Abstract Indigenous organizations, international actors, and national authorities portray different images of Indigenous Peoples’ relationship with the natural environment. Based on these images, these actors deploy ecological, economic, and security arguments to create or transform protected areas. By exploring three cases of conflicts over creation and management of protected areas in the Peruvian Amazon, this article maps the tensions around the different images and explores how Indigenous organizations and state authorities—backed by international actors—engage with security, economic, and ecological rationales from their own sovereignty standpoint. I argue that the state weakens Indigenous political aspiration of sovereign territorial control by translating this agenda into depoliticized mechanisms and assumptions of modern international environmentalism, which ultimately limits their capacity to truly contribute to conservation goals. A “nation-building” approach to conservation, by conceiving Indigenous Nations as sovereign partners in environmental management, might give legitimacy to environmental initiatives.
{"title":"Conflicting Sovereignties: Global Conservation, Protected Areas, and Indigenous Nations in the Peruvian Amazon","authors":"R. Merino","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00646","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indigenous organizations, international actors, and national authorities portray different images of Indigenous Peoples’ relationship with the natural environment. Based on these images, these actors deploy ecological, economic, and security arguments to create or transform protected areas. By exploring three cases of conflicts over creation and management of protected areas in the Peruvian Amazon, this article maps the tensions around the different images and explores how Indigenous organizations and state authorities—backed by international actors—engage with security, economic, and ecological rationales from their own sovereignty standpoint. I argue that the state weakens Indigenous political aspiration of sovereign territorial control by translating this agenda into depoliticized mechanisms and assumptions of modern international environmentalism, which ultimately limits their capacity to truly contribute to conservation goals. A “nation-building” approach to conservation, by conceiving Indigenous Nations as sovereign partners in environmental management, might give legitimacy to environmental initiatives.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"95-116"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44966277","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 What can an “ethnographic sensibility” contribute to research on climate change governance? With its emphasis on meaning making and understanding what may lie beneath more obvious interactions and processes, ethnographic methodologies, particularly collaborative event ethnography, are increasingly deployed to address complex questions and achieve conceptual leverage on issues related to climate governance. Drawing on literature in climate anthropology, material geography, and political ethnography, and with examples from our own fieldwork experiences, we devise a heuristic typology underpinned by an ethnographic sensibility to help guide the fieldwork phase of a research project. Building on the well-established practice of hanging out, we introduce hanging around, which attends to spatiality and matter; hanging in, which addresses issues of access and trust; and hanging back to guide the practice of reflexivity. We articulate what fieldwork with an ethnographic sensibility entails and discuss its potential and implications for climate governance research.
{"title":"Deploying an Ethnographic Sensibility to Understand Climate Change Governance: Hanging Out, Around, In, and Back","authors":"L. Vanhala, Angelica Johansson, Frances Butler","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00652","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What can an “ethnographic sensibility” contribute to research on climate change governance? With its emphasis on meaning making and understanding what may lie beneath more obvious interactions and processes, ethnographic methodologies, particularly collaborative event ethnography, are increasingly deployed to address complex questions and achieve conceptual leverage on issues related to climate governance. Drawing on literature in climate anthropology, material geography, and political ethnography, and with examples from our own fieldwork experiences, we devise a heuristic typology underpinned by an ethnographic sensibility to help guide the fieldwork phase of a research project. Building on the well-established practice of hanging out, we introduce hanging around, which attends to spatiality and matter; hanging in, which addresses issues of access and trust; and hanging back to guide the practice of reflexivity. We articulate what fieldwork with an ethnographic sensibility entails and discuss its potential and implications for climate governance research.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"180-193"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43907215","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 examines the quest for data in the negotiations on the reduction of greenhouse gases in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from 2012 to 2020. We find that the collection of data was invoked in two different manners: holding back decision-making on emission-reduction regulations and helping the greenhouse gas negotiations move forward out of gridlock. We draw on insights from literature in science and technology studies on the politics of data and boundary objects to explore how these strategies are entangled over time. We argue that aligning around data collection and an ambiguous “three-step approach” to decision-making initially facilitated collaboration between IMO delegations despite disagreement on details. We examine how the three-step approach later morphs into what we call a mechanism for delay over the course of the negotiation period, challenging regulatory development at the pace required by opening for continuous calls for more data.
