Introduction

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
S. Bernstein, M. Hoffmann, Erika Weinthal
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"S. Bernstein, M. Hoffmann, Erika Weinthal","doi":"10.1162/glep_e_00648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are writing this introduction just as COP 26 is wrapping up and the world (and GEP community) are assessing the work ahead to turn pledges and promises into action. The current issue includes investigations on a range of topics that inform the very agendas and politics that are underway and needed. The issue begins with a forum on the Paris Agreement, the unquestioned center of gravity for the global response to climate change even while many question its effectiveness in the aftermath of Glasgow. In “The Paris Agreement as Analogy in Global Environmental Politics,” Nicholas Chan explores how it has come to dominate the way the international community imagines and structures global environmental cooperation. He details the discursive and institutional “gravitational pull” of Paris, but also warns against the potentially problematic effects of the powerful Paris analogy, if applied too broadly to diverse problems in environmental politics. A second forum by Olúfé.mi Táíwò and Shuchi Talati, “Who Are the Engineers? Solar Geoengineering Research and Justice,” contributes to the growing body of work on the politics of solar geoengineering. In response to calls to abandon solar geoengineering research that range from environmental impacts to Northern dominance of the field itself, Táíwò and Talati argue instead for a more inclusive framework that is sensitive to concerns of global injustice and inequality. The forum provides concrete suggestions for supporting more inclusive research and governance, including bolstering alternative research programs to fund and build capacity of researchers and policymakers from the Global South. The research articles begin with a cross-issue exploration of global environmental negotiations. In “Design Trade-Offs Under Power Asymmetry: COPs and Flexibility Clauses,” Jean-Frédéric Morin, Benjamin Tremblay-Auger, and Claire Peacock explore how states navigate power asymmetries in environmental negotiations. They argue that the adoption of flexibility clauses helps powerful states signal their commitment to not unduly influence the work of COPs by providing weaker states with insurance against abuse of power differentials. They find support for this argument through an analysis of a database of over 2,000 international environmental agreements.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_e_00648","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: 0

Abstract

We are writing this introduction just as COP 26 is wrapping up and the world (and GEP community) are assessing the work ahead to turn pledges and promises into action. The current issue includes investigations on a range of topics that inform the very agendas and politics that are underway and needed. The issue begins with a forum on the Paris Agreement, the unquestioned center of gravity for the global response to climate change even while many question its effectiveness in the aftermath of Glasgow. In “The Paris Agreement as Analogy in Global Environmental Politics,” Nicholas Chan explores how it has come to dominate the way the international community imagines and structures global environmental cooperation. He details the discursive and institutional “gravitational pull” of Paris, but also warns against the potentially problematic effects of the powerful Paris analogy, if applied too broadly to diverse problems in environmental politics. A second forum by Olúfé.mi Táíwò and Shuchi Talati, “Who Are the Engineers? Solar Geoengineering Research and Justice,” contributes to the growing body of work on the politics of solar geoengineering. In response to calls to abandon solar geoengineering research that range from environmental impacts to Northern dominance of the field itself, Táíwò and Talati argue instead for a more inclusive framework that is sensitive to concerns of global injustice and inequality. The forum provides concrete suggestions for supporting more inclusive research and governance, including bolstering alternative research programs to fund and build capacity of researchers and policymakers from the Global South. The research articles begin with a cross-issue exploration of global environmental negotiations. In “Design Trade-Offs Under Power Asymmetry: COPs and Flexibility Clauses,” Jean-Frédéric Morin, Benjamin Tremblay-Auger, and Claire Peacock explore how states navigate power asymmetries in environmental negotiations. They argue that the adoption of flexibility clauses helps powerful states signal their commitment to not unduly influence the work of COPs by providing weaker states with insurance against abuse of power differentials. They find support for this argument through an analysis of a database of over 2,000 international environmental agreements.
介绍
我们撰写这篇导言之际,正值缔约方会议第26次会议即将结束,世界(和全球环境展望社区)正在评估将承诺和承诺转化为行动的未来工作。本期包括对一系列主题的调查,这些主题为正在进行和需要的议程和政治提供信息。这个问题始于一个关于《巴黎协定》(Paris Agreement)的论坛,该协定无疑是全球应对气候变化的重心,尽管在格拉斯哥事件后,许多人质疑其有效性。在《作为全球环境政治类比的巴黎协定》一书中,陈可辛(Nicholas Chan)探讨了它是如何主导国际社会想象和构建全球环境合作的方式的。他详细描述了巴黎的话语和制度的“引力”,但也警告说,如果将巴黎的强大类比过于广泛地应用于环境政治中的各种问题,可能会产生潜在的问题。第二个论坛是Olúfé。mi Táíwò和Shuchi Talati,“谁是工程师?”《太阳能地球工程研究与正义》,为太阳能地球工程的政治研究做出了贡献。为了回应放弃太阳能地球工程研究的呼声,从环境影响到北方在该领域的主导地位,Táíwò和Talati主张建立一个更具包容性的框架,对全球不公正和不平等的担忧敏感。该论坛为支持更具包容性的研究和治理提供了具体建议,包括支持其他研究项目,以资助和建设来自全球南方的研究人员和决策者的能力。研究文章从全球环境谈判的跨议题探索开始。在《权力不对称下的设计权衡:cop和灵活性条款》一书中,让-弗朗茨·莫兰、本杰明·特伦布雷-奥格和克莱尔·皮科克探讨了国家如何在环境谈判中驾驭权力不对称。他们认为,采用灵活性条款有助于强国通过向弱国提供防止滥用权力差异的保障,表明它们不会过度影响缔约方会议工作的承诺。他们通过对2000多项国际环境协定的数据库进行分析,找到了支持这一论点的证据。
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
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.
×
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