Marc Davidson | University of Amsterdam (original) (raw)

Papers by Marc Davidson

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 2021

Just as other philosophies of life, humanism has to position itself in the societal debate on sus... more Just as other philosophies of life, humanism has to position itself in the societal debate on sustainability. In this article, various tendencies in humanism are discussed that may have contributed to our disturbed relationship with our environment. At the same time, it is also shown that humanism can do without these tendencies and that humanism has a unique voice to offer in the sustainability debate. Because humanists do not believe in a metaphysical afterlife, but instead believe that life only continues here on Earth, humanists in particular have a reason to ensure that the projects to which we contribute and which we cherish have the opportunity to continue to flourish in the future. Without the prospect of a sustainable development, our ability to attach meaning to our present lives diminishes, at least if we are looking for secular sources of meaning.

Item does not contain fulltex

Item does not contain fulltex

Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2017

Captions for Table S1. Descriptive statistics of unstandardized input variables.

Sustainability

A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of kee... more A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In particular, there are four distributional issues: how to allocate the total amount of greenhouse gases that can still be emitted, who should bear the costs of mitigation, who should bear the costs of adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and who should bear the costs of residual climate damage. Regarding these distributional issues the academic literature offers a plethora of fairness principles, such as ‘polluter pays’, ‘beneficiary pays’, ‘equal per capita rights’, ‘grandfathering’, ‘ability to pay’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Remarkably, there is a theoretical gap between these principles and the central theories of distributive justice in moral and political philosophy. As a consequence, it is unclear how these principles are related, whether they can be combined...

ssingen voor al, economie n technologie 2611 HH Delf www.ce.n

Forest Policy and Economics

Physical Review Letters, 1991

Global Environmental Change, 2012

ABSTRACT Incentive measures can internalize the external benefits of ecosystem services or, conve... more ABSTRACT Incentive measures can internalize the external benefits of ecosystem services or, conversely, the external costs of service losses. In the last decade, preliminary steps have been taken in this direction in the form of voluntary payments for ecosystem services. Much larger financial flows may be required, however, to reverse the present trend of ecosystem degradation, making the issue of distributive justice all the more pressing. This article offers a first outline of the international regulation of ecosystem services under different principles of distributive justice. It is concluded that negative incentives, i.e. putting a price on exerting pressures on ecosystems, are better justified than positive incentives, i.e. rewarding the provision of current ecosystem services. Negative incentives do not necessarily worsen the situation of countries, since the revenues of taxation are redistributed. Whether countries become net payers or receivers under a particular incentive and redistribution scheme depends upon its underlying principle of justice.

Ecological Indicators, 2014

Spatial disconnections between locations where ecosystem services are produced and where they are... more Spatial disconnections between locations where ecosystem services are produced and where they are used are common. To date most ecosystem service assessments have relied on static indicators of provision and often do not incorporate relations with the corresponding beneficiaries or benefiting areas. Most studies implicitly assume spatial and temporal connections between ecosystem service provision and beneficiaries, while the actual connections, i.e., ecosystem service flows, are poorly understood. In this paper, we present a generic framework to analyze the spatial connections between the ecosystem service provisioning and benefiting areas. We introduce an indicator that shows the proportion of benefiting areas supported by spatial ecosystem service flows from provisioning areas. We illustrate the application of the framework and indicator by using global maps of provisioning and benefitting areas for pollination services. We also illustrate our framework and indicator using water provision and climate regulation services, as they portray important differences in spatiotemporal scale and process of service flow. We also describe the possible application of the framework for other services and other scales of assessment. We highlight how, depending on the ecosystem service being studied, the spatial service flows between provisioning and benefiting areas can limit service delivery, thereby reducing the local value of ecosystem service supply.

