Climate nationalism has attracted renewed interest among scholars and analysts of international climate politics, security studies, and international relations more broadly. However, the most prominent arguments about climate nationalism follow a storyline of “good nationalism” or “bad nationalism”—a “positive civic nationalism” versus a “destructive ethnic nationalism.” In this article, we review these debates by drawing on prominent strands of scholarship on climate nationalism, mapped onto three key aspects: climate securitization, political populism, and Civic nationalism. To further ground our review in real‐world politics outside of the United States and Western Europe, we offer a snapshot of climate nationalism narratives deployed by political elites in three large countries in the Asia‐Pacific: Australia, India, and China. Our review shows that considering the multiscalar, multisectoral, and global scope of climate action, it may be futile to look for a conclusive answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad for fostering effective and enduring transformations suitable for a climate‐changed world. Instead, we recommend a research agenda focused on investigating the myriad ways in which political and economic elites fuse discourses of nationalism with various aspects of climate politics and climate action. A proper understanding of elite interests, discourses, and strategies, in ways that account for varied national and regional political and economic contexts, we argue is crucial for a fuller understanding of how narratives of nationalism may affect climate action.
{"title":"Climate nationalisms: Beyond the binaries of good and bad nationalism","authors":"Prakash Kashwan, J. C. Liu, J. Das","doi":"10.1002/wcc.815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.815","url":null,"abstract":"Climate nationalism has attracted renewed interest among scholars and analysts of international climate politics, security studies, and international relations more broadly. However, the most prominent arguments about climate nationalism follow a storyline of “good nationalism” or “bad nationalism”—a “positive civic nationalism” versus a “destructive ethnic nationalism.” In this article, we review these debates by drawing on prominent strands of scholarship on climate nationalism, mapped onto three key aspects: climate securitization, political populism, and Civic nationalism. To further ground our review in real‐world politics outside of the United States and Western Europe, we offer a snapshot of climate nationalism narratives deployed by political elites in three large countries in the Asia‐Pacific: Australia, India, and China. Our review shows that considering the multiscalar, multisectoral, and global scope of climate action, it may be futile to look for a conclusive answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad for fostering effective and enduring transformations suitable for a climate‐changed world. Instead, we recommend a research agenda focused on investigating the myriad ways in which political and economic elites fuse discourses of nationalism with various aspects of climate politics and climate action. A proper understanding of elite interests, discourses, and strategies, in ways that account for varied national and regional political and economic contexts, we argue is crucial for a fuller understanding of how narratives of nationalism may affect climate action.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41346819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. White, Qing Pei, Katrin Kleemann, L. Dolák, Heli Huhtamaa, C. Camenisch
Historical climatology is an interdisciplinary field of research encompassing the reconstruction of past climate and weather from written sources and artifacts, as well the application of climate reconstructions to the study of human history. Historical climatology has grown in recent years, and this growth has brought both insights and challenges. Research has expanded into new regions and periods and diversified into novel sources, methods, and interdisciplinary collaborations. At the same time, the heterogeneity of evidence and approaches has complicated the integration of multiple climate and weather reconstructions. Moreover, the diversity of disciplinary perspectives, terminologies, and perspectives can create miscommunication among scholars in the field, particularly on issues of historical knowledge and causation. Innovative approaches in the field, including Bayesian methods, may help address these challenges.
{"title":"New perspectives on historical climatology","authors":"S. White, Qing Pei, Katrin Kleemann, L. Dolák, Heli Huhtamaa, C. Camenisch","doi":"10.1002/wcc.808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.808","url":null,"abstract":"Historical climatology is an interdisciplinary field of research encompassing the reconstruction of past climate and weather from written sources and artifacts, as well the application of climate reconstructions to the study of human history. Historical climatology has grown in recent years, and this growth has brought both insights and challenges. Research has expanded into new regions and periods and diversified into novel sources, methods, and interdisciplinary collaborations. At the same time, the heterogeneity of evidence and approaches has complicated the integration of multiple climate and weather reconstructions. Moreover, the diversity of disciplinary perspectives, terminologies, and perspectives can create miscommunication among scholars in the field, particularly on issues of historical knowledge and causation. Innovative approaches in the field, including Bayesian methods, may help address these challenges.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45592120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Savin, F. Creutzig, T. Filatova, Joël Foramitti, T. Konc, Leila Niamir, Karolina Safarzynska, J. C. van den Bergh
Ambitious climate mitigation policies face social and political resistance. One reason is that existing policies insufficiently capture the diversity of relevant insights from the social sciences about potential policy outcomes. We argue that agent‐based models can serve as a powerful tool for integration of elements from different disciplines. Having such a common platform will enable a more complete assessment of climate policies, in terms of criteria like effectiveness, equity and public support.
