Advertisement

Foundations in Natural Science, Economics and Epistemology: Problems, Categories, Strategies, and the Issue of Growth

  • Felix Ekardt
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Humanities: Transformation, Governance, Ethics, Law book series (EHTGEL)

Abstract

This book is a contribution to transdisciplinary (especially human-sciences-based) sustainability research, i.e. research that follows substantial issues rather than disciplinary boundaries. It deals with resource and sink problems, climate change in particular, but also with the major effect of fossil fuels (and livestock farming) on various other environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, disturbed nitrogen cycles, soil degradation, etc. In particular, it deals with the conditions of social change, effective political and legal instruments and well-founded and balanced normative objectives, i.e. questions of justice.

In methodological terms, research on transformation and change, or on motives of human behaviour in general, faces particular challenges because common methods for acquiring scientific knowledge such as surveys or experiments are less reliable than generally assumed, and the pursuit of quantifiable and reproducible facts as well as formalised models and scenarios also contain many pitfalls. This is solved by a new pluralistic approach in the present book, with a strong focus on informal qualitative perspectives. This has also consequences for the research on instruments for transformation and change.

As a definition, justice means the rightness of the order of human coexistence, just as truth refers to the correctness of factual statements. Social distributive justice as a category of material distribution issues is only one element of justice. Sustainability is defined as the political, ethical, and legal demand for more intertemporal and global justice, i.e. the need for sustainable ways of production and consumption. In contrast, a three-pillar concept of sustainability is misleading and askew for a number of reasons. Likewise, sustainability indicators are not a convincing alternative to an ethical-legal normativity, even if they are not oriented towards a pillar logic, for a number of reasons.

Taking stock, the usual fixation of the political debate on financial crises, economic growth, social security, war against terrorism and jobs as a constant distraction from the sustainability issue is proving to be problematic. On the other hand, the correct handle on various resource and sink problems is decisive for the lasting and global sustainability of lifestyles and economies. In order to comply with a 1.5 °C-temperature limit set out in Article 2 para. 1 of the Paris Agreement (PA), fossil fuels may no longer be used in the areas of electricity, heat, fuel, material use, and agriculture within the next two decades. The phase-out of fossil fuels stands for avoiding the particular devastating consequences of climate change such as millions of deaths, wars and civil wars on resources such as food and water which are getting scarcer, migration flows, massive natural disasters, but also for avoiding exploding oil and gas prices, etc. Addressing fossil fuels – and livestock farming – also stand for tackling various environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, disturbed nitrogen cycles or questions of public health. The countries of the EU are by no means “pioneers” in terms of per capita ecological footprint and supposed reductions (which have so far been exclusively the result of arithmetic tricks). The situation is similar for various environmental areas.

As regards sustainability strategies, the purely technological approaches of consistency and efficiency alone (!) are not sufficient. A debate on this only makes sense, if measured against clear targets such as those set out in Article 2 para. 1 PA. With regard to that, the sustainability challenge is simply too great for a purely technological approach. Sometimes, there is also a lack of possible technological options, especially for environmental problems beyond climate change. Behavioural changes (frugality) must therefore always be taken into account, on a voluntarily basis or not, also because of the manifold ambivalences and possibly also overestimations of renewable resources as well as some ecologically and economically rather unsustainable technical options such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy, geo-engineering or massive afforestation. Frugality does not stand for a normative idea of a good life; as such it would not be tenable ethically and legally. A possible overall concept for consistency, efficiency and frugality in relation to the energy-climate topic will be developed during the course of this book.

The necessity of frugality puts sustainability in a tense relationship to the growth idea that dominates everything today, because new technologies are (possibly) growth-compatible, whereas a reduction in the demand for services and products poses a big challenge. The hope that a mere “decoupling” of economic growth and environmental consumption is sufficient implies – in view of the insufficient scope of conceivable technical measures – accepting far-reaching threats to humanity. “Qualitative growth” of a seemingly non-material nature is unlikely to solve these problems. According to all experience such an allegedly non-material growth is partly itself materially shaped. Furthermore, the idea of constantly (and thus exponentially) improving social care services, knowledge of music, enjoyment of nature, health, enjoyment of art, etc. seems extremely difficult.

