Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries

Steininger, Karl W.; Williges, Keith; Meyer, Lukas H.; Maczek, Florian; Riahi, Keywan

doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31204-8

Cited by 27 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fundamentally important metrics of well-being, such as energy services 70 , health or nutrition 71 are explored less often, and only recently and infrequently for multiple indicators together 72,73 . Different patterns of distributional justice have been discussed recently 74,75 . Utilitarian, prioritarian 76,77 and egalitarian 78,79 patterns dominate in the reviewed papers, with utilitarian assumptions often adopted as baselines or without recognition of these normative commitments 80 .…”

Section: Existing Efforts To Include Justice Considerations In the Mi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice considerations in climate research

Zimm,

Mintz-Woo,

Brutschin

et al. 2024

Nat. Clim. Chang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change and decarbonization raise complex justice questions that researchers and policymakers must address. The distributions of greenhouse gas emissions rights and mitigation efforts have dominated justice discourses within scenario research, an integrative element of the IPCC. However, the space of justice considerations is much larger. At present, there is no consistent approach to comprehensively incorporate and examine justice considerations. Here we propose a conceptual framework grounded in philosophical theory for this purpose. We apply this framework to climate mitigation scenarios literature as proof of concept, enabling a more holistic and multidimensional investigation of justice. We identify areas of future research, including new metrics of service provisioning essential for human well-being.The urgently required changes in human activity to tackle climate change and stay below 1.5 °C come with many justice implications 1 . This has led to vivid public and scientific debates on the design of just transitions 2-4 , differentiated impacts and responsibilities 5,6 .Different terms and indicators are used in the climate discourse to reflect diverse interpretations of justice. 'Justice', 'equity' and 'fairness' are often used interchangeably even though they pertain to different conceptual levels 7 . This leads to a lack of clarity, consistency and comparability. The absence of a broad shared understanding of justice makes communication among researchers and between researchers and users of research challenging 8,9 , and can result in misinterpretation and misunderstandings between researchers and users, who might focus on different challenges and scales 10 .To help researchers and policymakers navigate the justice landscape, we introduce a justice framework that clarifies key concepts and terminology grounded in philosophical theory. The novelty does not predominantly consist in the philosophical structure, but in the cross-disciplinary translation, the clarity of exposition and ease of application. We aim to bridge disciplinary boundaries, introduce shared terminology and raise awareness of justice considerations that have not gained sufficient attention thus far.As a proof of concept, we apply the framework to mitigation scenario research that has informed and influenced global climate policymaking and target-setting 11 . Scenarios are an integrative element across all working groups of the IPCC research domains and a way to explore plausible futures. This is a vital and influential literature to which we apply our justice framework. We explore the extent to which existing literature captures key concepts and has contributed insights on diverse justice considerations. Implicit and explicit justice considerations underpinning mitigation scenarios call for such a framework 12 . Justice is a moral issue important in and of itself. Furthermore, justice has been recognized as being conducive to more ambitious climate policy and its acceptability [13][14][15][16] . It is thus an urgent moral and prac...

show abstract

Section: Existing Efforts To Include Justice Considerations In the Mi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice considerations in climate research

Zimm,

Mintz-Woo,

Brutschin

et al. 2024

Nat. Clim. Chang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The allocation of responsibility for carbon emission reduction is a prerequisite for the carbon emissions trading market [ 47 ]. Dietzenbacher et al [ 48 ] compared the differences in accounting methods for attributing responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions among 41 countries and regions between 1995 and 2009.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can multi-agent cooperation promote the ecological value realization of blue carbon in marine ranching?

Zhang

Cheng

Zheng

2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, Anderson et al (2020) argued that the climate policy targets of so-called climate-progressive nations, namely Sweden and the UK, are inadequate when examined in light of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) that is enshrined in global climate governance and the Paris Agreement. Yet, despite numerous analyses illustrating how attention to fairness conditions burden sharing and, thus, claims of climate leadership (Anderson et al 2020;van den Berg et al 2020;Rajamani et al 2021;Williges et al 2022;Steininger et al 2022), assessments of national contributions often fail to explicitly acknowledge their ethical foundation and/or rest on inequitable approaches to burden sharing (Dooley et al 2021). If not engaged with moral questions, analysis of national-level climate policy efforts risks supporting inequitable claims of climate leadership, skewing the understanding of what fair national contributions under the Paris Agreement entail.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green frontrunner or indebted culprit? Assessing Denmark’s climate targets in light of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement

Tilsted

2023

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to academic and policy debates about climate leadership by illustrating an approach to examining national emission reduction targets focusing on Denmark. Widely recognized as a climate leader, Denmark is cherished for both its historical track record and its current climate targets. With a target of 70% emissions reduction by 2030 compared to 1990 stipulated in national law, central actors in Danish policymaking claim that domestic climate policy is aligned with the Paris temperature goals and present Denmark as a ‘green frontrunner.’ We examine the pledges and targets enshrined in the Danish Climate Act in reference to a 1.5 °C global greenhouse gas budget using five different approaches to burden sharing. For all five approaches, we find that the Danish climate target is inadequate given the 1.5 °C goal. Moreover, when only looking at equity approaches for distributive climate justice globally, the Danish target appears drastically insufficient. Denmark is, in this sense, not a green frontrunner but rather an indebted culprit, challenging the dominant narrative in Danish climate policy. Our results thus call into question the premise of the claim of Danish climate leadership, which works to legitimize existing policy and obscure the many dimensions of climate change.

show abstract

Sharing the effort of the European Green Deal among countries

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

Justice considerations in climate research

Justice considerations in climate research

Can multi-agent cooperation promote the ecological value realization of blue carbon in marine ranching?

Green frontrunner or indebted culprit? Assessing Denmark’s climate targets in light of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About