Knowledge Pluralism [and Climate Governance] (original) (raw)
Related papers
Climate change, governance and knowledge
In the 1998 Jerry Bruckheimer blockbuster movie Armageddon humanity is faced with the most serious threat: an asteroid the size of Texas is on a collision course with the earth. The effects of such a collision would be nothing short of disastrous: the end of the world as we know it. In this situation people do the obvious: they turn to a hero (naturally: Bruce Willis) who eventually saves the planet. If one believes in the IPCC reports and listens to the speakers at the numerous climate summits in the past two decades humanity is facing an equally serious crisis: the dangers and risks of anthropogenic climate change. 1 Unlike the impact of an asteroid, the effects of climate change are not immediately catastrophic. Likewise, it is hard to attribute a particular disaster (say an extreme weather occurrence such as flood or a drought) to climate change. Nevertheless, anthropogenic climate change brings about extraordinary dangers. Another deviation from the Hollywood script is the notable (some might say deplorable) absence of a hero. Decisive policy action is still lacking and progress in international climate negotiations is slow, fragile and, sometimes , thwarted by short-term national interest. Discussions about the governance of climate change in the coming decades increasingly appeal to the strong probability of exceptional dangers that modern societies are bound to face in the not too distant future, unless drastic and immediate action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world.
Climate Science for Policy? The knowledge politics of the IPCC after Copenhagen
2018
The rise of climate change as an issue of global concern has rested on scientific representation and understanding of the causes and impacts of, and responses to climatic change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in particular, has been central to how climate change has become known as a global political problem. This thesis aims to critically examine the production, negotiation, and stabilisation of policy-relevant knowledge in international climate politics. It takes the IPCC as a global stage on which the knowledge politics of climate change plays out, drawing attention to the performative interactions which shape the relationship between knowledge production processes and policy making at the global level. Informed by social constructivist accounts, particularly from within the social studies of science, this thesis builds on the notion that science and politics can never be truly separated from each other, rather, they are co-produced. In turn politics is no...
Climate Change and Knowledge Politics
This paper addresses the paradox that although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached a broad consensus, various governments pursue different, if not opposing policies. This puzzle not only challenges the traditional belief that scientific knowledge is objective and can be more or less directly translated into political action, but also calls for a better understanding of the relation between science and public policy in modern society. Based on the conceptual framework of knowledge politics the use of expert knowledge in public discourse and in political decisions will be analysed. This will be carried out through a country comparison between the United States and Germany. The main finding is that the press in both countries relies on different sources of scientific expertise when reporting on global warming. In a similar way, governments in both countries use these different sources for legitimising their contrasting policies.
In the aftermath of the failure that was the twentieth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 20) in Lima, Peru, how are we to imagine (let alone actually construct) a more effective as well as more democratic climate regime? There is little indication that the next COP in Paris will be any different; dissensus, con-testation, and inertia characterize the global climate regime despite increasing popular interest and grassroots activism on climate policies. The authors of Democratizing Global Climate Governance seem fully aware of the need for inclusion and deliberation on policies of global warming. Not only do they provide a timely intervention to debates in IR relating to authoritarian and/or ecologically hostile responses to climate change, but they also provide compelling evidence that a UNFCCC reformed with deliberative ideals could be an efficacious starting point to address the climate crisis. The book's core purpose is to investigate how deliberative democratic gov-ernance can respond to the various challenges that humanity faces as the climate crisis deepens. To do this, the authors analyze the main premises and conditions of deliberation, particularly authenticity and reflexivity (as proposed by a long line of scholars working on deliberative models of democracy) and propose their inclusion in climate governance. This empirical work focuses mainly on the existing international regime on climate change and its various loci, thereby going beyond the UNFCCC. Governance networks, public–private partnerships, climate activism, and popular initiatives are studied systematically from a deliberative governance perspective. Stevenson and Dryzek begin by problematizing claims that democracy is either not feasible or not desirable in global (climate) governance. First they discredit what they call " the authoritarian temptation " (p. 5–6): the suggestion that climate change is a super-wicked problem and therefore democracy must be put on hold for a while. They point to the necessity of democracy for effective problem-solving and the implausibility of global authoritarianism. They note that authoritarianism often results in less environmental protection and that reflective public opinion favors a stronger climate regime. Second, the authors question the arguments of mainstream governance and IR that object to democracy in the international system. While prominent democratic theorists and IR scholars argue that " democracy is something that can be an aspiration for the
The role of boundary organisations in the social status of climate change knowledge
"Abstract A plethora of institutional forms has emerged whose remit is to link climate change science topolicy-making. These can be understood as boundary organisations where science and politics meet and intertwine. This article examines the role of boundary organisations in the production and social status of climate change knowledge. A multi-level conceptual model is outlined which demonstrates how context is crucial to understanding the operation and impact of boundary organisations. The framework is applied to analyse climate governance boundary arrangements at the international level and a number of national contexts. In the framing years of the global climate change issue, IPPC and other (inter)national boundary organisations were set up for addressing a (moderately) structured problem, instead of geared to an as yet full-blown wicked problem. IPPC was in fact designed as ‘certification machine’ and ‘scientific trigger’ to depoliticize a multilateral international agreement and its supposedly smooth implementation. Boundary arrangements at national levels showed cognitive and institutional isomorphic responses; the highly instrumental nature of boundary arrangements, organisations and projects stands out. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that ‘one size fits all’ policy instruments such as Kyoto may not be the best mechanism for dealing with climate change. We therefore end with a call for boundary work in climate change governance to provide pluralized strategic advice, conceptual clarification, and critical deconstruction of issues of uncertainty and normativity. In order to open up debate again it should be more problem- than solution-orientation and influence different agendas in different parts of the world."