将地球系统公正应用于逐步淘汰化石燃料:从采用 1.5 °C 而非 1 °C 的不公正中汲取教训

Joyeeta Gupta, Yang Chen, David I. Armstrong Mckay, Paola Fezzigna, Giuliana Gentile, Aljoscha Karg, Luc van Vliet, Steven J. Lade, Lisa Jacobson
{"title":"将地球系统公正应用于逐步淘汰化石燃料:从采用 1.5 °C 而非 1 °C 的不公正中汲取教训","authors":"Joyeeta Gupta, Yang Chen, David I. Armstrong Mckay, Paola Fezzigna, Giuliana Gentile, Aljoscha Karg, Luc van Vliet, Steven J. Lade, Lisa Jacobson","doi":"10.1007/s10784-024-09628-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47272,"journal":{"name":"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics","volume":"295 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying earth system justice to phase out fossil fuels: learning from the injustice of adopting 1.5 °C over 1 °C\",\"authors\":\"Joyeeta Gupta, Yang Chen, David I. Armstrong Mckay, Paola Fezzigna, Giuliana Gentile, Aljoscha Karg, Luc van Vliet, Steven J. Lade, Lisa Jacobson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10784-024-09628-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\"295 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-024-09628-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-024-09628-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

巴黎协定》通过了 1.5 ° 至 2 ° C 的气候目标,其依据是气候变化超过这一水平就会变得 "危险"。此后,科学界和受全球变暖影响最严重的国家重申,应将最高温度限制在 1.5 °C。本文进一步质疑通过这些目标背后的理由,认为通过这些目标时依赖化石燃料的政治背景削弱了对正义的关注。我们强调了化石燃料行业在目标制定谈判中的政治影响力,分析了气候目标的演变和化石燃料的游说。然后,我们利用已公布的科学证据和地球系统公正框架,分析了 1.5 °C 目标的影响,以及迄今为止被默认为可以接受的不公正现象。我们认为,1 °C本来是一个更加公正的目标,但却被既得利益和维持现状所破坏。最后,我们提出了公正的供应方政策,以确保化石燃料行业承担足够的责任。通过这种方式,我们(a) 发现了已经并可能继续阻碍气候行动的政治影响和科学盲点,(b) 揭示了这些影响如何拖延了更宏伟的气候目标,导致通过了不公正的气候目标,以及(c) 促进对供应方措施和污染行业的关注,以打破能源转型的僵局,促进更公正的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applying earth system justice to phase out fossil fuels: learning from the injustice of adopting 1.5 °C over 1 °C

The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
26.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal that focuses on the theoretical, methodological and practical dimensions of achieving cooperative solutions to international environmental problems. The journal, which is published four times each year, emphasizes both formal legal agreements (such as multilateral treaties) and less formal cooperative mechanisms (such as ministerial declarations and producer-consumer agreements). The journal''s scope encompasses the full range of environmental and natural resource issues, including (but not limited to) biosafety, biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification, forest conservation, ozone depletion, transboundary pollutant flows, and the management of marine and fresh-water resources. The editors welcome contributions that consider stakeholder initiatives and the role of civil society in the definition and resolution of environmental conflicts. The journal provides a forum on the role of political, economic, and legal considerations in the negotiation and implementation of effective governance strategies. Special emphasis is attached to the following substantive domains: The normative aspects and political economy of treaty negotiations and multilateral agreements, including equity considerations; Methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative governance mechanisms; The role of stakeholder initiatives and civil society in the definition and resolution of environmental conflicts; The harmonization of environmental strategies with prevailing social, political, and economic institutions.
期刊最新文献
The environmental rule of law and the protection of human rights defenders: law, society, technology, and markets Should we regulate forests through free trade agreements? Arctic wetlands, an evaluation of progress towards implementation of the Ramsar convention on wetlands: 1978–2022 The split ladder of policy problems, participation, and politicization: constitutional water change in Ecuador and Chile Pathways of scientific input into intergovernmental negotiations: a new agreement on marine biodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1