Mismatches between natural systems and political boundaries often hamper environmental management and conservation efforts. As the number of transboundary environmental cooperation (TEC) initiatives increases, it becomes imperative to establish a systematic scale for analyzing such initiatives. In this article, we advance a TEC typology and apply it to the Israeli–Jordanian case. The typology includes categories of TEC initiatives and their placement on a transaction cost ladder. This typology allows for analyses of the organizational scale, societal influence, and duration of TEC initiatives. A total of sixty TEC initiatives were analyzed in an iterative process. TEC initiatives between Israel and Jordan were found largely to bear low transaction costs. The suggested typology provides an assessment tool to a large number of initiatives and a baseline for further in-depth investigation of the causal relations between environmental cooperation, peace, and conflict and may be applied to conflictual contexts at various stages.
{"title":"Toward a Typology of Environmental Cooperation in Postconflict Settings: The Case of Jordan and Israel","authors":"R. Kedem, E. Feitelson, S. Halasah, Y. Teff-Seker","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00724","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Mismatches between natural systems and political boundaries often hamper environmental management and conservation efforts. As the number of transboundary environmental cooperation (TEC) initiatives increases, it becomes imperative to establish a systematic scale for analyzing such initiatives. In this article, we advance a TEC typology and apply it to the Israeli–Jordanian case. The typology includes categories of TEC initiatives and their placement on a transaction cost ladder. This typology allows for analyses of the organizational scale, societal influence, and duration of TEC initiatives. A total of sixty TEC initiatives were analyzed in an iterative process. TEC initiatives between Israel and Jordan were found largely to bear low transaction costs. The suggested typology provides an assessment tool to a large number of initiatives and a baseline for further in-depth investigation of the causal relations between environmental cooperation, peace, and conflict and may be applied to conflictual contexts at various stages.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46816362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter Friederici, a journalist and professor of communication at Northern Arizona University, draws useful insight about stories “that we use to make sense of the world” (3) and that interfere with combating climate change. The book is part of the One Planet series edited by Sikina Jinna and Simon Nicholson, designed to let academics “speak from the heart.” Friederici argues that the dominant Western narratives are not conducive to understanding climate “disruption,” and since he assumes that we need appropriate collective stories to appropriately respond to climate change, this explains climate inaction. We learn from the environmental humanities to be reflexive about our language, and he believes that the “greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change carry with them enough defusing power that they themselves constitute potent barriers to action” (50). For example, the greenhouse effect sounds like a technical problem someone else will manage. Friederici believes that climate “breakdown” better conveys a sense that climate change will “unleash numerous corollary breakdowns in politics, economic systems, and societal relations” (56). Friederici argues that several dominant Western narratives provide tools for climate denial. He is not referring to the organized denial by conservative think tanks but to a cultural blindfold that inhibits our ability to conceive what is happening and what it means. One example is the idea that neoliberal economic growth is inevitable and should never be questioned, as in Margaret Thatcher’s invocation that “there is no alternative.” Another is that the future is not as valuable as the present and that future generations will have more wealth and resources, justifying the absurd logic of economic discounting, which is especially absurd under a broken climate. The first four chapters explain traps we must escape in prediction, metaphor, narrative, and tragedy. For example, Friederici argues that climate predictions are both too big and too small to make sense. The planetary impacts of climate disruption are so large that we cannot fully imagine what they mean, but at the same time, we hear that the sea level rises three millimeters per year. Beachgoers cannot see those three millimeters, but at the same time, coastal
