及早了解气候,却迟迟不采取行动:针对跨国石油公司和国家政府的生态灭绝案例

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Stephan J. Hauser , Tere Vadén , Michiru Nagatsu , Franklin Obeng-Odoom , Jussi T. Eronen
{"title":"及早了解气候,却迟迟不采取行动:针对跨国石油公司和国家政府的生态灭绝案例","authors":"Stephan J. Hauser ,&nbsp;Tere Vadén ,&nbsp;Michiru Nagatsu ,&nbsp;Franklin Obeng-Odoom ,&nbsp;Jussi T. Eronen","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent articles have demonstrated the knowledge and accuracy of oil corporations’ predictions made since the 1950s on the effects of their products on the global environment. But can the early relationship between oil corporations and national governments and lack of climate actions by both actors count as ecocide? If so, should remedial strategies appeal to freer markets for oil or greater state regulation? Cast within the wide context of investigating the collusion at play between powerful political-economic actors and decision-makers as monopolists and debates about ‘the modern corporation and private property’ (Berle and Means, 1932/2017), ‘the new industrial state’ (Galbraith, 1967), and ‘the economic theory of regulation’ (Stigler, 1971), the paper reviews the contentious relationship between states, corporations, and markets. Specifically, the article probes strategies of oil corporations and national governments intended to delay the inclusion of environmental concerns in policies and avoid accountability. Our method of content analysis of articles, reports, and international declarations of different actors and periods relies on a qualitative methodology and ontology of critical realism. We find that not only did oil corporations hide the truth, but also that national governments, that knew (or should have known) about the threat posed by oil industrial activities and which have wider responsibilities than corporations, did not act and are (at least) as responsible and as ‘ecocidal’ in what could be called an oil TNC-state alliance. Accordingly, we open the avenues for redressing an evolutionary shift from markets and states to commons, and embedding power within communities (Polanyi, 1945) along with a more universal right to bring a case of ecocide against both transnational oil corporations and states that collude with them.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"161 ","pages":"Article 103880"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002144/pdfft?md5=04426bc84f910b4a9f3f4d41b8f58680&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002144-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early knowledge but delays in climate actions: An ecocide case against both transnational oil corporations and national governments\",\"authors\":\"Stephan J. Hauser ,&nbsp;Tere Vadén ,&nbsp;Michiru Nagatsu ,&nbsp;Franklin Obeng-Odoom ,&nbsp;Jussi T. Eronen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103880\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recent articles have demonstrated the knowledge and accuracy of oil corporations’ predictions made since the 1950s on the effects of their products on the global environment. But can the early relationship between oil corporations and national governments and lack of climate actions by both actors count as ecocide? If so, should remedial strategies appeal to freer markets for oil or greater state regulation? Cast within the wide context of investigating the collusion at play between powerful political-economic actors and decision-makers as monopolists and debates about ‘the modern corporation and private property’ (Berle and Means, 1932/2017), ‘the new industrial state’ (Galbraith, 1967), and ‘the economic theory of regulation’ (Stigler, 1971), the paper reviews the contentious relationship between states, corporations, and markets. Specifically, the article probes strategies of oil corporations and national governments intended to delay the inclusion of environmental concerns in policies and avoid accountability. Our method of content analysis of articles, reports, and international declarations of different actors and periods relies on a qualitative methodology and ontology of critical realism. We find that not only did oil corporations hide the truth, but also that national governments, that knew (or should have known) about the threat posed by oil industrial activities and which have wider responsibilities than corporations, did not act and are (at least) as responsible and as ‘ecocidal’ in what could be called an oil TNC-state alliance. Accordingly, we open the avenues for redressing an evolutionary shift from markets and states to commons, and embedding power within communities (Polanyi, 1945) along with a more universal right to bring a case of ecocide against both transnational oil corporations and states that collude with them.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"161 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103880\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002144/pdfft?md5=04426bc84f910b4a9f3f4d41b8f58680&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002144-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002144\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002144","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的一些文章表明,石油公司自 20 世纪 50 年代以来就对其产品对全球环境的影响做出了预测,并证明了这些预测的知识性和准确性。但是,石油公司与国家政府之间的早期关系以及双方在气候问题上缺乏行动是否可以被视为生态灭绝?如果是的话,补救策略应该诉诸更自由的石油市场还是更严格的国家监管?本文在调查作为垄断者的强大政治经济行为者与决策者之间的勾结以及有关 "现代公司与私有财产"(Berle 和 Means,1932/2017)、"新工业国家"(Galbraith,1967)和 "监管的经济理论"(Stigler,1971)的辩论的广泛背景下,回顾了国家、公司和市场之间的争议关系。具体而言,文章探讨了石油公司和国家政府旨在推迟将环境问题纳入政策并避免承担责任的策略。我们采用批判现实主义的定性方法和本体论,对不同时期的文章、报告和国际宣言进行了内容分析。我们发现,不仅石油公司隐瞒了真相,而且知道(或本应知道)石油工业活动构成的威胁、比公司负有更广泛责任的国家政府也没有采取行动,在所谓的石油跨国公司-国家联盟中(至少)负有同样的责任和 "生态破坏 "责任。因此,我们为纠正从市场和国家到公域的演变转变开辟了道路,并将权力嵌入社区(波兰尼,1945 年),同时赋予人们更普遍的权利,对跨国石油公司和与之勾结的国家提起生态灭绝诉讼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early knowledge but delays in climate actions: An ecocide case against both transnational oil corporations and national governments

Recent articles have demonstrated the knowledge and accuracy of oil corporations’ predictions made since the 1950s on the effects of their products on the global environment. But can the early relationship between oil corporations and national governments and lack of climate actions by both actors count as ecocide? If so, should remedial strategies appeal to freer markets for oil or greater state regulation? Cast within the wide context of investigating the collusion at play between powerful political-economic actors and decision-makers as monopolists and debates about ‘the modern corporation and private property’ (Berle and Means, 1932/2017), ‘the new industrial state’ (Galbraith, 1967), and ‘the economic theory of regulation’ (Stigler, 1971), the paper reviews the contentious relationship between states, corporations, and markets. Specifically, the article probes strategies of oil corporations and national governments intended to delay the inclusion of environmental concerns in policies and avoid accountability. Our method of content analysis of articles, reports, and international declarations of different actors and periods relies on a qualitative methodology and ontology of critical realism. We find that not only did oil corporations hide the truth, but also that national governments, that knew (or should have known) about the threat posed by oil industrial activities and which have wider responsibilities than corporations, did not act and are (at least) as responsible and as ‘ecocidal’ in what could be called an oil TNC-state alliance. Accordingly, we open the avenues for redressing an evolutionary shift from markets and states to commons, and embedding power within communities (Polanyi, 1945) along with a more universal right to bring a case of ecocide against both transnational oil corporations and states that collude with them.

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
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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