{"title":"Agent‐based modeling to integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy","authors":"I. Savin, F. Creutzig, T. Filatova, Joël Foramitti, T. Konc, Leila Niamir, Karolina Safarzynska, J. C. van den Bergh","doi":"10.1002/wcc.811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811","url":null,"abstract":"Ambitious climate mitigation policies face social and political resistance. One reason is that existing policies insufficiently capture the diversity of relevant insights from the social sciences about potential policy outcomes. We argue that agent‐based models can serve as a powerful tool for integration of elements from different disciplines. Having such a common platform will enable a more complete assessment of climate policies, in terms of criteria like effectiveness, equity and public support.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46170853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Notwithstanding the clear contribution of fossil fuel production and consumption to global greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuels have remained largely outside the focus of the international regime established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The 2021 Glasgow Climate Change Conference (COP26) marked an important change, however, with fossil fuels featuring prominently in the intergovernmental negotiations as well as on the side‐lines of the conference. Here we discuss these developments as a site for contestations around “anti‐fossil fuel norms.” We argue that anti‐fossil fuel norms are increasingly being adopted and institutionalized. However, ongoing contestation among proponents and opponents of measures to tackle fossil fuels raises important questions over the specific content of emerging norms, the role of the fossil fuel industry in climate governance, the extent to which these norms “fit” with their broader normative context, and the conditions of North–South cooperation in which such norms are to be implemented.
{"title":"COP26 and the dynamics of anti‐fossil fuel norms","authors":"H. van Asselt, Fergus Green","doi":"10.1002/wcc.816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.816","url":null,"abstract":"Notwithstanding the clear contribution of fossil fuel production and consumption to global greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuels have remained largely outside the focus of the international regime established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The 2021 Glasgow Climate Change Conference (COP26) marked an important change, however, with fossil fuels featuring prominently in the intergovernmental negotiations as well as on the side‐lines of the conference. Here we discuss these developments as a site for contestations around “anti‐fossil fuel norms.” We argue that anti‐fossil fuel norms are increasingly being adopted and institutionalized. However, ongoing contestation among proponents and opponents of measures to tackle fossil fuels raises important questions over the specific content of emerging norms, the role of the fossil fuel industry in climate governance, the extent to which these norms “fit” with their broader normative context, and the conditions of North–South cooperation in which such norms are to be implemented.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41673753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The last few years have witnessed an explosion of interest in the concept of social tipping points (STPs), understood as nonlinear processes of transformative change in social systems. A growing body of interdisciplinary scholarship has been focusing in particular on social tipping related to climate change. In contrast with tipping point studies in the natural sciences–for example climate tipping points and ecological regime shifts–STPs are often conceptualized as desirable, offering potential solutions to pressing problems. Drawing on a well‐established definition for tipping points, and a qualitative review of articles that explicitly treat social tipping points as potential solutions to climate change, this article identifies four deleterious patterns in the application of the STP concept in this recent wave of research on nonlinear social change: (i) premature labeling, (ii) not defining system boundaries and scales of analysis, (iii) not providing evidence for all characteristics of tipping processes, and (iv) not making use of existing social theories of change. Jointly, these patterns create a trend of overusing the concept. Recognizing and avoiding these patterns of “seeing the world through tipping point glasses” is important for the quality of scientific knowledge generated in this young field of inquiry and for future science‐policy interactions related to climate change. Future research should seek to identify empirical evidence for STPs while remaining open to the possibility that many social change processes are not instances of tipping, or that certain systems might not be prone to nonlinear change.