{"title":"Beyond Climate Breakdown: Envisioning New Stories of Radical Hope by Peter Friederici","authors":"P. Jacques","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00730","url":null,"abstract":"Peter Friederici, a journalist and professor of communication at Northern Arizona University, draws useful insight about stories “that we use to make sense of the world” (3) and that interfere with combating climate change. The book is part of the One Planet series edited by Sikina Jinna and Simon Nicholson, designed to let academics “speak from the heart.” Friederici argues that the dominant Western narratives are not conducive to understanding climate “disruption,” and since he assumes that we need appropriate collective stories to appropriately respond to climate change, this explains climate inaction. We learn from the environmental humanities to be reflexive about our language, and he believes that the “greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change carry with them enough defusing power that they themselves constitute potent barriers to action” (50). For example, the greenhouse effect sounds like a technical problem someone else will manage. Friederici believes that climate “breakdown” better conveys a sense that climate change will “unleash numerous corollary breakdowns in politics, economic systems, and societal relations” (56). Friederici argues that several dominant Western narratives provide tools for climate denial. He is not referring to the organized denial by conservative think tanks but to a cultural blindfold that inhibits our ability to conceive what is happening and what it means. One example is the idea that neoliberal economic growth is inevitable and should never be questioned, as in Margaret Thatcher’s invocation that “there is no alternative.” Another is that the future is not as valuable as the present and that future generations will have more wealth and resources, justifying the absurd logic of economic discounting, which is especially absurd under a broken climate. The first four chapters explain traps we must escape in prediction, metaphor, narrative, and tragedy. For example, Friederici argues that climate predictions are both too big and too small to make sense. The planetary impacts of climate disruption are so large that we cannot fully imagine what they mean, but at the same time, we hear that the sea level rises three millimeters per year. Beachgoers cannot see those three millimeters, but at the same time, coastal","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"132-134"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41596996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Will artificial intelligence (AI) be the panacea of environmental governance in an age of planetary crisis? Can technology save us from ourselves? We already seem unable to curb our enthusiasm for consumption, which is further encouraged by “AI fueled advertisement ... set to turbocharge consumerism” (180). This is a core exploration in Peter Dauvergne’s book AI in the Wild. He examines the role of AI as a contributor of data, precision, trust, and efficiency of governance, in language that is accessible and at times reads like a novel, making you want to know more and keep turning pages. The examination spans crosssectoral topics from land to sea and considers the pros, cons, and in-betweens of the birth and rapid growth of AI in businesses, education, homes, environmental governance, and everywhere else. And you come to realize this almost immediately—AI is in everything we do, everywhere we go, all at once. And it can be used for amazing things, as Dauvergne points out, highlighting some of the genius ways in which AI is used precisely to advance humanity and rectify some of the damage we have inflicted on our environment. But the benefits of AI can also be used for all that’s bad in the world, and—spoiler alert—an important conclusion of the book is that AI will not save us. For Dauvergne, there seemingly is no way out of our current state of affairs within the contemporary global order, because AI cannot “overthrow the entrenched interests that are exploiting people and nature” (8). Though this impression permeates the book, Dauvergne does try to balance the book on the good side of the edge of despair as he also guides the reader through the benefits—and exploitation potentials—of AI. The book follows the use of AI in several different sectors spanning the themes of conservation, ecobusinesses, smart products, and smart cities and farms. It follows a similar pattern in each example—starting with emphasizing how it can benefit governance of a given sector with its use. AI canmonitor illegal logging of rainforests to alert managers faster, eradicate invasive species harmful to a given ecosystem using underwater robots with machine vision technology, empower police officers to identify and arrest ivory poachers in Africa with camera catch technology in parks,
