Global Environmental Politics最新文献

{"title":"Exclusive Apart, Inclusive as a System: Polycentricity in Climate City Networks","authors":"Sayel Cortes, J. van der Heijden, Ingrid Boas, S. Bush","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00657","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is often thought that local governments in the Global South have less influence over climate city networks than those from the Global North. We question this by examining how different climate city networks relate and function as interconnected, yet independent, decision-making centers. We explore the extent to which this polycentric system overcomes the assumed exclusivity and inequality of these networks. We analyze twenty-two climate city networks using qualitative comparative analysis to classify the networks with a majority of members from either the Global North or the Global South based on conditions related to their context, diversity of members, and degree of homogeneity. We find that climate city networks overcome North–South dependencies through targeted support reflecting the local needs and conditions of city members. This diversity of tailored alternatives for cities provides equality and inclusivity at the polycentric system level, despite showing inequality and exclusivity at the network level.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46346904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Politics of Rights of Nature: Strategies for Building a More Sustainable Future by Craig M. Kauffman and Pamela L. Martin","authors":"Mary E. Witlacil","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00661","url":null,"abstract":"The argument for recognizing the rights of nature (RoN) is hardly new—the late Christopher Stone first made the case for granting legal rights to environmental entities in 1972. Beginning with a 2006 RoN ordinance in the United States and an Ecuadoran constitutional amendment in 2008, the movement for the rights of nature has recently caught fire. This is the puzzle driving Craig Kauffman and Pamela Martin’s research in their book The Politics of the Rights of Nature. Why has the RoN movement gained so much momentum in the past two decades, and what accounts for the “salience” and unexpected diffusion of the RoN norm? To address these questions, Kauffman and Martin employ a sophisticated mixed methodological approach, including case studies and several years of fieldwork in five of the six countries they profile. Beyond interviews and surveys, they engaged in comparative historical analysis, process tracing, and social network analysis to explore the emergence and diffusion of RoN. Kauffman and Martin contribute to the growing body of literature on RoN, as well as building on existing theories of norm diffusion and contestation. RoN norm emergence challenges leading explanations of norm diffusion, given the independent but “nearly simultaneous” development of RoN norms at multiple levels of government (from local to national). The authors draw on evolutionary biology, using convergent evolution theory, to explain the concurrent development of normatively similar but institutionally distinct RoN legislation. Akin to convergent evolution theory in evolutionary biology, they argue that “functionally similar RoN laws ... emerged independently in response to common environmental pressures” (19). Part of what makes Kauffman and Martin’s work so expansive is their thorough coverage of the major cases of RoN legislation in Ecuador, Bolivia, the United States, and New Zealand, as well as the recent emergence of environmental personhood in India and Colombia. They begin their case study analysis with a most-similar-systems comparison between Ecuador and Bolivia—both of which incorporated RoN clauses into their constitutions after electing left populist leaders who claimed to support the Indigenous communities in their respective countries. Despite similar cultures and socioeconomic structures, Ecuador’s RoN clause flourished, while Bolivia’s 2012 RoN amendment languished to the point of oblivion. In their exploration of Ecuador’s growing body","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44191194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Judicializing Environmental Governance? The Case of Transnational Corporate Accountability","authors":"D. Bertram","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00651","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The transnational scope of corporate activities often results in extraterritorial environmental harm elsewhere on the planet. Within the European context, two legal developments are challenging this state of affairs. First, several legislative initiatives seek to establish due diligence standards for corporate activities along global supply chains. Second, domestic courts increasingly assume jurisdiction over environmental damage arising from corporations’ subsidiary operations abroad. This article argues that both these developments are emblematic of the transnationalization and judicialization of environmental governance in the twenty-first century. Rather than providing particularized relief only, national judges may become crucial allies in the construction and enforcement of polycentric regimes. However, the advent of unilateral judicial interventions in the environmental affairs of other countries also raises concerns over the international and institutional legitimacy of the emerging corporate accountability apparatus.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47174879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conflicting Sovereignties: Global Conservation, Protected Areas, and Indigenous Nations in the Peruvian Amazon","authors":"R. Merino","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00646","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indigenous organizations, international actors, and national authorities portray different images of Indigenous Peoples’ relationship with the natural environment. Based on these images, these actors deploy ecological, economic, and security arguments to create or transform protected areas. By exploring three cases of conflicts over creation and management of protected areas in the Peruvian Amazon, this article maps the tensions around the different images and explores how Indigenous organizations and state authorities—backed by international actors—engage with security, economic, and ecological rationales from their own sovereignty standpoint. I argue that the state weakens Indigenous political aspiration of sovereign territorial control by translating this agenda into depoliticized mechanisms and assumptions of modern international environmentalism, which ultimately limits their capacity to truly contribute to conservation goals. A “nation-building” approach to conservation, by conceiving Indigenous Nations as sovereign partners in environmental management, might give legitimacy to environmental initiatives.