The gradual transition to a post-growth society – not deliberately, but induced by effective environmental protection – raises a number of questions for the pension system, the state budget, companies, the banking system and especially for the labour market. Concepts for this are still in their infancy; even more so are concepts for the process of transition to a post-growth society. Whether such an economic form could still be called “capitalist” is questionable, but this issue should not be overemphasised. Notabene: Even if frugality is really necessary, a consistent change in sustainability is probably still more economical than a business-as-usual strategy, which would ultimately lead to catastrophic distortions.

In epistemological terms, theoretical, normative and instrumental rationality can be distinguished. Rationality conceived purely empirically by economists, sociologists and others is misleadingly reduced to facts and preferably countable things. Also, in transdisciplinary sustainability research, another epistemological basis is a distinction of is and ought and – diagonally to this – an objective-subjective distinction. Facts are, in principle, objectively identifiable. Difficulties of proof and uncertainties also play an important role in sustainability issues, but they do not change this basic insight.

Law is ethics in concrete and sanction-reinforced form, while ethics is able to substantiate the basic principles of law on a universal level, if necessary. Otherwise, ethics adds little to the legal argumentation and balancing of different principles. Throughout the entire book, there is thus a parallelisation of statements from an ethical and legal perspective. Contrary to a widespread opinion, there is nothing normative about proposing policy options. Alleged non-objectivity of normativity is not convincing either.

Keywords

Paris Agreement Natural science Economics Epistemology Growth Economic growth Sustainability strategies Climate Fossil fuels Livestock farming Consistency Efficiency Frugality Profitability Population growth Post-growth Rationality Reason Theory of cognition Transdisciplinarity Methodology Behavioural/behaviour Governance analysis Legal/law Ethical/ethics Governance Empiricism 

Bibliography1

  1. Abson, David/Fischer, Joern/ Leventon, Julia et al.: Leverage points for sustainability transformation, Ambio 2017, pp. 30 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, Daron/ Robinson, James: Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, London 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Acworth, William et al.: Emissions Trading and the Role of a Long Run Carbon Price Signal: Achieving cost effective emission reductions under an Emissions Trading System, Berlin 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Albert, Hans: Rechtswissenschaft als Realwissenschaft. Das Recht als soziale Tatsache und die Aufgabe der Jurisprudenz, Baden-Baden 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, Samuel: The optimal material threshold – Towards an economics of sufficiency, in: Real World Economics Review 61/ 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Alexy, Robert: Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs, Frankfurt a.M. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Alexy, Robert: Theorie der juristischen Argumentation, 2nd ed. Frankfurt a.M. 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, Kevin: Duality in Climate Science, Nature 2015, pp. 898 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Appel, Ivo: Staatliche Zukunfts- und Entwicklungsvorsorge, Tübingen 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Baer, Susanne: Demographischer Wandel und Generationengerechtigkeit, Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 2009, pp. 290 et seq.Google Scholar
  11. Bailey, Ian: Neoliberalism, climate governance and the scalar politics of EU emissions trading, Area 2007, pp. 431 et seq.Google Scholar
  12. Baumert, Kevin A./ Herzog, Timothy/ Pershing, Jonathan: Navigating the Numbers – Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, World Resource Institute 2005.Google Scholar
  13. Beck, Ulrich: Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a.M. 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Becker, Benjamin/ Richter, Caspar: Klimaschutz in Deutschland – Realität oder Rhetorik?, Momentum Quarterly 2015, pp. 3 et seq.Google Scholar
  15. Berger, Peter/ Luckmann, Thomas: The social construction of reality, London 1966.Google Scholar
  16. Biermann, Frank et al.: Earth System Governance. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project, IHDP-Report No. 20, Bonn 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Bösche, Eyk/ Ponder, Anika Nicolaas/ Thomas, Henning: Power to Gas. The Legal Framework for a Long-Term Energy Storage Technology in Germany, Renewable Energy Law and Policy 2012, pp. 159 et seq.Google Scholar
  18. Bosselmann, Klaus: The Principle of Sustainability. Transforming Law and Governance, 2nd ed. London 2016.Google Scholar
  19. von Bredow, Hartwig: Energieeffizienz als Rechts- und Steuerungsproblem. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der erneuerbaren Energien, Marburg 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Broome, John: Counting the Cost of Global Warming, Cambridge 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Burtraw, Dallas/ Sterner, Thomas: Climate Change Abatement: Not „Stern“ Enough?, 2009, http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09_04_06_Climate_Change_Abatement.aspx.
  22. Byatt, Ian et al.: The Stern Review: A Dual Critique. Part II. Economic Aspects, World Economics 2006, pp. 199 et seq.Google Scholar
  23. Carolan, Michael: Cheaponomics. Warum billig zu teuer ist, München 2015.Google Scholar
  24. Chancel, Lucas/ Piketty, Thomas: Carbon and Inequality – from Kyoto to Paris, 2015, http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf.
  25. Cordell, Dana/ Drangert, Jan-Olof / White, Stuart: The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought, Global Environmental Change 2009a, pp. 292 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cordell, Dana et al.: Preferred future phosphorus scenarios: A framework for meeting long-term phosphorus needs for global food demand, International Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Waste Water Streams, Sydney 2009b.Google Scholar
  27. Cordonier Segger, Marie Claire: Sustainable Development in International Law, in: Bugge, Hans Christian/ Voigt, Christina (Ed.): Sustainable Development in International and National Law, Groningen 2008, pp. 87 et seq.Google Scholar
  28. Crutzen, Paul/ Wacławek, Stanisław: Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate in the Anthropocene, Chemistry-Didactics-Ecology-Metrology 2015, pp. 9 et seq.Google Scholar
  29. Daly, Herman: Beyond Growth. The Economics of Sustainable Development, Boston 1996.Google Scholar
  30. Damasio, Antonio: Descartes‘ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, London 2006.Google Scholar
  31. Deaton, Angus: The Great Escape. Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, Princeton 2013.Google Scholar
  32. De-Shalit, A.: Why posterity matters, Abingdon 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Diamond, Jared: Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Suceed, London 2005.Google Scholar
  34. Droste-Frank, Bert et al.: Improving Energy Decisions. Towards Better Scientific Policy Advice for a Safe and Secure Future Energy System, Heidelberg 2015.Google Scholar
  35. Edenhofer, Ottmar/ Kadner, Susanne/ Minx, Jan: Ist das Zwei-Grad-Ziel wünschenswert, und ist es noch erreichbar? Der Beitrag der Wissenschaft zu einer politischen Debatte, in: Marotzke, Jochem/ Stratmann, Martin (Ed.): Die Zukunft des Klimas. Neue Erkenntnisse, neue Herausforderungen, München 2015, S. 69 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. EEAC: Safe Operating Space. Conclusions Report, Barcelona 2014.Google Scholar
  37. Ekardt, Felix: Economic Evaluation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Ethics: A Critique with Regard to Climate Economics - about Figures in the Sustainability Discourse, Dordrecht 2019, in print.Google Scholar
  38. Ekardt, Felix/ Wieding, Jutta/ Zorn, Anika: Paris Agreement, Precautionary Principle and Human Rights: Zero Emissions in Two Decades?, Sustainability 2018a, pp. 2812 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ekardt, Felix/ Wieding, Jutta/ Garske, Beatrice/ Stubenrauch, Jessica: Agriculture-related climate policies – law and governance issues on European and global level, CCLR 2018b, Issue 4.Google Scholar
  40. Ekardt, Felix: Auf der Suche nach dem verlorenen Sinn, ZEIT 19/ 04/ 2018.Google Scholar
  41. Ekardt, Felix: Kurzschluss. Wie einfache Wahrheiten die Demokratie untergraben, Berlin 2017.Google Scholar
  42. Ekardt, Felix: Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit. Ethische, rechtliche, politische und transformative Zugänge – am Beispiel von Klimawandel, Ressourcenknappheit und Welthandel, 3rd ed. (= 2nd ed. der Neuausgabe) Baden-Baden 2016.Google Scholar
  43. Ekardt, Felix/ Wieding, Jutta/ Henkel, Marianne: Climate Justice 2015 – BUNDposition, Berlin 2015a.Google Scholar
  44. Ekardt, Felix/ Klinski, Stefan/ Schomerus, Thomas: Konzept zur Fortentwicklung des deutschen Klimaschutzrechts, Marburg 2015b.Google Scholar
  45. Ekardt, Felix/ Garske, Beatrice/ Stubenrauch, Jessica/ Wieding, Jutta: Legal Instruments for Phosphorus Supply Security – Integrated Instruments for Various Environmental Problems, JEEPL 2015c, pp. 343 et seq.Google Scholar
  46. Ekardt, Felix/ Neumann, Werner/ Wieding, Jutta/ Schmidt-Kanefendt, Hans-Heinrich: Grundlagen und Konzepte einer Energiewende 2050 – BUNDposition, Berlin 2015d.Google Scholar
  47. Ekardt, Felix/ van Riesten, Hilke/ Hennig, Bettina: CCS als Governance- und Rechtsproblem, ZfU 2011a, 409 et seq.Google Scholar
  48. Ekardt, Felix/ Hennig, Bettina/ von Bredow, Hartwig: Land use, climate change and emissions trading. European and international legal aspects of the post-Kyoto process, Carbon & Climate Law Review 2011b, pp. 371 et seq.Google Scholar
  49. Ekardt, Felix/ von Bredow, Hartwig: Managing the Ecological and Social Ambivalences of Bioenergy – Sustainability Criteria versus Extended Carbon Markets, in: Leal, Walter (Ed.): The Economic, Social, and Political Aspects of Climate Change, Berlin 2010, pp. 455 et seq.Google Scholar
  50. Ekardt, Felix: Steuerungsdefizite im Umweltrecht: Ursachen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Naturschutzrechts und der Grundrechte. Zugleich zur Relevanz religiösen Säkularisats im öffentlichen Recht, Sinzheim 2001.Google Scholar
  51. Ekins, Richard: Facts, Reasons and Joint Action: Thoughts on the Social Ontology of Law, Rechtstheorie 2014, pp. 313 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Enquête Commission „Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität“ des 17. Deutschen Bundestages: Schlussbericht, 2013, BT-Drs. 17/ 13300.Google Scholar
  53. Exner, Anne-Katrin: Clean Development Mechanism und alternative Klimaschutzansätze. Rechts- und Governancefragen, Marburg 2016.Google Scholar
  54. FAO: World Agriculture towards 2030/ 2050. The 2012 Revision, 2012, http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf.
  55. Fazey, Ioan et al.: Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research, Energy Research and Social Science 2018, pp. 54 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fischer, Corinna/ Grießhammer, Rainer et al.: Mehr als nur weniger. Suffizienz – Begriff, Begründung und Potenziale, Freiburg 2013, http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1836/2013-505-de.pdf.
  57. Foucault, Michel: History of Madness. New York 2006.Google Scholar
  58. Friedrich, Jürgen: International Environmental „Soft Law“, Heidelberg 2013.Google Scholar
  59. Fücks, Ralf: Intelligent wachsen. Die grüne Revolution, München 2013.Google Scholar
  60. Ganteför, Gerd: A Provocative Thesis: Oil, Coal and Uranium Are Indispensable Energy Sources for the Poor Countries, Analyse & Kritik 2010, pp. 5 et seq.Google Scholar
  61. Garrett, Tim: Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?, 2009, http://www.met.utah.edu/tgarrett/.
  62. Gewirth, Alan: Reason and Morality, Chicago 1978.Google Scholar
  63. Giegerich, Thomas: Europäische Verfassung und deutsche Verfassung im transnationalen Konstitutionalisierungsprozeß – wechselseitige Rezeption, konstitutionelle Evolution und föderale Verflechtung, Berlin 2003.Google Scholar
  64. Gilbert, Natasha: The Disappearing Nutrient, Nature 2009, pp. 716 et seq.Google Scholar
  65. Giljum, Stefan/ Hinterberger, Friedrich: The Limits of Resource Use and Their Economic and Policy Implications, in: Angrick, Michael/ Burger, Andreas/ Lehmann, Harry (Ed.): Factor X. Policy, Strategies and Instruments for a Sustainable Resource Use, Dordrecht 2014, pp. 3 et seq.Google Scholar
  66. Global Commission on the Economy and Climate: Better Growth – Better Climate, 2015, http://newclimateeconomy.report/.
  67. Gordon, Robert: The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Princeton 2016.Google Scholar
  68. Gough, Ian: Heat, Greed and Human Need. Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing, Cheltenham 2017.Google Scholar
  69. Haberl, Helmut/ Erb, Karl-Heinz: Assessment of Sustainable Land Use in Producing Biomass, in: Dewulf, John/ Langenhove, Herman V. (Ed.): Renewables-Based Technology: Sustainability Assessment, London 2006, pp. 176 et seq.Google Scholar
  70. Habermas, Jürgen: Diskursethik, Philosophische Texte Bd. 3, Frankfurt a.M. 2009.Google Scholar
  71. Habermas, Jürgen: Faktizität und Geltung, Frankfurt a.M. 1992.Google Scholar
  72. Habermas, Jürgen: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 vol., Frankfurt a.M. 1981.Google Scholar
  73. Habermas, Jürgen: Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung, Frankfurt a.M. 1999.Google Scholar
  74. Hamann, Hanjo: Evidenzbasierte Jurisprudenz. Methoden empirischer Forschung und ihr Erkenntniswert für das Recht am Beispiel des Gesellschaftsrechts, Tübingen 2014.Google Scholar
  75. Handrich, Lars/ Kemfert, Claudia et al.: Turning Point: Decoupling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Economic Growth, Berlin 2015.Google Scholar
  76. Hansen, James E.: Environmental Research Letters, Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise No. 2/ 2007, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hehn, Nina: Postfossile Stadtentwicklung. Rechts- und Steuerungsprobleme einer Umsetzung kommunaler Energiewende- und Klimaschutzkonzepte im Rahmen der Stadtplanung, Marburg 2015.Google Scholar
  78. Helm, Dieter: Climate-Change Policy: Why Has so Little Been Achieved?, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2008, 24 et seq.Google Scholar
  79. Hennig, Bettina: Nachhaltige Landnutzung und Bioenergie. Ambivalenzen, Governance, Rechtsfragen, Marburg 2017.Google Scholar
  80. Herrmann, Ulrike: Der Sieg des Kapitals. Wie der Reichtum in die Welt kam – die Geschichte von Wachstum, Geld und Krisen, München 2015.Google Scholar
  81. Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten: Constitutive Explanations as Methodological Framework for Integrating Thermodynamics and Economics, Entropy 2016, pp. 18 et seq.Google Scholar
  82. Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten: Energy, rowth and evolution. Towards a naturalistic ontology of economics, Ecological Economics 2015, pp. 432 et seq.Google Scholar
  83. Heyen, Dirk Arne/ Fischer, Corinna et al.: Mehr als nur weniger. Suffizienz – Notwendigkeit und Optionen politischer Gestaltung, Freiburg 2013, http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1837/2013-506-de.pdf.
  84. Hobbes, Thomas: De Homine, Opera Philosophica, Neudruck Aalen 1966.Google Scholar
  85. Hoffmann, Ulrich: Can Green Growth really Work – and what are the True (Socio-)Economics of Climate Change?, Berlin 2015.Google Scholar
  86. Höhne, Niklas/ Kuramochi, Takeshi/ Sterl, Sebastian/ Röschel, Lina: Was bedeutet das Pariser Abkommen für den Klimaschutz in Deutschland?, Köln 2016, https://newclimateinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/160222_klimaschutz_paris_studie_02_2016_fin_neu1.pdf.