{"title":"Social tipping points everywhere?—Patterns and risks of overuse","authors":"M. Milkoreit","doi":"10.1002/wcc.813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.813","url":null,"abstract":"The last few years have witnessed an explosion of interest in the concept of social tipping points (STPs), understood as nonlinear processes of transformative change in social systems. A growing body of interdisciplinary scholarship has been focusing in particular on social tipping related to climate change. In contrast with tipping point studies in the natural sciences–for example climate tipping points and ecological regime shifts–STPs are often conceptualized as desirable, offering potential solutions to pressing problems. Drawing on a well‐established definition for tipping points, and a qualitative review of articles that explicitly treat social tipping points as potential solutions to climate change, this article identifies four deleterious patterns in the application of the STP concept in this recent wave of research on nonlinear social change: (i) premature labeling, (ii) not defining system boundaries and scales of analysis, (iii) not providing evidence for all characteristics of tipping processes, and (iv) not making use of existing social theories of change. Jointly, these patterns create a trend of overusing the concept. Recognizing and avoiding these patterns of “seeing the world through tipping point glasses” is important for the quality of scientific knowledge generated in this young field of inquiry and for future science‐policy interactions related to climate change. Future research should seek to identify empirical evidence for STPs while remaining open to the possibility that many social change processes are not instances of tipping, or that certain systems might not be prone to nonlinear change.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42973871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Colesie, Charlotte V. Walshaw, L. Sancho, M. P. Davey, Andrew Gray
Antarctica plays a central role in regulating global climatic and oceanographic patterns and is an integral part of global climate change discussions. The functioning of Antarctica's terrestrial ecosystems is dominated by poikilohydric cryptogams such as lichens, bryophytes, eukaryotic algae, and cyanobacteria and there are only two native species of vascular plants. Antarctica's vegetation is highly adapted to the region's extreme conditions but, at the same time, it is potentially highly susceptible to climatic fluctuations. Biological responses to shifts in temperature, water availability, wind patterns, snow, and ice cover are complex, taxa‐specific and act on different temporal and spatial scales. In maritime Antarctica, where warming and mass loss of outlet glaciers have been mainly observed, the vegetation is expected to show increases in productivity, abundance, and cover. In continental Antarctica, observational and experimental evidence is still sparse, but it is pointing toward even drier and harsher conditions for survival. We need more information on what the observed and predicted changes in Antarctic vegetation are for different regions and ecosystems. This will inform us how environmental change and human impact will shape the future of these ecosystems, and whether the speed and magnitude of change have habitat‐specific effects and implications. Antarctica's unique ecosystems are changing and in this review, we describe the current situation, tools to measure, and evaluate change and how change is likely to look in the future.
{"title":"Antarctica's vegetation in a changing climate","authors":"C. Colesie, Charlotte V. Walshaw, L. Sancho, M. P. Davey, Andrew Gray","doi":"10.1002/wcc.810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.810","url":null,"abstract":"Antarctica plays a central role in regulating global climatic and oceanographic patterns and is an integral part of global climate change discussions. The functioning of Antarctica's terrestrial ecosystems is dominated by poikilohydric cryptogams such as lichens, bryophytes, eukaryotic algae, and cyanobacteria and there are only two native species of vascular plants. Antarctica's vegetation is highly adapted to the region's extreme conditions but, at the same time, it is potentially highly susceptible to climatic fluctuations. Biological responses to shifts in temperature, water availability, wind patterns, snow, and ice cover are complex, taxa‐specific and act on different temporal and spatial scales. In maritime Antarctica, where warming and mass loss of outlet glaciers have been mainly observed, the vegetation is expected to show increases in productivity, abundance, and cover. In continental Antarctica, observational and experimental evidence is still sparse, but it is pointing toward even drier and harsher conditions for survival. We need more information on what the observed and predicted changes in Antarctic vegetation are for different regions and ecosystems. This will inform us how environmental change and human impact will shape the future of these ecosystems, and whether the speed and magnitude of change have habitat‐specific effects and implications. Antarctica's unique ecosystems are changing and in this review, we describe the current situation, tools to measure, and evaluate change and how change is likely to look in the future.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43890453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Computational methods, in particular text‐as‐data or Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches, have become popular to study climate change communication as a global and large‐scale phenomenon. Scholars have discussed opportunities and challenges of these methods for climate change communication, with some proponents and critics taking strong positions, either embracing the potential of computational methods or critically questioning their value. Mirroring developments in the broader social scientific debate, we aim to bring both sides together by proposing a reflexive, integrative approach for computational research on climate change communication: We reflect on strengths (e.g., making data big and small, nowcasting observations) and weaknesses (e.g., introducing empiricist epistemologies, ignoring biases) of computational approaches. Moreover, we also provide concrete and constructive guidance on when and how to integrate (or not integrate) these methods based on theoretical considerations. We thereby understand computational methods as part of an ever‐increasing, diverse toolbox for analyzing climate change communication.
