of human well-being requires people to recognize, on the basis of their own experience, the truthfulness or otherwise of the particular claims” (Alkire & Black 1997:269).

  23. Social vulnerability “… the notion of social vulnerability defined as the ability of individuals or groups to respond, recover or adapt to any external climate stress (Adger 1999; Adger and Kelly 1999; Kelly and Adger 2000; Brooks 2003; Adger et al. 2006; Brooks et al. 2005; Paavola and Adger 2006)…” (Grasso 2004:234, n. 26).

  24. Vulnerability and resilience Vulnerability capabilities: Which positive freedoms are threatened by climate change? Resilience capabilities: Which positive freedoms are intrinsic to adaptation?

  25. Set list on level (a). Nussbaum, M. (2003), “Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice”, Feminist Economics 9(2-3), 2003, 33-59. Kronlid, D. (2008), “Mobility as Capability”, Uteng Priya, T. & Cresswell, T., Gendered Mobilities, Ashgate, 2008, 15-31. Preliminary results:Vulnerability capabilities

  26. Set list on level (a). Nussbaum, M. (2003), “Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice”, Feminist Economics 9(2-3), 2003, 33-59. Kronlid, D. (2008), “Mobility as Capability”, Uteng Priya, T. & Cresswell, T., Gendered Mobilities, Ashgate, 2008, 15-31. Preliminary results:Vulnerability capabilities

  27. Emotions Affiliation Life Play Other species Climate capabilities? Bodily Health Practical reason Bodily Integrity Control over one’s environment Mobility Senses, imagination, and thought

  28. Thank you for listening!

More Related