"Global Partnership, Climate Change and Complex Equality"
In this article, Finn Arler focuses on the question of inter- and intragenerational justice in relation to climate change.
In this article, Finn Arler focuses on the question of inter- and intragenerational justice in relation to climate change.
In this paper, Theresa Satterfield recognises the many contributions to work on environmental values while arguing that some reconsideration of elicitation practices is warranted.
In his paper, Charles C. Mueller sheds light on the economics of survival, a branch of ecological economics that stresses the preservation of the opportunities of future generations over an extended time horizon.
In this paper Thomas Young examines what he considers to be the three strongest arguments against destroying property as a means of defending the environment: the social fabric argument, the argument for moral consistency, and the generalization argument.
Darren Domsky discusses J. Baird Callicott’s attack on Christopher D. Stone’s moral pluralism and argues that it fails entirely.
Environmentalists consider invasions by exotic species of plants and animals to be one of the most serious environmental problems we face today, as well as one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss. Alan Carter argues that in order to develop and enact sensible policies, it is crucial to consider two philosophical questions: (1) What exactly makes a species native or exotic, and (2) What values are at stake?
In this paper, Bryan G. Norton and Anne C. Steinemann offer a new valuation approach which embodies the core principles of adaptive management, which is experimental, multi-scalar, and place-based.
In this paper, Tony Lynch and David Wells argue that environmental politics needs more than piecemeal institutional efforts or calls for a set of ‘new’ values and that is a realistic, comprehensive, and effective policy programme.
Ernest Partridge discusses Alan Carter’s criticism of Thomas Schwartz’s “future persons paradox.”
John A. Curtis argues that there may be instances where assessing wildlife for monetary valuation might be quite reasonable and useful for public policy, even when there are strong arguments against valuation of wildlife and nature.