ESDiT Publications

@article{nokey,

title = {Techno-fixing non-compliance - Geoengineering, ideal theory and residual responsibility},

author = {Martin Sand and Benjamin Hofbauer and Joost Alleblas},

url = {https://www.esdit.nl/techno-fixing-non-compliance-2/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102236},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-01},

urldate = {2023-05-01},

journal = {Technology in Society},

volume = {73},

abstract = {After years of missing the agreed upon goals for carbon reduction, we might conclude that global climate policies set infeasible standards to halt climate change. The widespread non-compliance of many signees with frameworks such as the Paris Agreement indicates that these frameworks were too optimistic regarding the signees’ motivation to act. One of the suggested ways out of this impasse, is geoengineering, which is seen as a “techno-fix” of the non-compliance problem, relieving signees and other actors of some, or most, of their mitigation duties. This paper scrutinizes different approaches towards climate mitigation that focus on behavioral change or on technological solutions. We argue that these different approaches do not originate from categorically different theories of climate justice. Indeed, seemingly realistic and seemingly idealistic proposals do not disagree on the substance of climate justice, but about what is to be considered feasible. Furthermore, by applying this dialectic lens on ideal vs. non-ideal theorizing in the context of climate justice, we show that (backward-looking) residual responsibility is an overlooked aspect of geoengineering as a (forward-looking) non-ideal approach to achieve climate justice. We will outline three possible consequences of this moral residue: 1) Residual responsibility can provide grounds to demand compensation, 2) it can constitute other forward-looking responsibilities (e.g., the maintenance of geoengineering technologies) and 3) it provides a reason to employ other techno-fixes equal in effectiveness and risks that do not sidestep the problem of non-compliance.},

keywords = {Climate change, Geoengineering, Ideal Theory, Non-compliance, Responsibility, Tecno-fix},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Unpacking notions of residents' responsibility in flood risk governance},

author = {Karin A. W. Snel and Dries L. T. Hegger and Heleen L. P. Mees and Robin Kundis Craig and Mark Kammerbauer and Neelke Doorn and Emmy Bergsma and Christine Wamsler},

doi = {10.1002/eet.1985},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-21},

journal = {Environmental Policy and Governance},

volume = {	32},

issue = {3},

pages = {217-231},

keywords = {flood risk governance, Responsibility},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Moreel dilemma: zijn digitale platformen verantwoordelijk voor hun content?},

author = {Jeroen Hopster},

url = {https://www.filosofie.nl/app/uploads/2022/12/FM4-2022-cover-194x239-388x478-c-default.webp},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-25},

journal = {Filosofie Magazine},

volume = {04-2022},

keywords = {Content, Digital platforms, Responsibility},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Sand2022,

title = {Responsibility beyond design: Physicians’ requirements for ethical medical AI},

author = {Martin Sand and Juan M Durán and Karin Rolanda Jongsma},

doi = {10.1111/bioe.12887},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-02-01},

journal = {Bioethics},

volume = {36},

issue = {2},

pages = {162-169},

keywords = {Design, Ethics, Medical AI, Responsibility},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}