权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Research Seminars Application: Climate Ethics and Climate Economics

研究研讨会申请：气候伦理与气候经济学

基本信息

批准号：
ES/N009010/1
负责人：
Matthew Rendall
金额：
$ 3.83万
依托单位：
University of Nottingham
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2015
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2015 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FN009010%2F1
关键词：
Research Seminars Application Climate Ethics

项目摘要

The chief goal of the series is to get economists and legal scholars talking with philosophers and political theorists about the ethical foundations of their arguments. Economic arguments about climate change often embody ethical assumptions, such as the claim that future costs and benefits should be given less weight than present-day ones--which philosophers find problematic. Yet while contemporary climate philosophers have devoted extensive attention to the climate economics literature, economists have by and large not returned the favour. In the rare instances where economists do seek to draw explicitly on moral theory-such as Kenneth Arrow's invocation of Samuel Scheffler's 'agent-centred prerogatives' to defend giving less weight to the future (1999: 16)--philosophers sometimes wonder whether the economists have really grasped the arguments (Caney 2008: 550). Some mainstream economists, in turn, seem to doubt that philosophers have any business intervening in the debate. This reflects not only a divide between disciplines, but a disagreement between some British economists and mainstream economists in the United States. British economics explicitly draws on the utilitarian philosophical tradition. In contrast, US economists tend to hold that analyses of costs and benefits should not try to make ethical judgements, but follow preferences revealed through markets (Nordhaus 2008: 176; Broome 2012: 105-6; Jamieson 2013: 121). Thus Yale's William Nordhaus accused a major report sponsored by the British government--the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change--of reflecting a 'Government House utilitarianism' that 'takes the lofty vantage point of the world social planner, perhaps stoking the dying embers of the British Empire' (2008: 174), and Harvard's Martin Weitzman that it took a 'decidedly minority paternalist view.... relying mostly on a priori philosopher-king ethical judgements' (2007: 707, 712). Prominent US legal scholars have also played a major role in US debates about climate ethics and policy in such works as Richard Posner's Catastrophe: Risk and Response (2004), Cass Sunstein's Worst-Case Scenarios (2007) and Eric A. Posner's and David Weisbach's Climate Change Justice (2010). While addressing ethical considerations more explicitly than US economists, many of these writers are strongly influenced by the latter's views. Along with US economists, this workshop aims to draw them into a dialogue with British and European scholars.Interdisciplinary dialogue on climate change matters, because economics, political theory and philosophy all have strengths but also blind spots, and these have contributed to the strikingly different recommendations they have given policy makers. The seminar series will also make a direct effort to encourage the participation of non-academic economists, policy makers and journalists by funding their attendance at the seminars. The series will consist in six seminars over two years:1. Climate change and discounting the future, University of Nottingham, January 2016.2. 'Borrowing from the future'-a novel way to fund mitigation? University of Nottingham, April 2016.3. Fat tails: imposing and redistributing risk, London School of Economics, July 2016.4. Economic growth and climate justice. Political Economy Institute and Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, January 2017.5. Risk, uncertainty, and catastrophe scenarios. Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, April 2017.6. Discounting the future: what have we learned? University of Nottingham, July 2017.Each workshop will involve six presenters, including two keynote speakers who will deliver public lectures before or after the seminar. We will circulate papers three weeks in advance, and after short presentations most time will be spent on discussion.

该系列的主要目标是让经济学家和法律学者与哲学家和政治理论家讨论他们论点的伦理基础。关于气候变化的经济争论通常包含伦理假设，比如声称未来的成本和收益应该比现在的成本和收益更不受重视--哲学家们认为这是有问题的。然而，尽管当代气候哲学家对气候经济学文献投入了广泛的关注，但经济学家总体上并没有报以好感。在少数情况下，经济学家确实寻求明确地借鉴道德理论--例如肯尼斯·阿罗援引塞缪尔·舍弗勒的“以代理人为中心的特权”来捍卫对未来的不那么重视(1999：16)--哲学家有时会怀疑经济学家是否真的理解了这些论点(Caney 2008：550)。反过来，一些主流经济学家似乎怀疑哲学家有必要干预这场辩论。这不仅反映了学科之间的分歧，也反映了一些英国经济学家与美国主流经济学家之间的分歧。英国经济学明确借鉴了功利主义的哲学传统。相比之下，美国经济学家倾向于认为，对成本和收益的分析不应试图做出伦理判断，而应遵循市场揭示的偏好(Nordhaus 2008：176；Broome 2012：105-6；Jamieson 2013：121)。因此，耶鲁大学的威廉·诺德豪斯指责由英国政府赞助的一份重要报告--《斯特恩气候变化经济学评论》--反映了政府大楼的功利主义，它占据了世界社会规划者的崇高地位，可能会点燃大英帝国的奄奄一息的余烬(2008：174)，而哈佛大学的马丁·魏茨曼(Martin Weitzman)则指责它采取了一种绝对少数派的家长式观点……主要依赖先验的哲学家-国王伦理判断(2007：707,712)。著名的美国法律学者还在美国关于气候伦理和政策的辩论中发挥了重要作用，如理查德·波斯纳的《灾难：风险与反应》(2004年)、卡斯·桑斯坦的《最坏情况》(2007)以及埃里克·A·波斯纳和大卫·魏斯巴赫的《气候变化正义》(2010)。尽管这些作家中的许多人比美国经济学家更明确地阐述了伦理方面的考虑，但他们中的许多人都受到后者观点的强烈影响。与美国经济学家一起，这次研讨会的目的是吸引他们与英国和欧洲的学者进行对话。关于气候变化的跨学科对话，因为经济学、政治理论和哲学都有长处，但也有盲点，这些都有助于他们向政策制定者提出截然不同的建议。该系列研讨会还将通过资助非学术经济学家、政策制定者和记者出席研讨会，直接努力鼓励他们参与。该系列将在两年内分为六个研讨会：1.气候变化与未来展望，诺丁汉大学，2016.2年1月。“向未来借钱”--一种资助缓解的新方式？诺丁汉大学，2016.3年4月。《厚尾：强加和重新分配风险》，伦敦政治经济学院，2016.4年7月。经济增长和气候正义。曼彻斯特大学政治经济学研究所和廷德尔中心，2017.5。风险、不确定性和灾难情景。布里斯托尔大学卡伯特研究所，2017.6年4月。打折未来：我们学到了什么？诺丁汉大学，2017年7月。每个研讨会将有六名演讲者，其中包括两名主旨演讲者，他们将在研讨会之前或之后进行公开演讲。我们将提前三周分发论文，在简短的陈述之后，大部分时间将花在讨论上。