气候治理对抗:政策稳定性与再政治化

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Global Environmental Politics Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1162/glep_a_00647
M. Paterson, Paul Tobin, Stacy D. Vandeveer
{"title":"气候治理对抗:政策稳定性与再政治化","authors":"M. Paterson, Paul Tobin, Stacy D. Vandeveer","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00647","DOIUrl":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate Governance Antagonisms: Policy Stability and Repoliticization\",\"authors\":\"M. Paterson, Paul Tobin, Stacy D. Vandeveer\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/glep_a_00647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00647\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00647","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

摘要在这个论坛上,我们强调了围绕气候变化政策和政治的战略不一致。一方面,人们普遍关注追求气候政策的稳定性:政策和机构设计的稳定性,但特别是使政策和机构发展不可逆转。然而,最近的许多文献再次强调了政治冲突的必然性,因为政治冲突往往是缓解和适应加速的气候变化所需的大规模过渡。在这方面,应对气候变化需要冲突,以削弱几十年来阻碍雄心勃勃的气候政策制定的现任行为者的权力。运用每一种观点的奖学金往往明确接受进行彻底的社会技术变革以应对气候危机的必要性,但每种观点都需要采取截然不同的方法来实现脱碳。这篇文章概述了一项研究议程,重点是思考气候政治中这两种明显矛盾的动态是如何相互作用的,以加深我们对什么样的战略可能为快速转型开辟政治空间的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Climate Governance Antagonisms: Policy Stability and Repoliticization
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.
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
7.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Politics examines the relationship between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change for world politics. Each issue is divided into research articles and a shorter forum articles focusing on issues such as the role of states, multilateral institutions and agreements, trade, international finance, corporations, science and technology, and grassroots movements.
期刊最新文献
Generative AI and Social Media May Exacerbate the Climate Crisis The Public Legitimacy of Multistakeholder Partnerships in Global Environmental Governance: Evidence from Survey Experiments in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United States Climate Change Isn’t Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism by Mike Hulme Continuity and Change in Norm Translations After the Paris Agreement: From First to Second Nationally Determined Contributions The Ecocentrists: A History of Radical Environmentalism by Keith Makoto Woodhouse
×
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