在全球危机时代，人工智能会成为环境治理的灵丹妙药吗？技术能拯救我们吗？我们似乎已经无法抑制我们的消费热情，“人工智能推动的广告……将推动消费主义”（180）进一步鼓励了我们的消费。这是彼得·道弗涅（Peter Dauvergne）的《荒野中的人工智能》（AI in the Wild）一书中的核心探索。他用通俗易懂的语言审视了人工智能作为数据、准确性、信任和治理效率贡献者的作用，有时读起来像小说，让你想了解更多，并不断翻页。该考试涵盖了从陆地到海洋的跨部门主题，并考虑了人工智能在商业、教育、家庭、环境治理和其他领域的诞生和快速增长的利弊和中间因素。你几乎立刻就会意识到这一点——人工智能存在于我们所做的每一件事中，无论我们走到哪里，都是一次性的。正如Dauvergne所指出的，它可以用于惊人的事情，突出了人工智能被用来促进人类进步和纠正我们对环境造成的一些破坏的一些天才方式。但人工智能的好处也可以用于世界上所有的坏事，而且——剧透提醒——这本书的一个重要结论是，人工智能不会拯救我们。对道弗涅来说，在当代全球秩序中，我们目前的状况似乎没有出路，因为人工智能无法“推翻剥削人类和自然的根深蒂固的利益”（8）。尽管这一印象渗透在书中，但Dauvergne确实试图在绝望边缘的好的一面上平衡这本书，同时他也引导读者了解人工智能的好处和开发潜力。这本书讲述了人工智能在几个不同领域的应用，涵盖了保护、生态企业、智能产品、智能城市和农场等主题。在每个例子中，它都遵循类似的模式——首先强调如何通过使用它来有益于特定部门的治理。人工智能可以监控雨林的非法砍伐，以更快地提醒管理者，使用具有机器视觉技术的水下机器人根除对特定生态系统有害的入侵物种，让警察能够在公园里使用摄像头捕捉技术识别和逮捕非洲的象牙偷猎者，
{"title":"AI in the Wild: Sustainability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence by Peter Dauvergne","authors":"R. Tiller","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00732","url":null,"abstract":"Will artificial intelligence (AI) be the panacea of environmental governance in an age of planetary crisis? Can technology save us from ourselves? We already seem unable to curb our enthusiasm for consumption, which is further encouraged by “AI fueled advertisement ... set to turbocharge consumerism” (180). This is a core exploration in Peter Dauvergne’s book AI in the Wild. He examines the role of AI as a contributor of data, precision, trust, and efficiency of governance, in language that is accessible and at times reads like a novel, making you want to know more and keep turning pages. The examination spans crosssectoral topics from land to sea and considers the pros, cons, and in-betweens of the birth and rapid growth of AI in businesses, education, homes, environmental governance, and everywhere else. And you come to realize this almost immediately—AI is in everything we do, everywhere we go, all at once. And it can be used for amazing things, as Dauvergne points out, highlighting some of the genius ways in which AI is used precisely to advance humanity and rectify some of the damage we have inflicted on our environment. But the benefits of AI can also be used for all that’s bad in the world, and—spoiler alert—an important conclusion of the book is that AI will not save us. For Dauvergne, there seemingly is no way out of our current state of affairs within the contemporary global order, because AI cannot “overthrow the entrenched interests that are exploiting people and nature” (8). Though this impression permeates the book, Dauvergne does try to balance the book on the good side of the edge of despair as he also guides the reader through the benefits—and exploitation potentials—of AI. The book follows the use of AI in several different sectors spanning the themes of conservation, ecobusinesses, smart products, and smart cities and farms. It follows a similar pattern in each example—starting with emphasizing how it can benefit governance of a given sector with its use. AI canmonitor illegal logging of rainforests to alert managers faster, eradicate invasive species harmful to a given ecosystem using underwater robots with machine vision technology, empower police officers to identify and arrest ivory poachers in Africa with camera catch technology in parks,","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"130-131"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47640753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract From a nonideal justice perspective, this article investigates liability and compensation in their wider theoretical context to better understand the governance of climate loss and damage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The usual rationale for considering compensation takes a backward-looking understanding of responsibility. It links those causing harm directly to its remedy. This article shows that, under current political circumstances, it is more reasonable to understand responsibility as a forward-looking concept and thus to differentiate responsibilities on grounds of capacity and solidarity. The article argues that loss and damage entitlements in UNFCCC governance should be understood as entitlements to a threshold of capabilities for resilience. While compensation merely means redressing the situation ex ante a threat, entitlements to capabilities for resilience can entail more demanding responsibilities of support. This means that Article 8 of the Paris Agreement has much more demanding implications than it might at first appear.