  87. Hulme, Mike: Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Cambridge 2009.Google Scholar
  88. International Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD): Global Summary for Decision Makers, Johannesburg 2008.Google Scholar
  89. International Monetary Fund (IMF): How large are global energy subsidies?, 2015, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf.
  90. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2014, Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge 2014.Google Scholar
  91. IPCC: Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees Celsius, Special Report, Cambridge 2018.Google Scholar
  92. IPCC: Climate Change 2007. Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge 2007.Google Scholar
  93. Ismer, Roland: Klimaschutz als Rechtsproblem. Steuerung durch Preisinstrumente vor dem Hintergrund einer parallelen Evolution von Klimaschutzregimes verschiedener Staaten, Tübingen 2014.Google Scholar
  94. Jackson, Tim: Prosperity without Growth, London 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Jacobson, Mark/ Delucchi, Mark: Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Energy Policy 2011, pp. 1154 et seq.Google Scholar
  96. Jakob, Michael/ Edenhofer, Ottmar: Growth, Degrowth, and the Commons, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2014, 447 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Juerges, Nataly/ Newig, Jens: What role for frames in scalar conflicts?, Land Use Policy 2015, pp. 426 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Kellerwessel, Wulf: Normenbegründung in der Analytischen Ethik, Würzburg 2003.Google Scholar
  99. Kelsen, Hans: Was ist Gerechtigkeit?, Stuttgart 2000.Google Scholar
  100. Kim, Rakhyun/ Bosselmann, Klaus: Operationalizing Sustainable Development: Ecological Integrity as a Grundnorm of International Law, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 2015, pp. 194 et seq.Google Scholar
  101. Kivimaa, Paula et al.: Experiments in Climate Governance – Lessons from a Systematic Review of Case Studies in Transition Research, SPRU Working Paper Series, Sussex 2015.Google Scholar
  102. Klatt, Matthias: Making the law explicit: The normativity of legal argumentation, London 2008.Google Scholar
  103. Klein, Naomi: This Changes Everything. Capitalism versus The Climate, New York 2014.Google Scholar
  104. Klinsky, Sonja/ Mehling, Michael/ Tuerk, Andreas: Beyond Déjà Vu. Opportunities for Policy Learning from Emissions Trading in Developed Countries, Carbon & Climate Law Review 2012, pp. 291 et seq.Google Scholar
  105. Kuckartz, Udo: Mixed Methods, Wiesbaden 2014.Google Scholar
  106. Lang, Daniel/ Rode, Horst/ von Wehrden, Henrik: Methoden und Methodologie in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften, in: Heinrichs, Harald/ Michelsen, Gerd (Ed.): Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften, Heidelberg 2014, pp. 115 et seq.Google Scholar
  107. Leclère, David et al.: Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems. Insights from a global model, Environmental Research Letters 2014, 134018.Google Scholar
  108. Lohmann, Larry: Climate Crisis – Social Science Crisis, in: Voss, Martin (Ed.): Der Klimawandel. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 133 et seq.Google Scholar
  109. Löfstedt, Ragnar: A possible way forward for evidence-based and risk-informed policy-making in Europe: a personal view, Journal of Risk Research 2014, pp. 1089 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Lomborg, Björn: Cool it! The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, München 2007.Google Scholar
  111. Luhmann, Niklas: Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 1993.Google Scholar
  112. Machol, Ben/ Rizk, Sarah: Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts, Environment International 2013, pp. 75 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Malinowski, Bronislaw: Argonauts of the western pacific. An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, 2nd ed. London 1932.Google Scholar
  114. Marotzke, Jochem: Vorhersagen sind schwierig – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Klimamodellen, in: Marotzke, Jochem/ Stratmann, Martin (Ed.): Die Zukunft des Klimas. Neue Erkenntnisse, neue Herausforderungen, München 2015, pp. 9 et seq.Google Scholar
  115. Mathis, Klaus: Efficiency instead of Justice? Searching for the Philosophical Foundations of the Economic Analysis of Law, Berlin 2009.Google Scholar
  116. Meadows, Dennis L./ Meadows, Donella H./ Randers, Jørgen/ Behrens, William W.: The Limits to Growth, Hannover 1972.Google Scholar