{"title":"From Progress to Delay: The Quest for Data in the Negotiations on Greenhouse Gases in the International Maritime Organization","authors":"Kjersti Aalbu, Tore Longva","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00653","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the quest for data in the negotiations on the reduction of greenhouse gases in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from 2012 to 2020. We find that the collection of data was invoked in two different manners: holding back decision-making on emission-reduction regulations and helping the greenhouse gas negotiations move forward out of gridlock. We draw on insights from literature in science and technology studies on the politics of data and boundary objects to explore how these strategies are entangled over time. We argue that aligning around data collection and an ambiguous “three-step approach” to decision-making initially facilitated collaboration between IMO delegations despite disagreement on details. We examine how the three-step approach later morphs into what we call a mechanism for delay over the course of the negotiation period, challenging regulatory development at the pace required by opening for continuous calls for more data.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"136-155"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47188026","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 forum, we highlight a discord in strategies around climate change policy and politics. On one hand, there is widespread concern for the pursuit of climate policy stability: stability in the design of policy and institutions, but particularly making policy and institutional development irreversible. However, much recent literature has revived an insistence on the inevitability of political conflict for pursuing the often large transitions needed to mitigate and adapt to accelerating climate change. Here, addressing climate change requires conflict, to weaken the power of incumbent actors that have blocked ambitious climate policy enactment for decades. Scholarship deploying each perspective tends to explicitly accept the need for radical sociotechnical transformations to address the climate crisis, but each entails radically different approaches to how to pursue decarbonization. The article outlines a research agenda focused on thinking about how these two apparently contradictory dynamics in climate politics interact, to advance our understanding of what sorts of strategies might open up political space for rapid transformations.
{"title":"Climate Governance Antagonisms: Policy Stability and Repoliticization","authors":"M. Paterson, Paul Tobin, Stacy D. Vandeveer","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00647","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this forum, we highlight a discord in strategies around climate change policy and politics. On one hand, there is widespread concern for the pursuit of climate policy stability: stability in the design of policy and institutions, but particularly making policy and institutional development irreversible. However, much recent literature has revived an insistence on the inevitability of political conflict for pursuing the often large transitions needed to mitigate and adapt to accelerating climate change. Here, addressing climate change requires conflict, to weaken the power of incumbent actors that have blocked ambitious climate policy enactment for decades. Scholarship deploying each perspective tends to explicitly accept the need for radical sociotechnical transformations to address the climate crisis, but each entails radically different approaches to how to pursue decarbonization. The article outlines a research agenda focused on thinking about how these two apparently contradictory dynamics in climate politics interact, to advance our understanding of what sorts of strategies might open up political space for rapid transformations.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41415808","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}
S. O’Lear, Francis Massé, Hannah Dickinson, R. Duffy
Abstract We live in a new normal of increasing, crosscutting, and shifting patterns of disasters fueled by large-scale environmental change, from floods to wildfires to pandemics. Our intervention in this forum piece makes the case that disasters, and responses to disasters, must be understood within the context of the global political-economic system of capitalism. We situate disasters, their making, and their politics within the Capitalocene and argue that disasters and the physical processes that underpin them are not natural: they are unevenly produced through, and exacerbated by, processes inherent in the capitalist system, with uneven consequences. We suggest that the predominantly technomanagerial approaches to disasters pursued within the neoliberal state and multilateral governance institution system reveal the tensions in addressing the causes of environmental change and the new normal of disasters under capitalism. We argue that through an engagement with the Capitalocene, environmental politics could further contribute to nuanced, critical understandings of disasters and their making in ways that foreground their in/justice implications.
{"title":"Disaster Making in the Capitalocene","authors":"S. O’Lear, Francis Massé, Hannah Dickinson, R. Duffy","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00655","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We live in a new normal of increasing, crosscutting, and shifting patterns of disasters fueled by large-scale environmental change, from floods to wildfires to pandemics. Our intervention in this forum piece makes the case that disasters, and responses to disasters, must be understood within the context of the global political-economic system of capitalism. We situate disasters, their making, and their politics within the Capitalocene and argue that disasters and the physical processes that underpin them are not natural: they are unevenly produced through, and exacerbated by, processes inherent in the capitalist system, with uneven consequences. We suggest that the predominantly technomanagerial approaches to disasters pursued within the neoliberal state and multilateral governance institution system reveal the tensions in addressing the causes of environmental change and the new normal of disasters under capitalism. We argue that through an engagement with the Capitalocene, environmental politics could further contribute to nuanced, critical understandings of disasters and their making in ways that foreground their in/justice implications.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"2-11"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46968731","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 For decades, the object of international climate governance has been greenhouse gases. The inadequacy of decarbonization based on this system has prompted calls to expand climate governance to include restrictions on fossil fuel supply. Such initiatives could rely on accountability frameworks based on fossil fuel reserves, production, or infrastructure, yet there has been little consideration of the different implications of these options. We inform such discussions by undertaking a sociotechnical analysis of existing schemes for the monitoring, reporting and verification of fossil fuels. We identify serious risks from anchoring climate governance in fossil fuel reserves. More promising directions for supply-side governance lie in accountability frameworks based on a combination of fossil fuel production volumes and infrastructure, since these are more transparent to multiple actors. This transparency would provide much-needed opportunities for democratic oversight of the data underpinning climate governance, opening new channels for holding states accountable for their climate performance.
{"title":"Counting Carbon or Counting Coal? Anchoring Climate Governance in Fossil Fuel–Based Accountability Frameworks","authors":"Fergus Green, D. Kuch","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00654","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For decades, the object of international climate governance has been greenhouse gases. The inadequacy of decarbonization based on this system has prompted calls to expand climate governance to include restrictions on fossil fuel supply. Such initiatives could rely on accountability frameworks based on fossil fuel reserves, production, or infrastructure, yet there has been little consideration of the different implications of these options. We inform such discussions by undertaking a sociotechnical analysis of existing schemes for the monitoring, reporting and verification of fossil fuels. We identify serious risks from anchoring climate governance in fossil fuel reserves. More promising directions for supply-side governance lie in accountability frameworks based on a combination of fossil fuel production volumes and infrastructure, since these are more transparent to multiple actors. This transparency would provide much-needed opportunities for democratic oversight of the data underpinning climate governance, opening new channels for holding states accountable for their climate performance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"48-69"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46875075","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 Existing results about the impact of regime type on states’ environmental performance are inconclusive. This could stem from failure to allow for economic inequality—a largely overlooked factor. More equal democratic societies, we contend, are likely to make greater progress in dealing with environmental problems. However, inequality undermines those processes and characteristics of democratic polities that are supposed to further environmental protection. In contrast, inequality is unlikely to be of much importance in authoritarian states. Using data on carbon emission performance for the post-1970 period, we find strong and robust evidence that inequality moderates the influence of democracy. Our research adds to the debate about regime type and environmental politics.
{"title":"Carbon Emission Performance and Regime Type: The Role of Inequality","authors":"Zorzeta Bakaki, Tobias Böhmelt, Hugh Ward","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00656","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Existing results about the impact of regime type on states’ environmental performance are inconclusive. This could stem from failure to allow for economic inequality—a largely overlooked factor. More equal democratic societies, we contend, are likely to make greater progress in dealing with environmental problems. However, inequality undermines those processes and characteristics of democratic polities that are supposed to further environmental protection. In contrast, inequality is unlikely to be of much importance in authoritarian states. Using data on carbon emission performance for the post-1970 period, we find strong and robust evidence that inequality moderates the influence of democracy. Our research adds to the debate about regime type and environmental politics.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"156-179"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48674341","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}
Globally, the long, slow trickle of financial capital and human resources moving into more renewable energy sectors and projects for wind, solar, and biofuel energy sources increasingly looks like a flood. Talk of global and national energy transitions is seemingly everywhere. But, of course, this is all happening in parallel—and sometimes in competition—with continuing, massive investments in additional oil and gas extraction. As their titles suggest, the three books reviewed here are centrally about comparative and global political economy. They are also “environmental politics” books, although their intersections with global and comparative environmental politics scholarship—and the roles played by actors and institutions deploying explicitly environmental frames—differ quite a lot. While comparative political economy has a longer tradition, the rapid growth in systematically comparative research around energy and environmental politics is more recent (Hancock and Allison 2021; Sowers et al., forthcoming; Steinberg and VanDeveer 2012). The three books reviewed here demonstrate the vast potential for the important, innovative, and influential research that can result by bringing these three areas of inquiry together. They illustrate and energize some positive trends in
在全球范围内，金融资本和人力资源长期而缓慢地流向更多的可再生能源部门和风能、太阳能和生物燃料能源项目，越来越像一场洪水。关于全球和国家能源转型的讨论似乎无处不在。但是，当然，这一切都是并行发生的，有时是相互竞争的，在额外的石油和天然气开采上进行持续的大规模投资。正如它们的标题所示，这里所评论的三本书主要是关于比较和全球政治经济学的。它们也是“环境政治”书籍，尽管它们与全球和比较环境政治学术的交集——以及明确部署环境框架的行动者和机构所扮演的角色——差别很大。虽然比较政治经济学有着更悠久的传统，但围绕能源和环境政治的系统比较研究的快速增长是最近才出现的(Hancock and Allison 2021;播种者等，即将到来;Steinberg and VanDeveer 2012)。这里回顾的三本书展示了重要的、创新的和有影响力的研究的巨大潜力，这些研究可以通过将这三个调查领域结合在一起而产生。它们说明并激发了一些积极的趋势
{"title":"Energizing Comparative Environmental Politics and Comparative Political Economy","authors":"Stacy D. Vandeveer","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00649","url":null,"abstract":"Globally, the long, slow trickle of financial capital and human resources moving into more renewable energy sectors and projects for wind, solar, and biofuel energy sources increasingly looks like a flood. Talk of global and national energy transitions is seemingly everywhere. But, of course, this is all happening in parallel—and sometimes in competition—with continuing, massive investments in additional oil and gas extraction. As their titles suggest, the three books reviewed here are centrally about comparative and global political economy. They are also “environmental politics” books, although their intersections with global and comparative environmental politics scholarship—and the roles played by actors and institutions deploying explicitly environmental frames—differ quite a lot. While comparative political economy has a longer tradition, the rapid growth in systematically comparative research around energy and environmental politics is more recent (Hancock and Allison 2021; Sowers et al., forthcoming; Steinberg and VanDeveer 2012). The three books reviewed here demonstrate the vast potential for the important, innovative, and influential research that can result by bringing these three areas of inquiry together. They illustrate and energize some positive trends in","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"175-182"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45913521","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 Mercury Stories, Henrik Selin and Noelle Eckley Selin introduce and apply their original systems theory, a human–technical–environmental (HTE) framework coupled with an illustrative matrix approach, to an issue of sustainability: the mercury system. The underlying idea of the system perspective is that “a system is a connection of individual components that together produce results unobtainable by the components alone” (19). It is important to examine social, technological, and environmental factors and their interactions together to truly understand the sustainability system. This book urges social and natural scientists and engineers to broaden analytical scopes in their own fields, while analytically and empirically connecting with the field of sustainability science. The authors frame four research questions: What are the main components of systems relevant to sustainability? In what ways do the components of these systems interact? How can actors intervene in these systems to change their effects? What insights can be drawn from analyzing these systems? In addressing these questions, they apply the HTE framework to different aspects of the mercury issue: pollution and management, human health, the atmosphere, products and processes, artisanal small-scale gold mining, and mercury. They first identify and classify five system components of sustainability: material (human, technical, and environmental components) and nonmaterial (institutional and knowledge components). Then, via their matrix, they identify how the three material components interact with each other within the context of the two nonmaterial components, which provides multiple interaction pathways. Interaction pathways are documented by remarkably in-depth studies on mercury, which incorporate evidence from history and social and environmental sciences. For example, in commerce, through usage in products, industrial processes, and artisanal small-scale gold mining, mercury is emitted and released into the environment (an interaction between technical and environmental components). Under specific ecosystem conditions, discharged mercury is converted to methylmercury, which is much more toxic than elemental mercury and adversely affects living organisms, including humans (an interaction between environmental components).
{"title":"Mercury Stories: Understanding Sustainability Through a Volatile Element","authors":"Azusa Uji","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00650","url":null,"abstract":"In Mercury Stories, Henrik Selin and Noelle Eckley Selin introduce and apply their original systems theory, a human–technical–environmental (HTE) framework coupled with an illustrative matrix approach, to an issue of sustainability: the mercury system. The underlying idea of the system perspective is that “a system is a connection of individual components that together produce results unobtainable by the components alone” (19). It is important to examine social, technological, and environmental factors and their interactions together to truly understand the sustainability system. This book urges social and natural scientists and engineers to broaden analytical scopes in their own fields, while analytically and empirically connecting with the field of sustainability science. The authors frame four research questions: What are the main components of systems relevant to sustainability? In what ways do the components of these systems interact? How can actors intervene in these systems to change their effects? What insights can be drawn from analyzing these systems? In addressing these questions, they apply the HTE framework to different aspects of the mercury issue: pollution and management, human health, the atmosphere, products and processes, artisanal small-scale gold mining, and mercury. They first identify and classify five system components of sustainability: material (human, technical, and environmental components) and nonmaterial (institutional and knowledge components). Then, via their matrix, they identify how the three material components interact with each other within the context of the two nonmaterial components, which provides multiple interaction pathways. Interaction pathways are documented by remarkably in-depth studies on mercury, which incorporate evidence from history and social and environmental sciences. For example, in commerce, through usage in products, industrial processes, and artisanal small-scale gold mining, mercury is emitted and released into the environment (an interaction between technical and environmental components). Under specific ecosystem conditions, discharged mercury is converted to methylmercury, which is much more toxic than elemental mercury and adversely affects living organisms, including humans (an interaction between environmental components).","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"183-185"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49395367","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 Should international pro-climate actors speak up against climate rogues, or do foreign critics risk igniting nationalist backlash against global environmental norms and institutions? We explore naming and shaming dynamics in global climate politics by fielding survey experiments to nationally representative samples in Brazil. Our results show that nationalism moderates public reactions to foreign climate shaming: individuals who are highly attached to their nation are more likely to reject international criticism than their lowly attached peers. Contrary to existing expectations, however, we find that nationalist publics express little support for virulent defiance against foreign critics. Our findings hold irrespective of the source of criticism and the nature of the critical message. These results sound a cautionary note on the belief that liberal internationalists should tread carefully so as not to unadvisedly unleash nationalist pushback. Although foreign climate criticism may bump up against nationalist sentiment in climate rogues, it will not necessarily fuel an all-out backlash against the global environmental regime.
{"title":"Nationalist Backlash Against Foreign Climate Shaming","authors":"M. Spektor, U. Mignozzetti, Guilherme N. Fasolin","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00644","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Should international pro-climate actors speak up against climate rogues, or do foreign critics risk igniting nationalist backlash against global environmental norms and institutions? We explore naming and shaming dynamics in global climate politics by fielding survey experiments to nationally representative samples in Brazil. Our results show that nationalism moderates public reactions to foreign climate shaming: individuals who are highly attached to their nation are more likely to reject international criticism than their lowly attached peers. Contrary to existing expectations, however, we find that nationalist publics express little support for virulent defiance against foreign critics. Our findings hold irrespective of the source of criticism and the nature of the critical message. These results sound a cautionary note on the belief that liberal internationalists should tread carefully so as not to unadvisedly unleash nationalist pushback. Although foreign climate criticism may bump up against nationalist sentiment in climate rogues, it will not necessarily fuel an all-out backlash against the global environmental regime.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"139-158"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47719763","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：