This paper draws on the emerging field of innovation ethics (IE) to complement the more established field of responsible innovation (RI) by focusing on key ethical issues raised by technological innovations. One key limitation of influential frameworks of RI is that they tend to neglect some key ethical issues raised by innovation, as well as major normative dimensions of the notion of responsibility. We explain how IE could enrich RI by stressing the more important role that ethical analysis should play in RI. We focus on two transversal issues of IE: the issue of redrawing conceptual boundaries, especially the topic of the artificialization of the world, and the issue of responsibility, especially the notion of total responsibility. We address these two issues from the thematic perspective of IE, thereby generating lessons learnt for RI. These two examples are taken as illustrations and blueprint of the dialogue that should take place between the two fields.

No abstract

Brouillon -la version finale a été publiée dans La Pensée Écologique : https://www.cairn.info/revue-la-pensee-ecologique-2019-1-page-19.htm Croissance démographique et changement climatique : repenser nos politiques dans le cadre des limites planétaires Michel Bourban RésuméCet article s'intéresse à l'impact du facteur démographique sur la limite planétaire du système climatique. Il adopte une démarche éthique visant à examiner les politiques qui semblent justifiables dans le contexte d'une réflexion démocratique sur les moyens les plus efficaces de lutter contre le changement climatique. Il se place dans le cadre des débats en éthique climatique sur la question des choix procréatifs individuels et se focalise sur les pays développés. Il examine ainsi les principales approches et évalue les politiques de réduction de la croissance démographique en développant les possibles justifications qui accompagneraient certaines mesures incitatives ainsi que les réponses aux objections communément faites à ces dernières.

No abstract

Although Small Island Developing States (SIDS) receive high amounts of adaptation finance on a per capita basis, current and expected funding is much lower than present and future adaptation costs. Since funding is insufficient to cover all needs, adaptation finance ought to benefit those who are most entitled to the funding. These entitlements can be determined via prioritisation criteria. Vulnerability is the most prominent prioritisation criterion but must be supplemented with further criteria because of its shortcomings. In this contribution we thus investigate whether cost-effectiveness and democracy should play this role. To this end, we first discuss Stadelmann and colleagues' proposal to operationalise the costeffectiveness criterion via three indicators (absolute economic savings, relative economic savings, and avoided loss of Disability Adjusted Life Years). We argue that this set of indicators fails to capture important adaptation benefits and may reinforce the current bias towards hard adaptation measures. We further claim that one should 'just' focus on safeguarding effective, that is successful, adaptation instead. To that effect, we propose 'democracy' as an alternative to costeffectiveness. We first justify the criterion by providing intrinsic and instrumental reasons in its defence and, second, discuss how to operationalise it, using the example of SIDS. We conclude that although also challenging, democracy is less difficult to operationalise than cost-effectiveness.