{"title":"Resilience and Nonideal Justice in Climate Loss and Damage Governance","authors":"I. Wallimann-Helmer","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00723","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract From a nonideal justice perspective, this article investigates liability and compensation in their wider theoretical context to better understand the governance of climate loss and damage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The usual rationale for considering compensation takes a backward-looking understanding of responsibility. It links those causing harm directly to its remedy. This article shows that, under current political circumstances, it is more reasonable to understand responsibility as a forward-looking concept and thus to differentiate responsibilities on grounds of capacity and solidarity. The article argues that loss and damage entitlements in UNFCCC governance should be understood as entitlements to a threshold of capabilities for resilience. While compensation merely means redressing the situation ex ante a threat, entitlements to capabilities for resilience can entail more demanding responsibilities of support. This means that Article 8 of the Paris Agreement has much more demanding implications than it might at first appear.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"52-70"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49600998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Middle East is facing many challenges because of climate change: extreme heat, recurring droughts, water salinization, and more. Yet little is known about how people in the region perceive the threat of climate change or about the factors associated with perceiving it as more or less of a threat. This study utilizes the Arab Barometer surveys and examines how religion influences climate change perceptions among 13,700 people across twelve countries. Contrary to arguments in the literature, Muslims tend to be less concerned about climate change compared to Christians. Yet all Middle Easterners with a strong sense of religiosity are more concerned about climate change relative to their counterparts. Political attitudes also matter. Religious Muslims who endorse Islamist government are less concerned than secular Muslims, suggesting a “culture war” on the issue. These findings show that religion exerts a nuanced and unexpected influence on how people evaluate the climate change crisis.
{"title":"Faith in Science: Religion and Climate Change Attitudes in the Middle East","authors":"Nima Mazaheri","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00720","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Middle East is facing many challenges because of climate change: extreme heat, recurring droughts, water salinization, and more. Yet little is known about how people in the region perceive the threat of climate change or about the factors associated with perceiving it as more or less of a threat. This study utilizes the Arab Barometer surveys and examines how religion influences climate change perceptions among 13,700 people across twelve countries. Contrary to arguments in the literature, Muslims tend to be less concerned about climate change compared to Christians. Yet all Middle Easterners with a strong sense of religiosity are more concerned about climate change relative to their counterparts. Political attitudes also matter. Religious Muslims who endorse Islamist government are less concerned than secular Muslims, suggesting a “culture war” on the issue. These findings show that religion exerts a nuanced and unexpected influence on how people evaluate the climate change crisis.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"60 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41302198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Resistance to fossil fuel infrastructure has gained remarkable momentum, reshaping the climate movement in the United States, Canada, and beyond. The rampant and persistent development of fossil fuel infrastructure has prompted diverse concerns associated with climate change, resolving Indigenous land claims, habitat fragmentation, oil spill risks, land-based livelihood impacts, and community disruption (Janzwood et al. 2023). The result is increased demands on regulatory processes, the formation of new coalitions, the emergence of social movements and new repertoires of contention, and state violence. These complex dynamics, which we are only beginning to understand, have far-reaching impacts and implications for environmentally and socially just energy transitions. How have affected communities responded to proposals related to fossil fuel export? Has place-based resistance to fossil fuel development effectively promoted climate action? Does this strategy risk the unintended consequence of feeding place-based resistance to the clean energy transition? How does “pipeline populism” emerge from and transform contemporary environmentalism? These three books seek to answer these questions and more.