{"title":"Computational methods for the analysis of climate change communication: Towards an integrative and reflexive approach","authors":"Mike S. Schäfer, V. Hase","doi":"10.1002/wcc.806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.806","url":null,"abstract":"Computational methods, in particular text‐as‐data or Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches, have become popular to study climate change communication as a global and large‐scale phenomenon. Scholars have discussed opportunities and challenges of these methods for climate change communication, with some proponents and critics taking strong positions, either embracing the potential of computational methods or critically questioning their value. Mirroring developments in the broader social scientific debate, we aim to bring both sides together by proposing a reflexive, integrative approach for computational research on climate change communication: We reflect on strengths (e.g., making data big and small, nowcasting observations) and weaknesses (e.g., introducing empiricist epistemologies, ignoring biases) of computational approaches. Moreover, we also provide concrete and constructive guidance on when and how to integrate (or not integrate) these methods based on theoretical considerations. We thereby understand computational methods as part of an ever‐increasing, diverse toolbox for analyzing climate change communication.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48456131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In August 2021, while the world was grappling with the release of the IPCC WGI report, a group of activist scientists called Scientist Rebellion leaked parts of the Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) prior to intergovernmental approval. Although Scientist Rebellion are not the first to leak an IPCC report, they are the most vocal leaker with a particular political agenda: to generate disruptive climate action by curtailing the carefully orchestrated intergovernmental process of the IPCC. I take this case of science in activism involving the IPCC interface as an example to examine the increasingly intricate relationship between science, activism and responsibility. The salient sense of urgency around climate action, the growing prevalence of the climate crisis narrative in both public and scientific spheres, and the increased policy‐relevance of science‐policy interfaces put strong pressures on (climate) scientists that need to be disentangled to be understood without premature judgment. I show that the leak is symptomatic of the novel responsibility to act(ivism) scientists are increasingly confronted with and I highlight some of the tensions that come with this responsibility. Emphasizing the centrality of the question of responsibility in, and of, science, I discuss the (ir)responsibility of leaking IPCC draft materials. I end on a call for more interdisciplinary attentiveness to the nexus of science, activism and responsibility and the cases in which they become entangled.
{"title":"Leaking the IPCC: A question of responsibility?","authors":"Friederike Hartz","doi":"10.1002/wcc.814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.814","url":null,"abstract":"In August 2021, while the world was grappling with the release of the IPCC WGI report, a group of activist scientists called Scientist Rebellion leaked parts of the Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) prior to intergovernmental approval. Although Scientist Rebellion are not the first to leak an IPCC report, they are the most vocal leaker with a particular political agenda: to generate disruptive climate action by curtailing the carefully orchestrated intergovernmental process of the IPCC. I take this case of science in activism involving the IPCC interface as an example to examine the increasingly intricate relationship between science, activism and responsibility. The salient sense of urgency around climate action, the growing prevalence of the climate crisis narrative in both public and scientific spheres, and the increased policy‐relevance of science‐policy interfaces put strong pressures on (climate) scientists that need to be disentangled to be understood without premature judgment. I show that the leak is symptomatic of the novel responsibility to act(ivism) scientists are increasingly confronted with and I highlight some of the tensions that come with this responsibility. Emphasizing the centrality of the question of responsibility in, and of, science, I discuss the (ir)responsibility of leaking IPCC draft materials. I end on a call for more interdisciplinary attentiveness to the nexus of science, activism and responsibility and the cases in which they become entangled.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45123850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The scientific grounds for the urgency of action to limit climate change are relatively well‐understood. Much less well appreciated, however, are the contingent, but nevertheless profound, political reasons for the urgency of immediate robust action. Most important is the fact, insufficiently appreciated by many normative and economic theorists, that some of the most powerful and wealthy political institutions and economic organizations on the planet are firmly committed to delaying effective action on climate change as long as possible so that they can retain and enhance their current wealth and power resting on fossil fuel assets. Ruthless and entrenched opponents resist actions to slow climate change, and delay is the new denial. The deception practiced by those whose vast wealth and power depends on slowing the transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels necessitates the building of social movements and political campaigns to expose their falsehoods and diversions and to explain and justify transformative alternatives to potentially active citizens. The opponents of climate action have been active for decades and have built powerful political coalitions. The supporters of climate action need to confront them urgently with yet more powerful political coalitions because the remaining time for winning the struggle is shrinking fast. Action is urgent because deceptive delay is relentless.
