Making warming worlds: Future making between climate politics and science – The case of the Structured Expert Dialogue

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Jasmine E. Livingston , Terese Thoni , Silke Beck
{"title":"Making warming worlds: Future making between climate politics and science – The case of the Structured Expert Dialogue","authors":"Jasmine E. Livingston ,&nbsp;Terese Thoni ,&nbsp;Silke Beck","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Long-Term Global Goal (LTGG) is the focal point for addressing future climate change. This paper explores a specific institutional context: the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Set up as a platform for interaction between experts and UN negotiators, the SED is a site where scientific information about the LTGG and net-zero was translated into actionable targets for policymaking. We identify different modes of anticipation in the SED - as scientific, lived future, and ethical/political - and explore how they emerged and played out. We ask how these different modes of anticipation produce a particular vision of a desirable future and legitimise ways of governing future climate change. We observe that the scientific and technical mode of anticipation is dominant and has shaped the definition of the LTGG, focussing on numerical targets and side-lining geopolitical and distributive consequences. We also see the science-based framing being re-politicised and challenged, and discuss how capacities to get a voice in the SED were unequally distributed. Based on our findings, we suggest that care is needed to design spaces in order to consider ethical and political consequences of the LTGG and rethink modes of participation and representation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103442"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001253/pdfft?md5=bf93dac2d648a1ef7a2d0f577e06d49b&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001253-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Long-Term Global Goal (LTGG) is the focal point for addressing future climate change. This paper explores a specific institutional context: the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Set up as a platform for interaction between experts and UN negotiators, the SED is a site where scientific information about the LTGG and net-zero was translated into actionable targets for policymaking. We identify different modes of anticipation in the SED - as scientific, lived future, and ethical/political - and explore how they emerged and played out. We ask how these different modes of anticipation produce a particular vision of a desirable future and legitimise ways of governing future climate change. We observe that the scientific and technical mode of anticipation is dominant and has shaped the definition of the LTGG, focussing on numerical targets and side-lining geopolitical and distributive consequences. We also see the science-based framing being re-politicised and challenged, and discuss how capacities to get a voice in the SED were unequally distributed. Based on our findings, we suggest that care is needed to design spaces in order to consider ethical and political consequences of the LTGG and rethink modes of participation and representation.

创造变暖的世界:在气候政治与科学之间创造未来--结构化专家对话的案例
全球长期目标(LTGG)是应对未来气候变化的焦点。本文探讨了一个特定的机构背景:《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)的结构化专家对话(SED)。作为专家与联合国谈判代表之间的互动平台,结构化专家对话是将有关长期温室气体和净零排放的科学信息转化为可操作的决策目标的场所。我们在 SED 中确定了不同的预期模式--科学模式、未来生活模式和伦理/政治模式--并探讨了这些模式是如何出现和发挥作用的。我们询问这些不同的预期模式如何产生对理想未来的特定愿景,以及如何使管理未来气候变化的方式合法化。我们注意到,科学和技术的预期模式占据主导地位,并塑造了长期合作行动小组的定义,侧重于数字目标,而忽略了地缘政治和分配后果。我们还看到,以科学为基础的框架正在被重新政治化并受到挑战,我们还讨论了在 SED 中获得发言权的能力是如何分布不均的。根据我们的研究结果,我们建议需要谨慎设计空间,以考虑长期合作小组的伦理和政治后果,并重新思考参与和代表的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信