Abstract From 2015, China began to promote eco-sustainability in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through not only vision statements but also specific guidelines and governance initiatives. What has driven these policy changes? Bringing together theories of norm localization, norm subsidiarity, and policy deliberation, we argue that China’s move toward green BRI began as a norm localization process where environmental norms emerged in the open policy space created by China’s top leaders carrying the ambition to make the BRI a new global governance model. After adopting a broad norm on environmental stewardship, state bureaucracies found opportunities to create procedural and operational rules. A novel procedural rule-making methodology emphasizing inclusive dialogue with host countries has emerged, driven by top leaders’ pursuit of international leadership and preexisting local norms guiding South–South cooperation. With operational rules, different actors follow their preferences to localize existing international standards or develop new ones.
{"title":"Greening China’s Belt and Road Initiative: From Norm Localization to Norm Subsidiarity?","authors":"Yixian Sun, Bo Yu","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00685","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract From 2015, China began to promote eco-sustainability in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through not only vision statements but also specific guidelines and governance initiatives. What has driven these policy changes? Bringing together theories of norm localization, norm subsidiarity, and policy deliberation, we argue that China’s move toward green BRI began as a norm localization process where environmental norms emerged in the open policy space created by China’s top leaders carrying the ambition to make the BRI a new global governance model. After adopting a broad norm on environmental stewardship, state bureaucracies found opportunities to create procedural and operational rules. A novel procedural rule-making methodology emphasizing inclusive dialogue with host countries has emerged, driven by top leaders’ pursuit of international leadership and preexisting local norms guiding South–South cooperation. With operational rules, different actors follow their preferences to localize existing international standards or develop new ones.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"91-116"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41360855","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 As the urgency of responding to climate change and the insufficiency of current demand-side policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions become clearer, supply-side initiatives are beginning to gain prominence and acceptance globally. Policies such as moratoria and compensation for leaving fossil fuels unextracted in exchange for financial compensation of rights owners are likely to be effective and complementary to existing policies. A number of unknowns remain regarding the operationalization of supply-side policies, such as how to establish a binding international agreement and how to raise and allocate financial compensation for nonextraction. Nevertheless, the need for supply-side policies only emphasizes the importance of imaginative and bold initiatives within the current conjuncture of global environmental politics.
{"title":"The Supply Side of Climate Policies: Keeping Unburnable Fossil Fuels in the Ground","authors":"L. Pellegrini, M. Arsel","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00691","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the urgency of responding to climate change and the insufficiency of current demand-side policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions become clearer, supply-side initiatives are beginning to gain prominence and acceptance globally. Policies such as moratoria and compensation for leaving fossil fuels unextracted in exchange for financial compensation of rights owners are likely to be effective and complementary to existing policies. A number of unknowns remain regarding the operationalization of supply-side policies, such as how to establish a binding international agreement and how to raise and allocate financial compensation for nonextraction. Nevertheless, the need for supply-side policies only emphasizes the importance of imaginative and bold initiatives within the current conjuncture of global environmental politics.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48482687","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 Fossil fuel–rich developing countries should be included in climate change mitigation. But they need money, above what rich countries have been willing to provide, to do so. I argue that existing approaches to international and intergenerational transfers have failed to bridge the gap between developing and developed countries’ interests. I present a new model in which the costs of present climate action are distributed not according to present or historical wealth but according to future wealth. I demonstrate the basic feasibility of this approach with an implementation I call income-adjusted guarantees. I argue that such an arrangement can help accelerate fossil fuel retirement in developing countries and break the deadlock over global climate financing.