{"title":"Unseen urgency: Delay as the new denial","authors":"H. Shue","doi":"10.1002/wcc.809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.809","url":null,"abstract":"The scientific grounds for the urgency of action to limit climate change are relatively well‐understood. Much less well appreciated, however, are the contingent, but nevertheless profound, political reasons for the urgency of immediate robust action. Most important is the fact, insufficiently appreciated by many normative and economic theorists, that some of the most powerful and wealthy political institutions and economic organizations on the planet are firmly committed to delaying effective action on climate change as long as possible so that they can retain and enhance their current wealth and power resting on fossil fuel assets. Ruthless and entrenched opponents resist actions to slow climate change, and delay is the new denial. The deception practiced by those whose vast wealth and power depends on slowing the transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels necessitates the building of social movements and political campaigns to expose their falsehoods and diversions and to explain and justify transformative alternatives to potentially active citizens. The opponents of climate action have been active for decades and have built powerful political coalitions. The supporters of climate action need to confront them urgently with yet more powerful political coalitions because the remaining time for winning the struggle is shrinking fast. Action is urgent because deceptive delay is relentless.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46113647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stories have cognitive value—listened to carefully and expertly, they provide knowledge. That knowledge is captured and presented in narrative evidence—the product of the expert act of critical engagement with stories, and with others' engagement with stories. Storylistening is the theory and practice of gathering narrative evidence to inform decision‐making, especially in relation to public reasoning, as part of a pluralistic evidence base. Storylistening is necessary to counter the political deployment of partial, selective, or misinterpreted narrative evidence. There are four ways in which stories can contribute to public reasoning about climate change. Stories play a role in reframing the “idea” of climate change, as well as being integral to many of the new disciplines, perspectives and knowledges drawn in as relevant by that reframing. Stories create and cohere collective identities and climate change beliefs and behavior. Narrative models complement and supplement computational models, creating an ensemble of models that more adequately covers the gaps that result from only deploying big, global, generalized models. Stories play a crucial role in enabling better anticipation for decision‐making, and storylistening can enable the use of narrative evidence from narrative futures methods, as well as perhaps improve the ways scientific evidence about the future is also listened to. Incorporating storylistening into public reasoning about climate change requires the evolution of advisory systems and of the academic humanities, and can play a role in the urgent need to democratize public reasoning about climate change.
{"title":"Storylistening: How narrative evidence can improve public reasoning about climate change","authors":"Sarah Dillon, C. Craig","doi":"10.1002/wcc.812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.812","url":null,"abstract":"Stories have cognitive value—listened to carefully and expertly, they provide knowledge. That knowledge is captured and presented in narrative evidence—the product of the expert act of critical engagement with stories, and with others' engagement with stories. Storylistening is the theory and practice of gathering narrative evidence to inform decision‐making, especially in relation to public reasoning, as part of a pluralistic evidence base. Storylistening is necessary to counter the political deployment of partial, selective, or misinterpreted narrative evidence. There are four ways in which stories can contribute to public reasoning about climate change. Stories play a role in reframing the “idea” of climate change, as well as being integral to many of the new disciplines, perspectives and knowledges drawn in as relevant by that reframing. Stories create and cohere collective identities and climate change beliefs and behavior. Narrative models complement and supplement computational models, creating an ensemble of models that more adequately covers the gaps that result from only deploying big, global, generalized models. Stories play a crucial role in enabling better anticipation for decision‐making, and storylistening can enable the use of narrative evidence from narrative futures methods, as well as perhaps improve the ways scientific evidence about the future is also listened to. Incorporating storylistening into public reasoning about climate change requires the evolution of advisory systems and of the academic humanities, and can play a role in the urgent need to democratize public reasoning about climate change.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42182422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：