In this article, I argue that the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been remarkable in its efforts to mainstream gender in the Convention. The WGC has been at the forefront of the fight to embed a gender perspective into global climate change politics and has been the driving force for the UNFCCC’s progression from gender-blind in 1992 to a Gender Action Plan in 2017. Through an intersectional framework, I demonstrate that foregrounding gender as a political issue and feminist activism in the history of the UNFCCC makes visible a tricky strategic bind whereby an “insider” approach to influencing the negotiations has meant that while women–environment links are firmly embedded in UNFCCC discourse, gender–environment links are less well received. Understanding this strategic bind faced by feminist climate activists is important politically, to advance feminist arguments in global climate governance.
{"title":"From Gender-Blind to Gender Bind: Foregrounding Gender in the History of the UNFCCC","authors":"JC Flavell","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00717","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article, I argue that the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been remarkable in its efforts to mainstream gender in the Convention. The WGC has been at the forefront of the fight to embed a gender perspective into global climate change politics and has been the driving force for the UNFCCC’s progression from gender-blind in 1992 to a Gender Action Plan in 2017. Through an intersectional framework, I demonstrate that foregrounding gender as a political issue and feminist activism in the history of the UNFCCC makes visible a tricky strategic bind whereby an “insider” approach to influencing the negotiations has meant that while women–environment links are firmly embedded in UNFCCC discourse, gender–environment links are less well received. Understanding this strategic bind faced by feminist climate activists is important politically, to advance feminist arguments in global climate governance.","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":"41877001","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}
Successful nonstate climate actions can scale up their efforts and/or have their approaches replicated by others. To strengthen these “catalytic impacts” and their contribution to global mitigation and adaptation efforts, multiple international awarding mechanisms have been established, including Momentum for Change, launched by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). To assess the actual value of awarding mechanisms for fostering catalytic impacts among nonstate climate actions, this article identifies drivers and barriers for catalytic impacts and the extent to which Momentum for Change addresses them, using the concept of enabling power. Research results indicate that only a selective range of drivers and barriers for catalytic impact is actually addressed through Momentum for Change, which mainly strengthens reputation as a driver. Overall, the study demonstrates that the enabling power of Momentum for Change relies on the legitimacy of the UNFCCC in climate governance. However, the extent to which awarding mechanisms help foster catalytic impact is also dependent on an initiative’s individual context, which may affect its ability to capitalize on reputational benefits.
{"title":"Leveraging “Enabling Power” Through Awarding in Global Climate Governance: Catalytic Impacts of UNFCCC’s Global Climate Action Award","authors":"Aron Teunissen, Sander Chan","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00719","url":null,"abstract":"Successful nonstate climate actions can scale up their efforts and/or have their approaches replicated by others. To strengthen these “catalytic impacts” and their contribution to global mitigation and adaptation efforts, multiple international awarding mechanisms have been established, including Momentum for Change, launched by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). To assess the actual value of awarding mechanisms for fostering catalytic impacts among nonstate climate actions, this article identifies drivers and barriers for catalytic impacts and the extent to which Momentum for Change addresses them, using the concept of enabling power. Research results indicate that only a selective range of drivers and barriers for catalytic impact is actually addressed through Momentum for Change, which mainly strengthens reputation as a driver. Overall, the study demonstrates that the enabling power of Momentum for Change relies on the legitimacy of the UNFCCC in climate governance. However, the extent to which awarding mechanisms help foster catalytic impact is also dependent on an initiative’s individual context, which may affect its ability to capitalize on reputational benefits.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43159457","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}
Danielle Falzon, Fred Shaia, J. Roberts, Md. Fahad Hossain, Stacy‐ann Robinson, Mizan R. Khan, D. Ciplet
Abstract In 1991, in meetings constructing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the small island state of Vanuatu introduced a proposal requiring wealthy countries to pay for damages related to sea level rise. More than thirty years later, countries finally agreed to establish a financing mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change. Scholars have observed the slow progress on loss and damage finance, but what tactics did countries use to obstruct negotiations? We answer this question using data from primary and secondary sources, observations at negotiations, and key informant interviews. Our analysis details four periods of obstruction and outlines a typology of fourteen tactics countries have used to delay progress. These tactics limited the issue’s scope, reduced transparency, manipulated language, and advanced nontransformative solutions. These findings contribute to the study of obstructionism in climate governance and can help loss and damage advocates better anticipate and respond to obstruction.
{"title":"Tactical Opposition: Obstructing Loss and Damage Finance in the United Nations Climate Negotiations","authors":"Danielle Falzon, Fred Shaia, J. Roberts, Md. Fahad Hossain, Stacy‐ann Robinson, Mizan R. Khan, D. Ciplet","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00722","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1991, in meetings constructing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the small island state of Vanuatu introduced a proposal requiring wealthy countries to pay for damages related to sea level rise. More than thirty years later, countries finally agreed to establish a financing mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change. Scholars have observed the slow progress on loss and damage finance, but what tactics did countries use to obstruct negotiations? We answer this question using data from primary and secondary sources, observations at negotiations, and key informant interviews. Our analysis details four periods of obstruction and outlines a typology of fourteen tactics countries have used to delay progress. These tactics limited the issue’s scope, reduced transparency, manipulated language, and advanced nontransformative solutions. These findings contribute to the study of obstructionism in climate governance and can help loss and damage advocates better anticipate and respond to obstruction.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"95-119"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46910743","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}
Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, global emissions have put the world beyond its goals. While there are calls for increasing ambition, countries must match their current international commitments at the national level. Democracies were assumed to comply with their own international commitments, yet their ability to adopt national mitigation policies that are consistent with their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) varies. This study applies the Vertical Policy Harmonization Index to quantify the extent to which countries’ mitigation commitments are vertically harmonized in their NDCs and national policies. Using qualitative comparative analysis, I investigate the role of institutions, interests, and ideas in shaping the vertical (dis)harmony of twenty-four democracies. I find that fossil fuel dependency constrains the harmonization of mitigation commitments, even in the face of high vulnerability and low abatement costs. Moreover, the results support the previous findings of an ambiguous relationship between veto points and mitigation commitment. However, the roles of an established green party and public opinion in shaping disharmony remain unclear.
{"title":"Keeping Promises? Democracies’ Ability to Harmonize Their International and National Climate Commitments","authors":"Jack Baker","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00709","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, global emissions have put the world beyond its goals. While there are calls for increasing ambition, countries must match their current international commitments at the national level. Democracies were assumed to comply with their own international commitments, yet their ability to adopt national mitigation policies that are consistent with their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) varies. This study applies the Vertical Policy Harmonization Index to quantify the extent to which countries’ mitigation commitments are vertically harmonized in their NDCs and national policies. Using qualitative comparative analysis, I investigate the role of institutions, interests, and ideas in shaping the vertical (dis)harmony of twenty-four democracies. I find that fossil fuel dependency constrains the harmonization of mitigation commitments, even in the face of high vulnerability and low abatement costs. Moreover, the results support the previous findings of an ambiguous relationship between veto points and mitigation commitment. However, the roles of an established green party and public opinion in shaping disharmony remain unclear.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49182600","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 Political conflict over climate change loss and damage (L&D) has made it difficult for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to engage with the topic in its entirety, especially in the intergovernmentally agreed Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), however, saw the inclusion of the term “losses and damages” in SPMs for the first time. Drawing on evidence from twenty-eight interviews with IPCC authors, reviewers, and L&D experts as well as an analysis of IPCC materials, this article traces the representation of L&D in the IPCC. I suggest that the clarification of different L&D orthographies (“Loss and Damage,” “loss and damage,” and “losses and damages”) through the IPCC Glossary in 2018 paved the way for L&D wording to be consensually approved in multiple AR6 SPMs. Discussing the implications of orthographic choice, I show how L&D orthographies are appraised differently by individuals, depending on their position in the L&D science–policy discourse. Building on insights from science and technology studies and international relations scholarship, I contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of language and spelling in reaching consensus at the climate science–policy interface.
{"title":"From “Loss and Damage” to “Losses and Damages”: Orthographies of Climate Change Loss and Damage in the IPCC","authors":"Friederike Hartz","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00721","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political conflict over climate change loss and damage (L&D) has made it difficult for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to engage with the topic in its entirety, especially in the intergovernmentally agreed Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), however, saw the inclusion of the term “losses and damages” in SPMs for the first time. Drawing on evidence from twenty-eight interviews with IPCC authors, reviewers, and L&D experts as well as an analysis of IPCC materials, this article traces the representation of L&D in the IPCC. I suggest that the clarification of different L&D orthographies (“Loss and Damage,” “loss and damage,” and “losses and damages”) through the IPCC Glossary in 2018 paved the way for L&D wording to be consensually approved in multiple AR6 SPMs. Discussing the implications of orthographic choice, I show how L&D orthographies are appraised differently by individuals, depending on their position in the L&D science–policy discourse. Building on insights from science and technology studies and international relations scholarship, I contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of language and spelling in reaching consensus at the climate science–policy interface.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"32-51"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41319526","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}
Invasive alien species (IAS) contribute to biodiversity loss, yet animals deemed invasive are both part of biodiversity and individuals themselves. This poses a challenge for global environmental politics, as governance system goals for biodiversity conservation and animal protection can conflict. Using an integrative governance (IG) framework, we map global and European Union IAS and animal governance instruments and systems, and relationships between them. Relationships are explained by actors’ unequal power dynamics, prioritization of human and environmental health, hegemonic anthropocentric discourses, and trade globalization. These factors encourage valuing certain animals—native and domestic—above others. Relationships between the governance systems have been limited. However, integration is deepening because of the transnational and interlinked nature of biodiversity loss and other issues, such as climate change and biosecurity. Nevertheless, as engagement with nonhuman entities brings new challenges, practicing greater IG could go further than this, as acknowledgment of animals’ interests is lacking in IAS governance.
{"title":"Most (Un)wanted: Explaining Emerging Relationships Between “Invasive Alien” Species and Animal Governance","authors":"Cebuan Bliss, I. Visseren-Hamakers, D. Liefferink","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00715","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00715","url":null,"abstract":"Invasive alien species (IAS) contribute to biodiversity loss, yet animals deemed invasive are both part of biodiversity and individuals themselves. This poses a challenge for global environmental politics, as governance system goals for biodiversity conservation and animal protection can conflict. Using an integrative governance (IG) framework, we map global and European Union IAS and animal governance instruments and systems, and relationships between them. Relationships are explained by actors’ unequal power dynamics, prioritization of human and environmental health, hegemonic anthropocentric discourses, and trade globalization. These factors encourage valuing certain animals—native and domestic—above others. Relationships between the governance systems have been limited. However, integration is deepening because of the transnational and interlinked nature of biodiversity loss and other issues, such as climate change and biosecurity. Nevertheless, as engagement with nonhuman entities brings new challenges, practicing greater IG could go further than this, as acknowledgment of animals’ interests is lacking in IAS governance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42735310","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}
Climate performance in publicly traded companies has become an important focus for climate action. Non–state actor–led initiatives have emerged as influential governors in this arena, intended to plug gaps in public climate change regulation. This article addresses the key question, are such non–state led climate initiatives exerting a positive influence on corporate climate performance? To answer this question, we empirically evaluate the effects of eighteen such climate initiatives on corporate climate performance, distinguishing between “internal” and “external” initiatives. Based on an original data set of corporate climate initiatives that prioritize climate performance in the private sector, we find that each additional climate initiative has little to no impact on climate performance, modeled as scope 1 direct emissions, but does exert a positive influence on scope 2 indirect emissions. Our findings have implications for the trajectory of the private sector’s climate transition, as well as the potential of corporate initiatives to steward effective climate action.
{"title":"Market Masquerades? Corporate Climate Initiative Effects on Firm-Level Climate Performance","authors":"D. Coen, Kyle S. Herman, T. Pegram","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00711","url":null,"abstract":"Climate performance in publicly traded companies has become an important focus for climate action. Non–state actor–led initiatives have emerged as influential governors in this arena, intended to plug gaps in public climate change regulation. This article addresses the key question, are such non–state led climate initiatives exerting a positive influence on corporate climate performance? To answer this question, we empirically evaluate the effects of eighteen such climate initiatives on corporate climate performance, distinguishing between “internal” and “external” initiatives. Based on an original data set of corporate climate initiatives that prioritize climate performance in the private sector, we find that each additional climate initiative has little to no impact on climate performance, modeled as scope 1 direct emissions, but does exert a positive influence on scope 2 indirect emissions. Our findings have implications for the trajectory of the private sector’s climate transition, as well as the potential of corporate initiatives to steward effective climate action.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45158424","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}
Global environmental politics is at a critical juncture as the Earth System emergency deepens. The core environmental policies and actions of governments, intergovernmental organizations, corporations, and, to a lesser extent, mainstream nongovernmental organizations are visibly failing to deescalate this emergency. In response to these failures, we argue, dispossessed individuals, Indigenous peoples, grassroots activists, and civil society campaigners are joining forces to challenge market-liberal and institutionalist thinking and initiate new ways of organizing political and social life that prioritize biological integrity and social justice: what we describe as “biojustice environmentalism from below.” Global environmental governance, meanwhile, is at a crossroads, becoming increasingly polycentric as biojustice environmentalism surges and as corporations seek to capture governance spaces through multistakeholder initiatives. How surging biojustice environmentalism in a polycentric governance landscape plays out in the coming years, we conclude, will be crucial for humanity’s ability to stem the escalating global environmental crisis.
{"title":"Surging Biojustice Environmentalism from Below: Hope for Ending the Earth System Emergency?","authors":"Peter Dauvergne, J. Clapp","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00712","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00712","url":null,"abstract":"Global environmental politics is at a critical juncture as the Earth System emergency deepens. The core environmental policies and actions of governments, intergovernmental organizations, corporations, and, to a lesser extent, mainstream nongovernmental organizations are visibly failing to deescalate this emergency. In response to these failures, we argue, dispossessed individuals, Indigenous peoples, grassroots activists, and civil society campaigners are joining forces to challenge market-liberal and institutionalist thinking and initiate new ways of organizing political and social life that prioritize biological integrity and social justice: what we describe as “biojustice environmentalism from below.” Global environmental governance, meanwhile, is at a crossroads, becoming increasingly polycentric as biojustice environmentalism surges and as corporations seek to capture governance spaces through multistakeholder initiatives. How surging biojustice environmentalism in a polycentric governance landscape plays out in the coming years, we conclude, will be crucial for humanity’s ability to stem the escalating global environmental crisis.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41354023","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}
Climate change is the greatest governance challenge humanity has ever faced. Understanding why some governments successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and others fail is thus imperative. While regime type is often hypothesized to be a source of variation in greenhouse gas emissions, empirical findings about the effects of democracy and autocracy on climate action are contradictory. This research note reconciles these inconsistencies and adopts a quasi-experimental approach to investigate the relationship between democratization and greenhouse gas emissions. A fixed effects model with a synthetic control estimator is used to construct appropriate counterfactuals and evaluate the effect of regime type on emissions with data from the World Bank and Varieties of Democracy Project. The analysis shows that movement toward democracy does not have a significant effect on emissions, suggesting that research on the politics of emissions reduction should focus on factors other than regime type.
{"title":"Is Democracy the Answer to Intractable Climate Change?","authors":"Angela Chesler, Debra Javeline, Kimberly Peh, Shana Scogin","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00710","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change is the greatest governance challenge humanity has ever faced. Understanding why some governments successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and others fail is thus imperative. While regime type is often hypothesized to be a source of variation in greenhouse gas emissions, empirical findings about the effects of democracy and autocracy on climate action are contradictory. This research note reconciles these inconsistencies and adopts a quasi-experimental approach to investigate the relationship between democratization and greenhouse gas emissions. A fixed effects model with a synthetic control estimator is used to construct appropriate counterfactuals and evaluate the effect of regime type on emissions with data from the World Bank and Varieties of Democracy Project. The analysis shows that movement toward democracy does not have a significant effect on emissions, suggesting that research on the politics of emissions reduction should focus on factors other than regime type.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45101520","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}
In recent years, a growing body of literature on degrowth has compellingly identified limitations involved in decoupling economic growth from its environmental impacts. Despite this, the institutions governing the global environment continue to pursue “green growth” principles. In this article, we showcase how global environmental governance might differ if the degrowth critique were taken more seriously. We use the United Nations–based Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to illustrate how a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) might differ if its foundational premises were centered on degrowth as opposed to green growth. To do this, we develop a conceptual scaffold to support the construction of a degrowth centered MEA on sustainable global aviation. While a degrowth alternative to CORSIA is admittedly unlikely given contemporary capitalist norms in global environmental governance, our proposed scaffold nevertheless adds to the growing body of work envisioning alternative scenarios for a just and sustainable postgrowth future.
{"title":"Degrowth, Air Travel, and Global Environmental Governance: Scaffolding a Multilateral Agreement for a Smaller and More Sustainable Aviation Sector","authors":"Ryan M. Katz-Rosene, T. Ambe-Uva","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00714","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, a growing body of literature on degrowth has compellingly identified limitations involved in decoupling economic growth from its environmental impacts. Despite this, the institutions governing the global environment continue to pursue “green growth” principles. In this article, we showcase how global environmental governance might differ if the degrowth critique were taken more seriously. We use the United Nations–based Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to illustrate how a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) might differ if its foundational premises were centered on degrowth as opposed to green growth. To do this, we develop a conceptual scaffold to support the construction of a degrowth centered MEA on sustainable global aviation. While a degrowth alternative to CORSIA is admittedly unlikely given contemporary capitalist norms in global environmental governance, our proposed scaffold nevertheless adds to the growing body of work envisioning alternative scenarios for a just and sustainable postgrowth future.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45204097","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：