{"title":"De-risking Decarbonization: Accelerating Fossil Fuel Retirement by Shifting Costs to Future Winners","authors":"Alexander Gard-Murray","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00689","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fossil fuel–rich developing countries should be included in climate change mitigation. But they need money, above what rich countries have been willing to provide, to do so. I argue that existing approaches to international and intergenerational transfers have failed to bridge the gap between developing and developed countries’ interests. I present a new model in which the costs of present climate action are distributed not according to present or historical wealth but according to future wealth. I demonstrate the basic feasibility of this approach with an implementation I call income-adjusted guarantees. I argue that such an arrangement can help accelerate fossil fuel retirement in developing countries and break the deadlock over global climate financing.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"70-94"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49296225","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 Hard climate policy (e.g., regulation, taxes/pricing, phaseouts) is needed to meet ambitious climate targets, but when such policy is introduced, it can sometimes trigger backlash. Backlash involves an abrupt and forceful negative reaction by a significant number of actors seeking to reverse a policy, often through extraordinary means that transgress established procedures and norms. Yet, explanations of policy backlash remain nascent and fragmented. I synthesize insights from within and beyond climate politics to argue that contested legitimacy is central to climate policy backlash, which provokes attempts toward delegitimation. I develop a conceptual pathway to explain the occurrence of climate policy backlash and generate hypotheses about how practices of delegitimation occur, and their effects. This contributes to explaining why backlash occurs, highlighting ideational factors alongside interests and institutions. Overall, I suggest the need for a contextually embedded approach to understanding the volatile dynamics of backlash, bringing political sociology into conversation with political economy.
{"title":"Backlash to Climate Policy","authors":"J. Patterson","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00684","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hard climate policy (e.g., regulation, taxes/pricing, phaseouts) is needed to meet ambitious climate targets, but when such policy is introduced, it can sometimes trigger backlash. Backlash involves an abrupt and forceful negative reaction by a significant number of actors seeking to reverse a policy, often through extraordinary means that transgress established procedures and norms. Yet, explanations of policy backlash remain nascent and fragmented. I synthesize insights from within and beyond climate politics to argue that contested legitimacy is central to climate policy backlash, which provokes attempts toward delegitimation. I develop a conceptual pathway to explain the occurrence of climate policy backlash and generate hypotheses about how practices of delegitimation occur, and their effects. This contributes to explaining why backlash occurs, highlighting ideational factors alongside interests and institutions. Overall, I suggest the need for a contextually embedded approach to understanding the volatile dynamics of backlash, bringing political sociology into conversation with political economy.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"68-90"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46995430","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}
Martí Orta-Martínez, L. Pellegrini, M. Arsel, C. Mena, G. Muñoa
Abstract To limit the increase in global mean temperature to 1.5°C, CO2 emissions should be capped at 440 gigatons. To achieve this, about 89 percent, 59 percent, and 58 percent of existing coal and conventional gas and oil reserves, respectively, need to remain unburned. This implies an economic cost for fossil fuel rights owners, and any successful climate policy will rely on resolving the distributional challenge of how to allocate the right to use the remaining burnable reserves. We discuss the possibility of compensating rights holders of unburnable oil and gas reserves, producing the first estimates of the financial resources needed to secure full compensation. We estimate that approximately US$ 5,400 billion (109) would be needed. Despite the vast amounts required, compensation is nevertheless economically feasible. We suggest a Keynesian “whatever it takes” approach for climate action, combining partial compensation for unburnable fuels and investment in low-carbon technologies to drastically reduce emissions in the rapidly closing window of opportunity before 2030.
{"title":"Unburnable Fossil Fuels and Climate Finance: Compensation for Rights Holders","authors":"Martí Orta-Martínez, L. Pellegrini, M. Arsel, C. Mena, G. Muñoa","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00688","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To limit the increase in global mean temperature to 1.5°C, CO2 emissions should be capped at 440 gigatons. To achieve this, about 89 percent, 59 percent, and 58 percent of existing coal and conventional gas and oil reserves, respectively, need to remain unburned. This implies an economic cost for fossil fuel rights owners, and any successful climate policy will rely on resolving the distributional challenge of how to allocate the right to use the remaining burnable reserves. We discuss the possibility of compensating rights holders of unburnable oil and gas reserves, producing the first estimates of the financial resources needed to secure full compensation. We estimate that approximately US$ 5,400 billion (109) would be needed. Despite the vast amounts required, compensation is nevertheless economically feasible. We suggest a Keynesian “whatever it takes” approach for climate action, combining partial compensation for unburnable fuels and investment in low-carbon technologies to drastically reduce emissions in the rapidly closing window of opportunity before 2030.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"15-27"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43627449","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 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Glasgow in November 2021, resulted in signi fi cant intergovernmental agreements, including the Glasgow Climate Pact, the completion of the Paris rulebook
{"title":"Toward a Super-COP? Timing, Temporality, and Rethinking World Climate Governance","authors":"Michael W. Manulak","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00676","url":null,"abstract":"The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Glasgow in November 2021, resulted in signi fi cant intergovernmental agreements, including the Glasgow Climate Pact, the completion of the Paris rulebook","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44279702","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 article considers the puzzle of Norway and Canada, two countries that have adopted ambitious Paris Agreement targets yet are also major fossil fuel exporters. To date, both countries have taken full advantage of the international convention that assigns responsibility only for emissions within a country’s borders. However, climate activists, First Nations, and green politicians increasingly have challenged fossil fuel production via campaigns centered on issues salient to voters in nonproducing regions: opposing new exploration licenses in Norway and pipelines in Canada. While supply-side campaigns have sometimes succeeded in ending expansion, neither country has seriously entertained restricting current production. We attribute these outcomes to continued public support for fossil fuel–driven prosperity; institutions that assign responsibility for production and climate to different government agencies; and the success of counternarratives that unilateral supply restrictions are futile, prosperity from petroleum exports will fund domestic clean-energy transitions, and gas exports advance global climate action.
{"title":"Supply-Side Climate Policies in Major Oil-Producing Countries: Norway’s and Canada’s Struggles to Align Climate Leadership with Fossil Fuel Extraction","authors":"K. Harrison, G. Bang","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00682","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article considers the puzzle of Norway and Canada, two countries that have adopted ambitious Paris Agreement targets yet are also major fossil fuel exporters. To date, both countries have taken full advantage of the international convention that assigns responsibility only for emissions within a country’s borders. However, climate activists, First Nations, and green politicians increasingly have challenged fossil fuel production via campaigns centered on issues salient to voters in nonproducing regions: opposing new exploration licenses in Norway and pipelines in Canada. While supply-side campaigns have sometimes succeeded in ending expansion, neither country has seriously entertained restricting current production. We attribute these outcomes to continued public support for fossil fuel–driven prosperity; institutions that assign responsibility for production and climate to different government agencies; and the success of counternarratives that unilateral supply restrictions are futile, prosperity from petroleum exports will fund domestic clean-energy transitions, and gas exports advance global climate action.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"129-150"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45782418","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}
Rosaleen Duffy became a prominent student and critic of international wildlife conservation when she published Killing for Conservation (Duffy 2000), a wonderfully detailed study of wildlife policy in Zimbabwe. It is a work that still ranks—along with Politicians and Poachers (Gibson 1999), which also dealt with Zambia and Kenya—as a landmark contribution to our understanding of how national interests in African wildlife become entangled with and are reshaped by, and to some extent in turn reshape, the interests of a wide range of other actors who claim a legitimate interest in the fate of African wildlife. These actors include notably, but not exclusively, international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The key analytical assumption both Duffy and Gibson made in those early books was that the fate of African wildlife did, and should, depend first and foremost on the domestic politics of the African countries responsible after independence for managing the wildlife populations living within their borders. They employed different theoretical lenses—political ecology for Duffy and political economy for Gibson—but the results in both cases gave insights into the dynamics of wildlife policies in Africa that are unequaled in the last two decades in the richness and depth of their political analysis. Wildlife between Empire and Nation in Twentieth-Century Africa (Schauer 2019), though, has made a further notable addition to the literature by exploiting archival rather than field research and by adding Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi to the mix of covered countries. So, what happened over the last twenty years or so to the assumption that domestic politics matter for the fate of African wildlife, which has over that same span of time become a prominent and sustained focus of both scholarly and public interest in global environmental politics? This is an important question, because, in Security and Conservation, Duffy’s most recent book, African politicians and political institutions appear, at best, as bit players in the stories she tells about evolving efforts to contain and constrain the illegal wildlife trade, efforts that have equivalents in other parts of the world. The obvious answer to this question is that conservation has changed. Indeed, in the veryfirst sentence of her newest book, Duffy asserts that the political
罗莎琳·达菲(Rosaleen Duffy)出版了《为保护而杀戮》(Killing for conservation, Duffy 2000)一书，详细研究了津巴布韦的野生动物政策，成为国际野生动物保护领域的杰出学生和评论家。这部作品与《政治家和偷猎者》(Gibson 1999)一样，也涉及赞比亚和肯尼亚，对我们理解非洲野生动物的国家利益是如何与其他声称对非洲野生动物的命运有合法利益的广泛行动者的利益纠缠在一起并被重塑，并在某种程度上反过来重塑，这是一部具有里程碑意义的贡献。这些行动者包括(但不完全是)国际保护非政府组织(ngo)。达菲和吉布森在早期著作中提出的关键分析假设是，非洲野生动物的命运确实、也应该首先取决于独立后负责管理其境内野生动物种群的非洲国家的国内政治。他们采用了不同的理论视角——达菲的政治生态学和吉布森的政治经济学——但这两种情况的结果都让我们深入了解了非洲野生动物政策的动态，这在政治分析的丰富性和深度上是过去二十年来无与伦比的。然而，《二十世纪非洲帝国与国家之间的野生动物》(Schauer 2019)通过利用档案而不是实地研究，并将坦桑尼亚、乌干达和马拉维加入到涵盖的国家组合中，为文献做出了进一步引人注目的补充。那么，在过去的二十年里，国内政治对非洲野生动物的命运至关重要的假设发生了什么?在同样的时间里，这已经成为全球环境政治中学术界和公众关注的一个突出和持续的焦点。这是一个重要的问题，因为在达菲的最新著作《安全与保护》中，非洲的政治家和政治机构在她讲述的关于遏制和限制非法野生动物贸易的不断发展的努力中，充其量只是一个小角色，这些努力在世界其他地方也有类似的情况。对于这个问题，显而易见的答案是保护已经改变了。事实上，在她新书的第一句话中，达菲就断言政治
{"title":"Security and Conservation: The Politics of the Illegal Wildlife Trade by Rosaleen Duffy","authors":"Geoffrey A Wandesforde-Smith","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00679","url":null,"abstract":"Rosaleen Duffy became a prominent student and critic of international wildlife conservation when she published Killing for Conservation (Duffy 2000), a wonderfully detailed study of wildlife policy in Zimbabwe. It is a work that still ranks—along with Politicians and Poachers (Gibson 1999), which also dealt with Zambia and Kenya—as a landmark contribution to our understanding of how national interests in African wildlife become entangled with and are reshaped by, and to some extent in turn reshape, the interests of a wide range of other actors who claim a legitimate interest in the fate of African wildlife. These actors include notably, but not exclusively, international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The key analytical assumption both Duffy and Gibson made in those early books was that the fate of African wildlife did, and should, depend first and foremost on the domestic politics of the African countries responsible after independence for managing the wildlife populations living within their borders. They employed different theoretical lenses—political ecology for Duffy and political economy for Gibson—but the results in both cases gave insights into the dynamics of wildlife policies in Africa that are unequaled in the last two decades in the richness and depth of their political analysis. Wildlife between Empire and Nation in Twentieth-Century Africa (Schauer 2019), though, has made a further notable addition to the literature by exploiting archival rather than field research and by adding Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi to the mix of covered countries. So, what happened over the last twenty years or so to the assumption that domestic politics matter for the fate of African wildlife, which has over that same span of time become a prominent and sustained focus of both scholarly and public interest in global environmental politics? This is an important question, because, in Security and Conservation, Duffy’s most recent book, African politicians and political institutions appear, at best, as bit players in the stories she tells about evolving efforts to contain and constrain the illegal wildlife trade, efforts that have equivalents in other parts of the world. The obvious answer to this question is that conservation has changed. Indeed, in the veryfirst sentence of her newest book, Duffy asserts that the political","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"205-208"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46114466","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}
It is something of a cliché to quote Karl Marx’s (1845) observation in Eleven Theses on Feuerbach, where he wrote, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” A universe of ink has been spilled over the past 177 years, but philosophers have come no closer to changing the world than they did in Marx’s day. The productive powers of capitalism have been exercised to the fullest, yet there is no sign that its replacement by some form of socialism or communism is any closer than in Marx’s day. Hans A. Baer, the author of Global Capitalism and Climate Change, argues that only ecosocialism can eliminate the depredations and destruction of nature and people caused by global capitalism and climate change but, like the philosophers, provides little guidance or instruction about how this objective might be achieved. Baer is not the first to offer such solutions without a plan or program for change, and he certainly will not be the last. According to Baer, his book “constitutes an effort to develop a critical social science of climate change ... [that explores] the systemic changes necessary to create a more social just and sustainable world system” (4). Thus, after introducing the problem of climate change and the logic—and contradictions— of the capitalist world system, Baer examines how greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to capitalism and why tinkering around the edges of its structure is insufficient to prevent climate change. He then examines the local, national, and global climate movements; argues on behalf of an ecosocialist alternative world system; and attempts to provide a road map to how we can fundamentally change the system for the better. Why have philosophers, as well as activists, movements, politicians, entrepreneurs, and natural and social scientists (including anthropologists, of which Baer is one) failed so far to do something meaningful about climate change? Their failures are not due to lack of effort or programs or projects or conferences or markets or diktats or communiques. Indeed, the discursive “niche” called “climate change” is so densely occupied that it is almost impossible to hear anything amid the noise (McDonald 2021).
{"title":"Global Capitalism and Climate Change: The Need for an Alternative System by Hans A. Baer","authors":"R. Lipschutz","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00678","url":null,"abstract":"It is something of a cliché to quote Karl Marx’s (1845) observation in Eleven Theses on Feuerbach, where he wrote, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” A universe of ink has been spilled over the past 177 years, but philosophers have come no closer to changing the world than they did in Marx’s day. The productive powers of capitalism have been exercised to the fullest, yet there is no sign that its replacement by some form of socialism or communism is any closer than in Marx’s day. Hans A. Baer, the author of Global Capitalism and Climate Change, argues that only ecosocialism can eliminate the depredations and destruction of nature and people caused by global capitalism and climate change but, like the philosophers, provides little guidance or instruction about how this objective might be achieved. Baer is not the first to offer such solutions without a plan or program for change, and he certainly will not be the last. According to Baer, his book “constitutes an effort to develop a critical social science of climate change ... [that explores] the systemic changes necessary to create a more social just and sustainable world system” (4). Thus, after introducing the problem of climate change and the logic—and contradictions— of the capitalist world system, Baer examines how greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to capitalism and why tinkering around the edges of its structure is insufficient to prevent climate change. He then examines the local, national, and global climate movements; argues on behalf of an ecosocialist alternative world system; and attempts to provide a road map to how we can fundamentally change the system for the better. Why have philosophers, as well as activists, movements, politicians, entrepreneurs, and natural and social scientists (including anthropologists, of which Baer is one) failed so far to do something meaningful about climate change? Their failures are not due to lack of effort or programs or projects or conferences or markets or diktats or communiques. Indeed, the discursive “niche” called “climate change” is so densely occupied that it is almost impossible to hear anything amid the noise (McDonald 2021).","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"209-211"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43590691","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}
Governing international fisheries seems, from a managerial perspective, as if it should be straightforward. Scientists tell governments how much can sustainably be fished, and governments use that advice to generate quotas. But, as everyone who reads this journal likely already knows, the relationship is never that simple. The three books reviewed here taken collectively offer different takes on why this is the case and, more broadly, on the relationships among states, scientists, and organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental, involved in the international regulation of fisheries. The books cover different ground. One focuses on regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), another on a certification process run by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a private organization. The third is only partly about fisheries; it looks at European Union (EU) policy toward the oceans more generally. The fisheries the books look at are both international and domestic. The thread that connects all three is discussion of international fisheries. Leandra Gonçalves, in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: The Interplay between Governance and Science, looks at the ways in which the institutional design of the science components within RFMOs affects the willingness of member governments of RFMOs both to accept the veracity of
{"title":"Institutional Structure, National Power, and Knowledge in the International Governance of Fisheries","authors":"J. Barkin","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00677","url":null,"abstract":"Governing international fisheries seems, from a managerial perspective, as if it should be straightforward. Scientists tell governments how much can sustainably be fished, and governments use that advice to generate quotas. But, as everyone who reads this journal likely already knows, the relationship is never that simple. The three books reviewed here taken collectively offer different takes on why this is the case and, more broadly, on the relationships among states, scientists, and organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental, involved in the international regulation of fisheries. The books cover different ground. One focuses on regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), another on a certification process run by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a private organization. The third is only partly about fisheries; it looks at European Union (EU) policy toward the oceans more generally. The fisheries the books look at are both international and domestic. The thread that connects all three is discussion of international fisheries. Leandra Gonçalves, in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: The Interplay between Governance and Science, looks at the ways in which the institutional design of the science components within RFMOs affects the willingness of member governments of RFMOs both to accept the veracity of","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"197-202"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42028181","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：