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44966277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Deploying an Ethnographic Sensibility to Understand Climate Change Governance: Hanging Out, Around, In, and Back","authors":"L. Vanhala, Angelica Johansson, Frances Butler","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00652","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What can an “ethnographic sensibility” contribute to research on climate change governance? With its emphasis on meaning making and understanding what may lie beneath more obvious interactions and processes, ethnographic methodologies, particularly collaborative event ethnography, are increasingly deployed to address complex questions and achieve conceptual leverage on issues related to climate governance. Drawing on literature in climate anthropology, material geography, and political ethnography, and with examples from our own fieldwork experiences, we devise a heuristic typology underpinned by an ethnographic sensibility to help guide the fieldwork phase of a research project. Building on the well-established practice of hanging out, we introduce hanging around, which attends to spatiality and matter; hanging in, which addresses issues of access and trust; and hanging back to guide the practice of reflexivity. We articulate what fieldwork with an ethnographic sensibility entails and discuss its potential and implications for climate governance research.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43907215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Progress to Delay: The Quest for Data in the Negotiations on Greenhouse Gases in the International Maritime Organization","authors":"Kjersti Aalbu, Tore Longva","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00653","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the quest for data in the negotiations on the reduction of greenhouse gases in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from 2012 to 2020. We find that the collection of data was invoked in two different manners: holding back decision-making on emission-reduction regulations and helping the greenhouse gas negotiations move forward out of gridlock. We draw on insights from literature in science and technology studies on the politics of data and boundary objects to explore how these strategies are entangled over time. We argue that aligning around data collection and an ambiguous “three-step approach” to decision-making initially facilitated collaboration between IMO delegations despite disagreement on details. We examine how the three-step approach later morphs into what we call a mechanism for delay over the course of the negotiation period, challenging regulatory development at the pace required by opening for continuous calls for more data.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47188026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Climate Governance Antagonisms: Policy Stability and Repoliticization","authors":"M. Paterson, Paul Tobin, Stacy D. Vandeveer","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00647","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":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41415808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disaster Making in the Capitalocene","authors":"S. O’Lear, Francis Massé, Hannah Dickinson, R. Duffy","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00655","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We live in a new normal of increasing, crosscutting, and shifting patterns of disasters fueled by large-scale environmental change, from floods to wildfires to pandemics. Our intervention in this forum piece makes the case that disasters, and responses to disasters, must be understood within the context of the global political-economic system of capitalism. We situate disasters, their making, and their politics within the Capitalocene and argue that disasters and the physical processes that underpin them are not natural: they are unevenly produced through, and exacerbated by, processes inherent in the capitalist system, with uneven consequences. We suggest that the predominantly technomanagerial approaches to disasters pursued within the neoliberal state and multilateral governance institution system reveal the tensions in addressing the causes of environmental change and the new normal of disasters under capitalism. We argue that through an engagement with the Capitalocene, environmental politics could further contribute to nuanced, critical understandings of disasters and their making in ways that foreground their in/justice implications.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46968731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Counting Carbon or Counting Coal? Anchoring Climate Governance in Fossil Fuel–Based Accountability Frameworks","authors":"Fergus Green, D. Kuch","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00654","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For decades, the object of international climate governance has been greenhouse gases. The inadequacy of decarbonization based on this system has prompted calls to expand climate governance to include restrictions on fossil fuel supply. Such initiatives could rely on accountability frameworks based on fossil fuel reserves, production, or infrastructure, yet there has been little consideration of the different implications of these options. We inform such discussions by undertaking a sociotechnical analysis of existing schemes for the monitoring, reporting and verification of fossil fuels. We identify serious risks from anchoring climate governance in fossil fuel reserves. More promising directions for supply-side governance lie in accountability frameworks based on a combination of fossil fuel production volumes and infrastructure, since these are more transparent to multiple actors. This transparency would provide much-needed opportunities for democratic oversight of the data underpinning climate governance, opening new channels for holding states accountable for their climate performance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46875075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Carbon Emission Performance and Regime Type: The Role of Inequality","authors":"Zorzeta Bakaki, Tobias Böhmelt, Hugh Ward","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00656","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Existing results about the impact of regime type on states’ environmental performance are inconclusive. This could stem from failure to allow for economic inequality—a largely overlooked factor. More equal democratic societies, we contend, are likely to make greater progress in dealing with environmental problems. However, inequality undermines those processes and characteristics of democratic polities that are supposed to further environmental protection. In contrast, inequality is unlikely to be of much importance in authoritarian states. Using data on carbon emission performance for the post-1970 period, we find strong and robust evidence that inequality moderates the influence of democracy. Our research adds to the debate about regime type and environmental politics.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48674341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}