LEADER 03390nam  2200625Ia 450 
001 9910457022003321
005 20200520144314.0
010   $a1-282-45384-X
010   $a9786612453847
010   $a90-485-0834-7
035   $a(CKB)2550000000002214
035   $a(EBL)474275
035   $a(OCoLC)607891402
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000356725
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11262108
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000356725
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10350878
035   $a(PQKB)11130702
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC474275
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL474275
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10363462
035   $a(CaONFJC)MIL245384
035   $a(EXLCZ)992550000000002214
100   $a20100417d2008      uf             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|n|---|||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aArguing about climate change$b[electronic resource] $ejudging the handling of climate risk to future generations by comparison to the general standards of conduct in the case of risk to contemporaries /$fMarc David Davidson
210   $aAmsterdam $cAmsterdam University Press$dc2008
215   $a1 online resource (148 p.)
300   $aThe work was "financed by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in the context of the programme Ethics, Research & Public Policy, and the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM)."
300   $aOriginally presented as the author's Ph.D Thesis from the University of Amsterdam.
311   $a90-5629-553-5 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
327   $aContents; General introduction; Chapter 1: An inconvenient truth; Chapter 2: Climate damage as wrongful harm to future generations; Chapter 3: Regulation of climate change and the reasonable man standard; Chapter 4: A social discount rate for climate damage to future generations based on regulatory law; Chapter 5: How reasonable man discounts climate damage; Chapter 6: Parallels in reactionary argumentation in the US congressional debates on the abolition of slavery and the Kyoto Protocol; Summary; Nederlandse samenvatting; Acknowledgements; Curriculum vitae
330   $aIntergenerational justice requires that climate risks to future generations be handled with the same reasonable care deemed acceptable by society in the case of risks to contemporaries. Such general standards of conduct are laid down in tort law, for example. Consequently, the validity of arguments for or against more stringent climate policy can be judged by comparison to the general standards of conduct applying in the case of risk to contemporaries. That this consistency test is able to disqualify certain arguments in the climate debate is illustrated by a further investigation of the debat
606   $aEnvironmental ethics
606   $aClimatic changes$xMoral and ethical aspects
606   $aEnvironmental responsibility
608   $aElectronic books.
615  0$aEnvironmental ethics.
615  0$aClimatic changes$xMoral and ethical aspects.
615  0$aEnvironmental responsibility.
676   $a350
676   $a363.738/74
700   $aDavidson$b Marc David$0933578
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910457022003321
996   $aArguing about climate change$92101804
997   $aUNINA