Ecological Economics, 2013

Ecological Economics, 2007

ABSTRACT Faced with incomplete and often contradictory information, people perceive the world thr... more ABSTRACT Faced with incomplete and often contradictory information, people perceive the world through fundamentally different ‘risk filters’, which influences the way issues are defined and preferences as to how they should be handled. Therefore, scientific or objective arguments alone cannot settle disputes about the acceptability of the risks we impose on our fellow human beings. This relativistic view on acceptable risk to others is often also extended to encompass risk to future generations, with widely diverging views on such risks deemed equally valid. In this article, however, it is argued that acceptable risk to future generations cannot be interpreted as widely as acceptable risk to our contemporaries. Although people may differ widely in their attitudes towards risk, society has already institutionalized a certain general standard of conduct as being acceptable for handling risks to others, for example in tort law. Although this general standard of conduct may differ from society to society and from time to time, intergenerational justice requires future generations to be treated according to these same standards.

ABSTRACT The branching ratios of transitions between the 6 s 2S1/2, 7s 2S1/2, 6p 2P1/2,3/2, 5d 2D... more ABSTRACT The branching ratios of transitions between the 6 s 2S1/2, 7s 2S1/2, 6p 2P1/2,3/2, 5d 2D3/2,5/2, and 6d 2D3/2,5/2 levels in the spectrum of Ba II have been measured. The accuracy of oscillator strengths have been improved with respect to literature values.

Sustainability, 2012

Moral philosophers and economists have evaluated the intergenerational problem of climate change ... more Moral philosophers and economists have evaluated the intergenerational problem of climate change by applying the whole gamut of theories on distributive justice. In this article, however, it is argued that intergenerational justice cannot imply the application of moral ideal theories to future generations. The formal principle of equality simply requires us to treat like cases as like. If intergenerational justice is to have any meaning, it would require future generations to receive the same treatment under the law and the same treatment from the authorities, as far as cases are like. In the context of climate change, the reasonable man standard from tort law is of particular relevance. There is no justification to handle pollution across generational boundaries according to norms which differ from the (international) laws for handling pollution across national borders. It is argued that this implies, for example, that a zero social rate of time preference should be used in cost-benefit analysis of climate policy: climate damage experienced by future generations should be discounted neither for their higher expected wealth, nor purely for their being remote.

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 2021

Just as other philosophies of life, humanism has to position itself in the societal debate on sus... more Just as other philosophies of life, humanism has to position itself in the societal debate on sustainability. In this article, various tendencies in humanism are discussed that may have contributed to our disturbed relationship with our environment. At the same time, it is also shown that humanism can do without these tendencies and that humanism has a unique voice to offer in the sustainability debate. Because humanists do not believe in a metaphysical afterlife, but instead believe that life only continues here on Earth, humanists in particular have a reason to ensure that the projects to which we contribute and which we cherish have the opportunity to continue to flourish in the future. Without the prospect of a sustainable development, our ability to attach meaning to our present lives diminishes, at least if we are looking for secular sources of meaning.

Item does not contain fulltex

Item does not contain fulltex

Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2017

Captions for Table S1. Descriptive statistics of unstandardized input variables.

Sustainability

A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of kee... more A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In particular, there are four distributional issues: how to allocate the total amount of greenhouse gases that can still be emitted, who should bear the costs of mitigation, who should bear the costs of adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and who should bear the costs of residual climate damage. Regarding these distributional issues the academic literature offers a plethora of fairness principles, such as ‘polluter pays’, ‘beneficiary pays’, ‘equal per capita rights’, ‘grandfathering’, ‘ability to pay’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Remarkably, there is a theoretical gap between these principles and the central theories of distributive justice in moral and political philosophy. As a consequence, it is unclear how these principles are related, whether they can be combined...

ssingen voor al, economie n technologie 2611 HH Delf www.ce.n

Forest Policy and Economics

Physical Review Letters, 1991

Global Environmental Change, 2012

ABSTRACT Incentive measures can internalize the external benefits of ecosystem services or, conve... more ABSTRACT Incentive measures can internalize the external benefits of ecosystem services or, conversely, the external costs of service losses. In the last decade, preliminary steps have been taken in this direction in the form of voluntary payments for ecosystem services. Much larger financial flows may be required, however, to reverse the present trend of ecosystem degradation, making the issue of distributive justice all the more pressing. This article offers a first outline of the international regulation of ecosystem services under different principles of distributive justice. It is concluded that negative incentives, i.e. putting a price on exerting pressures on ecosystems, are better justified than positive incentives, i.e. rewarding the provision of current ecosystem services. Negative incentives do not necessarily worsen the situation of countries, since the revenues of taxation are redistributed. Whether countries become net payers or receivers under a particular incentive and redistribution scheme depends upon its underlying principle of justice.