  117. Milgram, Stanley: Obedience to Authority. An Experimental View, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  118. Milinski, Manfred/ Marotzke, Jochem: Das Klimaspiel. Warum scheitern Klimaverhandlungen?, in: Marotzke, Jochem/ Stratmann, Martin (Ed.): Die Zukunft des Klimas. Neue Erkenntnisse, neue Herausforderungen, München 2015, pp. 93 et seq.Google Scholar
  119. Moreno, Camila/ Speich Chassé, Daniel/ Fuhr, Lili: Carbon Metrics. Global Abstractions and Ecological Epistemicide, Berlin 2015, https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2015-11-09_carbon_metrics.pdf.
  120. Muraca, Barbara: Gut leben. Eine Gesellschaft jenseits des Wachstums, Bonn 2015.Google Scholar
  121. Newig, Jens et al.: Exploring Governance Learning, Environmental Science and Policy 2015, pp. 353 et seq.Google Scholar
  122. Nkonya, Ephraim/ Mirzabaev, Alisher/ von Braun, Joachim (Ed.): Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development, Berlin 2016.Google Scholar
  123. Nonhebel, Sabine: Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2004, pp. 191 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Nordhaus, William: A Question of Balance. Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, New Haven 2008.Google Scholar
  125. Nowak, Martin/ Highfield, Roger: Kooperative Intelligenz. Das Erfolgsgeheimnis der Evolution, München 2013.Google Scholar
  126. OECD: How’s Life? Measuring Wellbeing, Paris 2015.Google Scholar
  127. OECD: Biofuels: Linking Support To Performance, 2008.Google Scholar
  128. Ott, Konrad: Institutionalizing Strong Sustainability. A Rawlsian Perspective, Sustainability 2014, pp. 894 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ott, Konrad/ Döring, Ralf: Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit, Marburg 2004.Google Scholar
  130. Paech, Niko: Liberation From Excess, München 2012.Google Scholar
  131. Parry, Martin et al.: Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates, 2009, http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/economics-and-equity-adaptation/costs-adapting-climate-change-significantly-under-estimated.
  132. Peters, Glen/ Minx, Jan/ Weber, Christopher/ Edenhofer, Ottmar: Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008, PNAS 2011, pp. 8903 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas/ Brooks, Victoria (Ed.): Research Methods in Environmental Law. A Handbook, Cheltenham 2017.Google Scholar
  134. Piketty, Thomas: Capital in the 21st Century, Harvard 2014.Google Scholar
  135. Rawls, John: A Theory of Justice, Cambridge/ Mass. 1971.Google Scholar
  136. Roberts, Timmons/ Parks, Bradley: A Climate of Injustice. Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy, Cambridge/ Mass. 2007.Google Scholar
  137. Rockström, Johan et al.: A Safe Operating Space for Nature, Nature 2009, pp. 472 et seq.Google Scholar
  138. Romppanen, Seita: The EU’s Biofuels – Certified as Sustainable?, RELP 2012, pp. 173 et seq.Google Scholar
  139. Rorty, Richard: Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge 1989.Google Scholar
  140. Rosillo-Calle, Frank/ de Groot, Peter/ Hemstock, Sarah L./ Woods, Jeremy (Ed.): The Biomass Assessment Handbook. Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment, Basingstoke 2007.Google Scholar
  141. Russell-Smith, Jeremy/ Costanza, Robert et al.: Moving beyond evidence-free environmental policy, Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2015, pp. 441 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Santarius, Tilman: Der Rebound-Effekt. Ökonomische, psychische und soziale Herausforderungen für die Entkopplung von Wirtschaftswachstum und Energieverbrauch, Marburg 2015.Google Scholar
  143. Schäpke, Niko et al.: Creating Space for Change: Real-world Laboratories for Sustainability Transformations, GAIA 2015, pp. 281 et seq.Google Scholar
  144. Scheidler, Fabian: Das Ende der Megamaschine. Geschichte einer scheiternden Zivilisation, Wien 2015.Google Scholar
  145. Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim: Selbstverbrennung. Die fatale Dreiecksbeziehung zwischen Klima, Mensch und Kohlenstoff, München 2015.Google Scholar
  146. Schmid, Eva/ Knopf, Brigitte/ Pechan, Anna: Putting an energy system transformation into practice: The case of the German Energiewende, Energy Research & Social Science 2016, pp. 263 et seq.Google Scholar
  147. Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich: Green lies. Nothing for the environment, everything for business – how politics and industry are ruining the world, München 2014.Google Scholar
  148. Schneider, Lambert/ Lazarus, Michael/ Kollmuss, Anja: Industrial N2O Projects Under the CDM: Adipic Acid. A Case of Carbon Leakage?, Stockholm 2010.Google Scholar
  149. Schneidewind, Uwe: Nachhaltige Wissenschaft. Plädoyer für einen Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem, Marburg 2009.Google Scholar
  150. Scholz, Roland et al.: Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2006, pp. 226 et seq.Google Scholar
  151. Scholz, Roland: Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. From Knowledge to Decisions, Cambridge 2011.Google Scholar
  152. Schubert, Christian: Mehr Psychologie wagen. Warum eine psychologisch informierte VWL gute Argumente gegen staatlichen Interventionismus liefert, 2015, http://wirtschaftlichefreiheit.de/wordpress/?p=18051 (zuletzt abgerufen: 16.05.2016).
  153. Schulz, Christian/ Bailey, Ian: The Green Economy and Post-Growth Regimes – Opportunities and Challenges for Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler 2014, pp. 277 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, Montréal 2010.Google Scholar
  155. Sen, Amartya: The Idea of Justice, Harvard 2009.Google Scholar
  156. Shindell, Drew: The social cost of atmospheric release, Climatic Change 2015, pp. 313 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Siemer, Stefan: Nachhaltigkeit unterscheiden. Eine systemtheoretische Gegenposition zur liberalen Fundierung der Nachhaltigkeit, in: Ekardt, Felix (Ed.): Generationengerechtigkeit und Zukunftsfähigkeit. Philosophische, juristische, ökonomische, politologische und theologische Neuansätze in der Umwelt-, Sozial- und Wirtschaftspolitik, 2006, pp. 129 et seq.Google Scholar
  158. Simmonds, Nigel: Law as a Moral Idea, Cambridge 2010.Google Scholar
  159. Singer, Peter: Climate change, eating meat and ending poverty, Milthorpe Lecture 2009.Google Scholar
  160. Sinn, Hans-Werner: Das grüne Paradoxon. Plädoyer für eine illusionsfreie Klimapolitik, München 2008.Google Scholar
  161. Sommer, Bernd/ Welzer, Harald: Transformationsdesign. Wege in eine zukunftsfähige Moderne, München 2014.Google Scholar
  162. Stengel, Oliver: Suffizienz. Die Konsumgesellschaft in der ökologischen Krise, München 2011.Google Scholar
  163. Stern, Nicholas: A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to manage Climate Change and create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity, Cambridge 2009.Google Scholar
  164. Stern, Nicholas: Stern Review Final Report, 2006, abrufbar unter http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm.
  165. Stiglitz, Joseph/ Sen, Amartya/ Fitoussi, Jean-Paul: Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris 2009.Google Scholar
  166. Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne/ O’Riordan, Tim: The Sustainability Challenges, Environment 3/ 2014, pp. 34 et seq.Google Scholar
  167. Susnjar, Davor: Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, and Balance of Powers, Leiden 2010.Google Scholar
  168. Sutter, Christoph/ Parreño, Juan Carlos: Does the current Clean Development Mechanism deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects, Climate Change 2007, pp. 75 et seq.Google Scholar
  169. Tapia-Fonllem, César/ Corral-Verdugo, Victor/ Fraijo-Sing, Blanca/ Fernanda Durón-Ramos, Maria: Assessing Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: A Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions, Sustainability 2013, pp. 711 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Thornhill, Randy/ Palmer, Craig: A natural history of rape, Cambridge 2000.Google Scholar
  171. Tomasello, Michael: A Natural History of Human Thinking, Harvard 2017.Google Scholar
  172. UNEP: Green Economy Report. A Preview, New York 2010.Google Scholar
  173. Unnerstall, Herwig: Rechte zukünftiger Generationen, Würzburg 1999.Google Scholar
  174. Unnerstall, Herwig: Sustainable Development” as Legal Term in European Community Law: Making It Operable within the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive, UFZ-Diskussionspapiere 16/ 2005, Leipzig 2005, http://www.ufz.de/data/ufz_disk_16_20052878.pdf.
  175. Voget-Kleschin, Lieske: Sustainable Food Consumption? Claims for Sustainable Lifestyles in between Normative and Eudaimonistic Issues – the Example of Food Production and Consumption, Manuskript, Greifswald 2013.Google Scholar
  176. von Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich: Factor Five. Transforming the Global Economy through 80 % Improvements in Resource Productivity, London 2010.Google Scholar
  177. Wilson, Edward: The Social Conquest of Earth, New York 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Ekardt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Forschungsstelle Nachhaltigkeit und KlimapolitikLeipzig/BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Rostock UniversityRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations