气候知识与行动之间的循环关系:对“气候谈判为何停滞?”一些结构性问题的科学证据和解决方案”,作者:乌尔里希·弗雷和贾兹明·伯吉斯

IF 1.8 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Global Discourse Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1332/204378921x16836997741580
Hannah Hughes
{"title":"气候知识与行动之间的循环关系:对“气候谈判为何停滞?”一些结构性问题的科学证据和解决方案”,作者:乌尔里希·弗雷和贾兹明·伯吉斯","authors":"Hannah Hughes","doi":"10.1332/204378921x16836997741580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this response to Frey and Burgess, I describe the ‘direct and sustained relationship’ between climate researchers and policymakers that has been created through the Intergovernmental Platform on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment practice and the conscious attempts to link the IPCC and climate negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Member governments have a central role in the IPCC assessment practice, from outlining the assessment report to approving its key findings. While this creates a shared knowledge base for the negotiation of collective action, it also brings negotiating positions into the approval of the report’s Summary for Policymakers. This negotiation of knowledge has further intensified as the IPCC has become a site for legitimating objects and outcomes from the negotiating process, such as the 1.5C temperature target. Exploring the role of the IPCC in the Global Stocktake reveals how the circle between knowledge and action may be closing, although questions of diversity and in particular the place of the Local Community and Indigenous Peoples Platform in this circle remain.","PeriodicalId":37814,"journal":{"name":"Global Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Circular relations between climate knowledge and action: a reply to ‘Why do climate negotiations stall? Scientific evidence and solutions for some structural problems’, by Ulrich Frey and Jazmin Burgess\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Hughes\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/204378921x16836997741580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this response to Frey and Burgess, I describe the ‘direct and sustained relationship’ between climate researchers and policymakers that has been created through the Intergovernmental Platform on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment practice and the conscious attempts to link the IPCC and climate negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Member governments have a central role in the IPCC assessment practice, from outlining the assessment report to approving its key findings. While this creates a shared knowledge base for the negotiation of collective action, it also brings negotiating positions into the approval of the report’s Summary for Policymakers. This negotiation of knowledge has further intensified as the IPCC has become a site for legitimating objects and outcomes from the negotiating process, such as the 1.5C temperature target. Exploring the role of the IPCC in the Global Stocktake reveals how the circle between knowledge and action may be closing, although questions of diversity and in particular the place of the Local Community and Indigenous Peoples Platform in this circle remain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Discourse\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/204378921x16836997741580\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/204378921x16836997741580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在对弗雷和伯吉斯的回应中,我描述了气候研究人员和政策制定者之间的“直接和持续的关系”,这种关系是通过政府间气候变化平台(IPCC)的评估实践和有意识地将IPCC与联合国气候变化框架公约(UNFCCC)的气候谈判联系起来而建立起来的。成员国政府在IPCC的评估实践中发挥着核心作用,从概述评估报告到批准其主要发现。这为集体行动的谈判创造了一个共享的知识库,同时也将谈判立场纳入了报告《决策者摘要》的批准。随着IPCC成为使谈判过程的目标和结果(如1.5摄氏度的温度目标)合法化的场所,这种知识谈判进一步加剧。对IPCC在全球评估中的作用的探讨揭示了知识与行动之间的循环是如何闭合的,尽管多样性问题,特别是地方社区和土著人民平台在这一循环中的地位问题仍然存在。
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
Circular relations between climate knowledge and action: a reply to ‘Why do climate negotiations stall? Scientific evidence and solutions for some structural problems’, by Ulrich Frey and Jazmin Burgess
In this response to Frey and Burgess, I describe the ‘direct and sustained relationship’ between climate researchers and policymakers that has been created through the Intergovernmental Platform on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment practice and the conscious attempts to link the IPCC and climate negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Member governments have a central role in the IPCC assessment practice, from outlining the assessment report to approving its key findings. While this creates a shared knowledge base for the negotiation of collective action, it also brings negotiating positions into the approval of the report’s Summary for Policymakers. This negotiation of knowledge has further intensified as the IPCC has become a site for legitimating objects and outcomes from the negotiating process, such as the 1.5C temperature target. Exploring the role of the IPCC in the Global Stocktake reveals how the circle between knowledge and action may be closing, although questions of diversity and in particular the place of the Local Community and Indigenous Peoples Platform in this circle remain.
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
Global Discourse
Global Discourse Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Global Discourse is an interdisciplinary, problem-oriented journal of applied contemporary thought operating at the intersection of politics, international relations, sociology and social policy. The journal’s scope is broad, encouraging interrogation of current affairs with regard to core questions of distributive justice, wellbeing, cultural diversity, autonomy, sovereignty, security and recognition. All issues are themed and aimed at addressing pressing issues as they emerge.
期刊最新文献
‘What do we exactly have the power to decolonise?’ A reply to ‘(Un)Doing performative decolonisation in the global development “imaginaries” of academia’ by Two Convivial Thinkers Black feminist political ecologies: a reply to ‘Questioning development from Black feminisms in Ecuador and moving towards a Black feminist political ecology in the Americas’ by Sofia Zaragocin et al Introduction: New perspectives on development A reply to ‘Human security, sustainable livelihoods and development: the case of the Niger Delta region in Nigeria’ by Benita Ebindu Siloko Human security, sustainable livelihoods and development: the case of the Niger Delta region in Nigeria
×
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