Ecological Indicators, 2014

Spatial disconnections between locations where ecosystem services are produced and where they are... more Spatial disconnections between locations where ecosystem services are produced and where they are used are common. To date most ecosystem service assessments have relied on static indicators of provision and often do not incorporate relations with the corresponding beneficiaries or benefiting areas. Most studies implicitly assume spatial and temporal connections between ecosystem service provision and beneficiaries, while the actual connections, i.e., ecosystem service flows, are poorly understood. In this paper, we present a generic framework to analyze the spatial connections between the ecosystem service provisioning and benefiting areas. We introduce an indicator that shows the proportion of benefiting areas supported by spatial ecosystem service flows from provisioning areas. We illustrate the application of the framework and indicator by using global maps of provisioning and benefitting areas for pollination services. We also illustrate our framework and indicator using water provision and climate regulation services, as they portray important differences in spatiotemporal scale and process of service flow. We also describe the possible application of the framework for other services and other scales of assessment. We highlight how, depending on the ecosystem service being studied, the spatial service flows between provisioning and benefiting areas can limit service delivery, thereby reducing the local value of ecosystem service supply.

Ecological Economics, 2013

Ecological Economics, 2007

ABSTRACT Faced with incomplete and often contradictory information, people perceive the world thr... more ABSTRACT Faced with incomplete and often contradictory information, people perceive the world through fundamentally different ‘risk filters’, which influences the way issues are defined and preferences as to how they should be handled. Therefore, scientific or objective arguments alone cannot settle disputes about the acceptability of the risks we impose on our fellow human beings. This relativistic view on acceptable risk to others is often also extended to encompass risk to future generations, with widely diverging views on such risks deemed equally valid. In this article, however, it is argued that acceptable risk to future generations cannot be interpreted as widely as acceptable risk to our contemporaries. Although people may differ widely in their attitudes towards risk, society has already institutionalized a certain general standard of conduct as being acceptable for handling risks to others, for example in tort law. Although this general standard of conduct may differ from society to society and from time to time, intergenerational justice requires future generations to be treated according to these same standards.

ABSTRACT The branching ratios of transitions between the 6 s 2S1/2, 7s 2S1/2, 6p 2P1/2,3/2, 5d 2D... more ABSTRACT The branching ratios of transitions between the 6 s 2S1/2, 7s 2S1/2, 6p 2P1/2,3/2, 5d 2D3/2,5/2, and 6d 2D3/2,5/2 levels in the spectrum of Ba II have been measured. The accuracy of oscillator strengths have been improved with respect to literature values.

Sustainability, 2012

Moral philosophers and economists have evaluated the intergenerational problem of climate change ... more Moral philosophers and economists have evaluated the intergenerational problem of climate change by applying the whole gamut of theories on distributive justice. In this article, however, it is argued that intergenerational justice cannot imply the application of moral ideal theories to future generations. The formal principle of equality simply requires us to treat like cases as like. If intergenerational justice is to have any meaning, it would require future generations to receive the same treatment under the law and the same treatment from the authorities, as far as cases are like. In the context of climate change, the reasonable man standard from tort law is of particular relevance. There is no justification to handle pollution across generational boundaries according to norms which differ from the (international) laws for handling pollution across national borders. It is argued that this implies, for example, that a zero social rate of time preference should be used in cost-benefit analysis of climate policy: climate damage experienced by future generations should be discounted neither for their higher expected wealth, nor purely for their being remote.

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment