Abstract In Global Environmental Politics (“Prisoners of the Wrong Dilemma: Why Distributive Conflict, Not Collective Action, Characterizes the Politics of Climate Change,” 20 (4): 4–27), Michaël Aklin and Matto Mildenberger argue against the prevailing characterization of climate change cooperation as a problem of free riding or collective action. The authors argue that models of collective action imply, first, policy reciprocity and, second, inaction in the absence of formal agreements to limit free riding. They argue that neither empirical implication is supported by an review of states’ climate policy to date. In this comment, we note that standard collective action models imply neither of the above hypotheses. As a result, the empirical tests advanced in the original article are uninformative as to the explanatory power of the collective action model for international climate politics.
{"title":"Comment: Global Climate Policy and Collective Action","authors":"Amanda Kennard, Keith E. Schnakenberg","doi":"10.1162/glep_c_00699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_c_00699","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Global Environmental Politics (“Prisoners of the Wrong Dilemma: Why Distributive Conflict, Not Collective Action, Characterizes the Politics of Climate Change,” 20 (4): 4–27), Michaël Aklin and Matto Mildenberger argue against the prevailing characterization of climate change cooperation as a problem of free riding or collective action. The authors argue that models of collective action imply, first, policy reciprocity and, second, inaction in the absence of formal agreements to limit free riding. They argue that neither empirical implication is supported by an review of states’ climate policy to date. In this comment, we note that standard collective action models imply neither of the above hypotheses. As a result, the empirical tests advanced in the original article are uninformative as to the explanatory power of the collective action model for international climate politics.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"133-144"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46315854","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}
Henry Shue’s The Pivotal Generation is an ethically charged call for ambitious climate action, here and now. The prominent ethics scholar extends his seminal contribution to the international climate justice scholarship to craft a convincing reflection on the urgency of climate action against the backdrop of justice imperatives. We are the “pivotal generation.” And because developed countries have disproportionately contributed to the crisis, Shue argues, they are to shoulder this urgency and expel any delusion of possible delay. This book is directed to them and their citizens. Will we choose greed and exploitation over solidarity and justice? The book exposes us to this ultimatum. Why now, why us? Shue begins by drawing from the science three consequences of delayed climate action to support his qualification of today’s generation as “pivotal.” Flunking the urgency test would mean, first, greater costs and difficulty to tackle the crisis; second, heightened climate threats with no upper limit to their detrimental extent; and third, the passing of critical tipping points that launch irreversible and unbearable socioclimatic conditions. If scientific facts seem to insufficiently move people today, Shue contextualizes them within climate justice realities and subjects them to an ethical assessment in a pressing, affective account that serves as an impetus for action taking through moral and emotional arousal. At the heart of the book is a reflection on the distribution of costs, benefits, and risks associated with climate change and climate action. We are called to rethink our responsibility and agency in light of our embeddedness in space and time—a moral framework that translates into a vision of international and intergenerational justice. To this end, Shue proposes the concept of sovereign externalization. He argues that the system of sovereignty allows states to absolve themselves of responsibility for the socioecological impacts of their economic activities. The idea is that externalization is essentially exploitative: while the benefits of economic activity are nationalized and enjoyed principally in the present, the climate costs are imposed upon future generations and other states, who often are worse off and, crucially, can only suffer the repercussions of decision-making in which they took no part. For Shue, this is “a paradigm case of a stronger party silently exploiting the vulnerability of a weaker party in order to pursue its own advantage” (51). On those grounds, he dismisses any justification for delayed
{"title":"The Pivotal Generation: Why We Have a Moral Responsibility to Slow Climate Change Right Now by Henry Shue","authors":"Coralie Boulard","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00694","url":null,"abstract":"Henry Shue’s The Pivotal Generation is an ethically charged call for ambitious climate action, here and now. The prominent ethics scholar extends his seminal contribution to the international climate justice scholarship to craft a convincing reflection on the urgency of climate action against the backdrop of justice imperatives. We are the “pivotal generation.” And because developed countries have disproportionately contributed to the crisis, Shue argues, they are to shoulder this urgency and expel any delusion of possible delay. This book is directed to them and their citizens. Will we choose greed and exploitation over solidarity and justice? The book exposes us to this ultimatum. Why now, why us? Shue begins by drawing from the science three consequences of delayed climate action to support his qualification of today’s generation as “pivotal.” Flunking the urgency test would mean, first, greater costs and difficulty to tackle the crisis; second, heightened climate threats with no upper limit to their detrimental extent; and third, the passing of critical tipping points that launch irreversible and unbearable socioclimatic conditions. If scientific facts seem to insufficiently move people today, Shue contextualizes them within climate justice realities and subjects them to an ethical assessment in a pressing, affective account that serves as an impetus for action taking through moral and emotional arousal. At the heart of the book is a reflection on the distribution of costs, benefits, and risks associated with climate change and climate action. We are called to rethink our responsibility and agency in light of our embeddedness in space and time—a moral framework that translates into a vision of international and intergenerational justice. To this end, Shue proposes the concept of sovereign externalization. He argues that the system of sovereignty allows states to absolve themselves of responsibility for the socioecological impacts of their economic activities. The idea is that externalization is essentially exploitative: while the benefits of economic activity are nationalized and enjoyed principally in the present, the climate costs are imposed upon future generations and other states, who often are worse off and, crucially, can only suffer the repercussions of decision-making in which they took no part. For Shue, this is “a paradigm case of a stronger party silently exploiting the vulnerability of a weaker party in order to pursue its own advantage” (51). On those grounds, he dismisses any justification for delayed","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"160-161"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44108053","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 The diversification of actors in global climate governance may entail risks, but it is also linked to enhanced democratic performance and opportunities for innovation. To what extent has this diversification fostered a parallel multiplication of perspectives in urban climate policy? To answer this question, we analyze the evolution of urban narratives based on 463 international policy documents issued between 1946 and 2020. Our analysis shows that, instead of leading to diversification, the proliferation of actors is accompanied by a growing homogenization of urban narratives. Language appears to become progressively uniform across organizations and over time, with approaches emphasizing multi-actor governance, integrated planning, and co-benefits becoming dominant. Three factors explain this homogenization. First, actors with a long history of involvement in international development exert a significant amount of influence. Second, there is a tendency toward language harmonization in international policy. Third, urban climate narratives stabilize through association with broader policy paradigms. In conclusion, the diversification of actors in international climate policy is mediated by processes of narrative alignment, which foreclose possibilities for divergent thinking.
{"title":"The Homogenization of Urban Climate Action Discourses","authors":"Linda Westman, Vanesa Castán Broto, Ping Huang","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00697","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The diversification of actors in global climate governance may entail risks, but it is also linked to enhanced democratic performance and opportunities for innovation. To what extent has this diversification fostered a parallel multiplication of perspectives in urban climate policy? To answer this question, we analyze the evolution of urban narratives based on 463 international policy documents issued between 1946 and 2020. Our analysis shows that, instead of leading to diversification, the proliferation of actors is accompanied by a growing homogenization of urban narratives. Language appears to become progressively uniform across organizations and over time, with approaches emphasizing multi-actor governance, integrated planning, and co-benefits becoming dominant. Three factors explain this homogenization. First, actors with a long history of involvement in international development exert a significant amount of influence. Second, there is a tendency toward language harmonization in international policy. Third, urban climate narratives stabilize through association with broader policy paradigms. In conclusion, the diversification of actors in international climate policy is mediated by processes of narrative alignment, which foreclose possibilities for divergent thinking.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"102-124"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48997063","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 Developing countries are growing apart on environmental issues. International environmental negotiations are no longer characterized merely by the North–South conflict. Rising powers have come to divide the Global South and redefine the Common-But-Differentiated Responsibilities principle. This article explains the divergence of China and India at the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, one of the first global environmental agreements to differentiate obligations between developing countries. China and India, the world’s two largest hydrofluorocarbon producers, ended decades of collaboration and split the rest of the developing world behind them. I argue that developmental strategy and political institutions shape the preferences and influences of industrial, governmental, and social stakeholders, thereby explaining their negotiation behavior and outcome. This article explains why China moved faster and further than India on negotiations for hydrofluorocarbon regulation. It has important implications for the two rising powers’ implementation of the Kigali Amendment and for their position formulations on other environmental issues.
{"title":"Growing Apart: China and India at the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol","authors":"Shiming Yang","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00698","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Developing countries are growing apart on environmental issues. International environmental negotiations are no longer characterized merely by the North–South conflict. Rising powers have come to divide the Global South and redefine the Common-But-Differentiated Responsibilities principle. This article explains the divergence of China and India at the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, one of the first global environmental agreements to differentiate obligations between developing countries. China and India, the world’s two largest hydrofluorocarbon producers, ended decades of collaboration and split the rest of the developing world behind them. I argue that developmental strategy and political institutions shape the preferences and influences of industrial, governmental, and social stakeholders, thereby explaining their negotiation behavior and outcome. This article explains why China moved faster and further than India on negotiations for hydrofluorocarbon regulation. It has important implications for the two rising powers’ implementation of the Kigali Amendment and for their position formulations on other environmental issues.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"74-101"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43763004","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}
{"title":"Plastic Unlimited: How Corporations Are Fueling the Ecological Crisis and What We Can Do About It by Alice Mah","authors":"David Downie","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"158-159"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44059399","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 Recent discussion of global environmental assessment processes suggests that the process of consensus creation is central to understanding the way knowledge is produced and conclusions are reached. Here we contribute to this literature by providing a case study of the World Commission on Dams, which brought together supporters and opponents of large dams, at the height of controversy about dams in the 1990s. The Commission reviewed evidence and formulated guidelines for best practice, finding a way through a political stalemate. The article draws on interviews with those involved in the Commission and discusses the historical context, form of stakeholder representation, time horizon, and leadership style as consensus-enabling conditions. We conclude that an ambitious consensual process was successful within the life of the Commission, but at the cost of carrying external actors with it, leading to challenges with dissemination and uptake of consensual recommendations.
{"title":"The Politics of Environmental Consensus: The Case of the World Commission on Dams","authors":"Christopher Schulz, W. Adams","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00687","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent discussion of global environmental assessment processes suggests that the process of consensus creation is central to understanding the way knowledge is produced and conclusions are reached. Here we contribute to this literature by providing a case study of the World Commission on Dams, which brought together supporters and opponents of large dams, at the height of controversy about dams in the 1990s. The Commission reviewed evidence and formulated guidelines for best practice, finding a way through a political stalemate. The article draws on interviews with those involved in the Commission and discusses the historical context, form of stakeholder representation, time horizon, and leadership style as consensus-enabling conditions. We conclude that an ambitious consensual process was successful within the life of the Commission, but at the cost of carrying external actors with it, leading to challenges with dissemination and uptake of consensual recommendations.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"59 15","pages":"11-30"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41285272","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 States have increased the pace and scale of conservation efforts in recent years as they strive to meet ambitious terrestrial and marine protected area targets. The ecological gains made in this push for protections, however, seem to be no better than if governments designated protected areas at random. Many critics point to states prioritizing quantity over quality of protections—rightly so—but this point does not fully explain the shortcomings of the global biodiversity network. The problem is more deeply rooted in the processes through which governments designate protected areas. Governments prioritize minimizing short-term commercial losses over maximizing long-term ecological gains in conservation policy processes, leading to two predominant types of protected area: residual and paper park. The causal mechanism driving these processes is how salient industry interests are in an area targeted for protections, which predicts government policy response, demonstrated here through case studies in Australia and the United States.
{"title":"The Political Economy of Protected Area Designations: Commercial Interests in Conservation Policy","authors":"J. Alger","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00690","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00690","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract States have increased the pace and scale of conservation efforts in recent years as they strive to meet ambitious terrestrial and marine protected area targets. The ecological gains made in this push for protections, however, seem to be no better than if governments designated protected areas at random. Many critics point to states prioritizing quantity over quality of protections—rightly so—but this point does not fully explain the shortcomings of the global biodiversity network. The problem is more deeply rooted in the processes through which governments designate protected areas. Governments prioritize minimizing short-term commercial losses over maximizing long-term ecological gains in conservation policy processes, leading to two predominant types of protected area: residual and paper park. The causal mechanism driving these processes is how salient industry interests are in an area targeted for protections, which predicts government policy response, demonstrated here through case studies in Australia and the United States.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"54-73"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41529760","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}
{"title":"Agency in Earth System Governance edited by Michele M. Betsill, Tabitha M. Benney, and Andrea K. Gerlak","authors":"P. evoy","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00696","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"162-163"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42475904","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 Although it is often assumed that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) has been the key instrument in structuring normative and practical functioning of the international climate regime, I argue that this principle has never become collectively shared and coherently applied. I propose three interrelated sites of contestation that have prevented this principle from reaching a status of a collectively shared norm: first, developed countries have failed to internalize it; second, developing countries have failed to unite behind it; and third, CBDR’s key tenets have become so fiercely contested that they have prevented coherent political implementation. This dynamic has undermined the legitimacy of the climate regime and disillusioned many members of the developing bloc. Since the CBDR principles are key to a well-functioning climate regime, a radical action by the developed countries must be taken to advance CBDR into a collective shared normative status and political guidance.
{"title":"The Failure of CBDR in Global Environmental Politics","authors":"Michal Kolmaš","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00681","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although it is often assumed that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) has been the key instrument in structuring normative and practical functioning of the international climate regime, I argue that this principle has never become collectively shared and coherently applied. I propose three interrelated sites of contestation that have prevented this principle from reaching a status of a collectively shared norm: first, developed countries have failed to internalize it; second, developing countries have failed to unite behind it; and third, CBDR’s key tenets have become so fiercely contested that they have prevented coherent political implementation. This dynamic has undermined the legitimacy of the climate regime and disillusioned many members of the developing bloc. Since the CBDR principles are key to a well-functioning climate regime, a radical action by the developed countries must be taken to advance CBDR into a collective shared normative status and political guidance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"11-19"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46297270","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 In this article we measure, describe, and demonstrate the importance of differential treatment for developing countries in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). So far, we argue, quantitative research on differentiation has been minimal due to data constraints and the complex nature of relevant provisions. In response, we offer a way of relieving this constraint, exploiting the fact that MEAs with differentiation typically identify distinct sets of “developing country” parties. After describing the data collection process, we show that differentiation is surprisingly uncommon, appearing in only 6 percent of MEAs, and disproportionately appears in larger, more recent agreements. We then test a key conjecture about differentiation by revisiting the debate on the depth–participation dilemma. We demonstrate, specifically, how it conditions this relationship. When MEAs do not differentiate, greater depth reduces participation; when they do, the relationship is reversed, making it possible to sustain high levels of both. This result helps to reconcile conflicting findings in earlier studies and has important policy implications.
{"title":"Differentiation in Environmental Treaty Making: Measuring Provisions and How They Reshape the Depth–Participation Dilemma","authors":"D. Farias, Charles B. Roger","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00686","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article we measure, describe, and demonstrate the importance of differential treatment for developing countries in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). So far, we argue, quantitative research on differentiation has been minimal due to data constraints and the complex nature of relevant provisions. In response, we offer a way of relieving this constraint, exploiting the fact that MEAs with differentiation typically identify distinct sets of “developing country” parties. After describing the data collection process, we show that differentiation is surprisingly uncommon, appearing in only 6 percent of MEAs, and disproportionately appears in larger, more recent agreements. We then test a key conjecture about differentiation by revisiting the debate on the depth–participation dilemma. We demonstrate, specifically, how it conditions this relationship. When MEAs do not differentiate, greater depth reduces participation; when they do, the relationship is reversed, making it possible to sustain high levels of both. This result helps to reconcile conflicting findings in earlier studies and has important policy implications.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"117-132"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42643777","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：