对化石燃料基础设施的抵制获得了显著的势头，重塑了美国、加拿大和其他国家的气候运动。化石燃料基础设施的猖獗和持续发展引发了与气候变化相关的各种担忧，解决了土著土地主张、栖息地破碎化、溢油风险、基于土地的生计影响和社区破坏(Janzwood et al. 2023)。其结果是对监管程序的需求增加，新联盟的形成，社会运动和新的争论的出现，以及国家暴力。这些复杂的动态，我们才刚刚开始理解，对环境和社会公正的能源转型有着深远的影响和影响。受影响的社区如何回应与化石燃料出口有关的提案?以地方为基础的对化石燃料开发的抵制是否有效地促进了气候行动?这一战略是否会带来意想不到的后果，助长地方对清洁能源转型的抵制?“管道民粹主义”是如何从当代环保主义中产生和转化的?这三本书试图回答这些问题和更多的问题。
{"title":"Pipeline Politics and the Future of Environmental Justice Struggles in North America","authors":"Amy Janzwood","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00731","url":null,"abstract":"Resistance to fossil fuel infrastructure has gained remarkable momentum, reshaping the climate movement in the United States, Canada, and beyond. The rampant and persistent development of fossil fuel infrastructure has prompted diverse concerns associated with climate change, resolving Indigenous land claims, habitat fragmentation, oil spill risks, land-based livelihood impacts, and community disruption (Janzwood et al. 2023). The result is increased demands on regulatory processes, the formation of new coalitions, the emergence of social movements and new repertoires of contention, and state violence. These complex dynamics, which we are only beginning to understand, have far-reaching impacts and implications for environmentally and socially just energy transitions. How have affected communities responded to proposals related to fossil fuel export? Has place-based resistance to fossil fuel development effectively promoted climate action? Does this strategy risk the unintended consequence of feeding place-based resistance to the clean energy transition? How does “pipeline populism” emerge from and transform contemporary environmentalism? These three books seek to answer these questions and more.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"120-126"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47009315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Does using knowledge politically to explain or justify predetermined policy positions make a difference? Most theory suggests no. This article traces how developing country negotiators used knowledge to further their interests in loss and damage (L&D) negotiations from 2003 to 2013. The analysis shows an institutional effect, whereby knowledge was used to establish L&D as a theme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the same time, an indirect effect emerges at the individual level as knowledge provides actors with a sense of clarity and legitimacy that strengthens their resolve in defending political positions, leaving surprising traces during moments of bargaining. These insights invite critical reflections on the normative dimensions of political knowledge use.
{"title":"The Effects of Political Knowledge Use by Developing Country Negotiators in Loss and Damage Negotiations","authors":"Olivia Serdeczny","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00727","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Does using knowledge politically to explain or justify predetermined policy positions make a difference? Most theory suggests no. This article traces how developing country negotiators used knowledge to further their interests in loss and damage (L&D) negotiations from 2003 to 2013. The analysis shows an institutional effect, whereby knowledge was used to establish L&D as a theme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the same time, an indirect effect emerges at the individual level as knowledge provides actors with a sense of clarity and legitimacy that strengthens their resolve in defending political positions, leaving surprising traces during moments of bargaining. These insights invite critical reflections on the normative dimensions of political knowledge use.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"12-31"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43150727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This introduction to the 2023 special issue of Global Environment Politics brings questions related to politics and political processes to the forefront in the study of climate change loss and damage. The aim of avoiding the detrimental impacts of climate change has been at the heart of the international response to global climate change for more than thirty years. Yet the development of global governance responses to climate change loss and damage—those impacts that we cannot, do not or choose not to prevent or adapt to—has only over the last decade become a central theme within the discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Loss and damage has also become a research topic of growing importance within an array of disciplines, from international law to the interdisciplinary environmental social sciences. However, the engagement of scholars working in the fields of political science and international relations has been more limited so far. This is surprising because questions about how to best respond to loss and damage are fundamentally political, as they derive from deliberative processes, invoke value judgments, imply contestation, demand the development of policies, and result in distributional outcomes. In this introduction we describe the context and contributions of the research articles in the special issue. By drawing on a wide range of perspectives from across the social sciences, the articles render visible the multifaceted politics of climate change loss and damage and help to account for the trajectory of governance processes.
{"title":"Understanding the Politics and Governance of Climate Change Loss and Damage","authors":"L. Vanhala, E. Calliari, Adelle Thomas","doi":"10.1162/glep_e_00735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_e_00735","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This introduction to the 2023 special issue of Global Environment Politics brings questions related to politics and political processes to the forefront in the study of climate change loss and damage. The aim of avoiding the detrimental impacts of climate change has been at the heart of the international response to global climate change for more than thirty years. Yet the development of global governance responses to climate change loss and damage—those impacts that we cannot, do not or choose not to prevent or adapt to—has only over the last decade become a central theme within the discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Loss and damage has also become a research topic of growing importance within an array of disciplines, from international law to the interdisciplinary environmental social sciences. However, the engagement of scholars working in the fields of political science and international relations has been more limited so far. This is surprising because questions about how to best respond to loss and damage are fundamentally political, as they derive from deliberative processes, invoke value judgments, imply contestation, demand the development of policies, and result in distributional outcomes. In this introduction we describe the context and contributions of the research articles in the special issue. By drawing on a wide range of perspectives from across the social sciences, the articles render visible the multifaceted politics of climate change loss and damage and help to account for the trajectory of governance processes.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48935002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract By analyzing the way climate change loss and damage (L&D) is framed in nationally determined contributions (NDCs), this article investigates how parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change make sense of the concept. Building on an original database of 313 active and archived NDCs, we employ frame analysis to identify the countries that mention L&D in these documents; map how they frame it, both in terms of the types of impacts that are relevant for the national context and the responses that are planned or adopted; and explore how this has changed over time. We find that L&D is not perceived as a “small islands issue” anymore and that a growing number of middle- and high-income countries are referring to the concept in their NDCs. We also observe increasing levels of specificity about the types of economic and noneconomic L&D incurred or projected and about national responses, including those focused on knowledge generation, institutional arrangements, and sectoral adaptation measures. Theoretically, the article advances understandings of how national policy actors translate the ill-defined L&D global agenda for the national level. At the same time, it illustrates how they attempt to shape it by advancing nationally informed L&D framings, therefore hinting toward an emerging “two-level ideational game” in this area of global governance.
{"title":"What Does Loss and Damage Mean at the Country Level? A Global Mapping Through Nationally Determined Contributions","authors":"E. Calliari, Ben Ryder","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00725","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By analyzing the way climate change loss and damage (L&D) is framed in nationally determined contributions (NDCs), this article investigates how parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change make sense of the concept. Building on an original database of 313 active and archived NDCs, we employ frame analysis to identify the countries that mention L&D in these documents; map how they frame it, both in terms of the types of impacts that are relevant for the national context and the responses that are planned or adopted; and explore how this has changed over time. We find that L&D is not perceived as a “small islands issue” anymore and that a growing number of middle- and high-income countries are referring to the concept in their NDCs. We also observe increasing levels of specificity about the types of economic and noneconomic L&D incurred or projected and about national responses, including those focused on knowledge generation, institutional arrangements, and sectoral adaptation measures. Theoretically, the article advances understandings of how national policy actors translate the ill-defined L&D global agenda for the national level. At the same time, it illustrates how they attempt to shape it by advancing nationally informed L&D framings, therefore hinting toward an emerging “two-level ideational game” in this area of global governance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"71-94"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49309897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this article is to introduce English School (ES) theory to the study of global environmental politics (GEP). The ES is an established theoretical tradition in the discipline of international relations (IR) but is not widely known, let alone used, in GEP. My aim is to overcome this state of neglect and suggest ways in which ES theory can enrich the study of international environmental affairs. I argue that ES theory makes at least two major contributions to the study of global environmental politics: first, it helps counterbalance the presentist focus in GEP scholarship, shifting our attention toward long-term historical patterns of normative change, and second, by distinguishing between different levels of international change, it opens up an analytical focus on environmentalism as a part of the international normative structure. In doing so, ES theory directs our attention to the interaction and mutual shaping between environmentalism and other fundamental norms of international society.
{"title":"The Longue Durée of International Environmental Norm Change: Global Environmental Politics Meets the English School of International Relations","authors":"R. Falkner","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00718","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The purpose of this article is to introduce English School (ES) theory to the study of global environmental politics (GEP). The ES is an established theoretical tradition in the discipline of international relations (IR) but is not widely known, let alone used, in GEP. My aim is to overcome this state of neglect and suggest ways in which ES theory can enrich the study of international environmental affairs. I argue that ES theory makes at least two major contributions to the study of global environmental politics: first, it helps counterbalance the presentist focus in GEP scholarship, shifting our attention toward long-term historical patterns of normative change, and second, by distinguishing between different levels of international change, it opens up an analytical focus on environmentalism as a part of the international normative structure. In doing so, ES theory directs our attention to the interaction and mutual shaping between environmentalism and other fundamental norms of international society.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46736287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：