影响制定和实施国家温室气体清单方法的因素

IF 3.1 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
L. Yona, B. Cashore, M. Bradford
{"title":"影响制定和实施国家温室气体清单方法的因素","authors":"L. Yona, B. Cashore, M. Bradford","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In contrast to its Assessment Reports, less is known about the social science processes through which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions reporting. This limited attention is problematic, as these greenhouse gas inventories are critical components for identifying, justifying, and adjudicating national-level mitigation commitments. We begin to fill this gap by descriptively assessing, drawing on data triangulation that incorporates ecological and political analysis, the historical process for developing emissions guidelines. Our systematic descriptive efforts highlight processes and structures through which inventories might become disconnected from the latest peer-reviewed environmental science. To illustrate this disconnect, we describe the IPCC guideline process, outlining themes that may contribute to discrepancies, such as diverging logics and timeframes, discursive power, procedural lock-in, resource constraints, organizational interests, and complexity. The themes reflect challenges to greenhouse gas inventories themselves, as well as broader challenges to integrating climate change science and policy. Highlights This article provides an illustrative analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline process There is evidence for substantive discrepancies between empirical literature and these guidelines Particularly for forest soil organic carbon reporting, inventory guidelines are influenced by a multitude of political and scientific actors Explanations for these discrepancies merit further inquiry, and include institutional lock-in, political influence, discursive power, resource constraints, and world views","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing the development and implementation of national greenhouse gas inventory methodologies\",\"authors\":\"L. Yona, B. Cashore, M. Bradford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In contrast to its Assessment Reports, less is known about the social science processes through which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions reporting. This limited attention is problematic, as these greenhouse gas inventories are critical components for identifying, justifying, and adjudicating national-level mitigation commitments. We begin to fill this gap by descriptively assessing, drawing on data triangulation that incorporates ecological and political analysis, the historical process for developing emissions guidelines. Our systematic descriptive efforts highlight processes and structures through which inventories might become disconnected from the latest peer-reviewed environmental science. To illustrate this disconnect, we describe the IPCC guideline process, outlining themes that may contribute to discrepancies, such as diverging logics and timeframes, discursive power, procedural lock-in, resource constraints, organizational interests, and complexity. The themes reflect challenges to greenhouse gas inventories themselves, as well as broader challenges to integrating climate change science and policy. Highlights This article provides an illustrative analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline process There is evidence for substantive discrepancies between empirical literature and these guidelines Particularly for forest soil organic carbon reporting, inventory guidelines are influenced by a multitude of political and scientific actors Explanations for these discrepancies merit further inquiry, and include institutional lock-in, political influence, discursive power, resource constraints, and world views\",\"PeriodicalId\":20397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Design and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与其评估报告相比,人们对政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)制定温室气体排放报告方法的社会科学过程知之甚少。这种有限的关注是有问题的,因为这些温室气体清单是确定、证明和裁决国家一级减排承诺的关键组成部分。我们开始通过描述性评估来填补这一空白,利用结合生态和政治分析的数据三角测量法,制定排放指南的历史过程。我们系统的描述工作强调了清单可能与最新同行评议的环境科学脱节的过程和结构。为了说明这种脱节,我们描述了IPCC指南过程,概述了可能导致差异的主题,如不同的逻辑和时间框架、话语权力、程序锁定、资源约束、组织利益和复杂性。这些主题反映了温室气体清单本身所面临的挑战,以及将气候变化科学与政策相结合所面临的更广泛挑战。本文对政府间气候变化专门委员会的温室气体清单指南过程进行了说明性分析。有证据表明,经验文献与这些指南之间存在实质性差异,特别是在森林土壤有机碳报告方面,清单指南受到众多政治和科学行为者的影响,这些差异的解释值得进一步探究,包括制度锁定。政治影响、话语权、资源约束和世界观
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors influencing the development and implementation of national greenhouse gas inventory methodologies
Abstract In contrast to its Assessment Reports, less is known about the social science processes through which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces methodologies for greenhouse gas emissions reporting. This limited attention is problematic, as these greenhouse gas inventories are critical components for identifying, justifying, and adjudicating national-level mitigation commitments. We begin to fill this gap by descriptively assessing, drawing on data triangulation that incorporates ecological and political analysis, the historical process for developing emissions guidelines. Our systematic descriptive efforts highlight processes and structures through which inventories might become disconnected from the latest peer-reviewed environmental science. To illustrate this disconnect, we describe the IPCC guideline process, outlining themes that may contribute to discrepancies, such as diverging logics and timeframes, discursive power, procedural lock-in, resource constraints, organizational interests, and complexity. The themes reflect challenges to greenhouse gas inventories themselves, as well as broader challenges to integrating climate change science and policy. Highlights This article provides an illustrative analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s greenhouse gas inventory guideline process There is evidence for substantive discrepancies between empirical literature and these guidelines Particularly for forest soil organic carbon reporting, inventory guidelines are influenced by a multitude of political and scientific actors Explanations for these discrepancies merit further inquiry, and include institutional lock-in, political influence, discursive power, resource constraints, and world views
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
Policy Design and Practice
Policy Design and Practice PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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