The dangers of climate emergencies (original) (raw)

Climate emergencies do not justify engineering the climate

Nature Climate Change, 2015

Current climate engineering proposals do not come close to addressing the complex and contested nature of conceivable 'climate emergencies' resulting from unabated greenhouse-gas emissions. Continuing business-as-usual with regards to greenhouse-gas emissions will increase the likelihood of 'dangerous' climate changes. In response to this risk, Crutzen argued in 2006 that a 5 °C warmer world will probably have catastrophic consequences and that the only way out may be to engineer the Earth's climate by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere. The possibility of a future 'climate emergency' has subsequently been used to justify research on climate engineering — the deliberate modification of the Earth's climate. Over time, the emergency framing has evolved to become a central argument for why we should consider investigating solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, which reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed at the Earth's surface. But whether SRM can possibly prevent or counteract a climate emergency raises the more fundamental question of what a climate emergency actually is.

Declaring climate change emergency.

Declaring Climate Change Emergency. How far the Extinction Rebellion movement challenges the politics of resource scarcity and environmental determinism, 2019

Climate change is widely accepted as the challenge of the 21st century. However, while the scientific community and the civil society are asking for more concrete actions and policies, government and international institutions struggle to support these requests and try to postpone as much as possible decisive measures. In 2016 Darebin City Council, Victoria, Australia declared a climate emergency. In the last few months, several U.K. city councils follow the example, and on 1st May 2019 U.K. became the first country to declare a climate emergency. At least 966 jurisdictions in 18 countries, covering 212 million of citizens, have declared a climate emergency in the last two years, according to The Climate Emergency Declaration and Mobilisation campaign. While it is not clear what a declaration of emergency means in terms of governments decisions and policies, this research will analyse the narrative and the politics that brought to the declaration of emergency in the UK. In this regard, the attempt is to help in shedding a light on the current narratives around climate change and their implications. My study will challenge the narratives of Extinction Rebellion in the UK, relating them to the environmental determinist theories of environmental security and resource scarcity, narrative and effects.

'This is an emergency' -proposals for a collective response to the climate crisis

British Gestalt Journal, 2019

Earlier this year the UK Government declared a climate emergency. More and more organisations have followed suit, including local councils, universities and some businesses. What does this mean for the psychotherapy profession and how do we meet the threat that is at the heart of the phenomenal field itself? Can we continue with business as usual or do we need to change the figure in conditions that fundamentally change the ground that we have taken for granted? This article explores the threshold moment that we find ourselves in, gives an overview of the current thinking on eco-anxiety, solastalgia and the trauma responses that are connected with the demise of our ecosystem. It proposes that we find ourselves in a malignant state of normality and suggests that we urgently need to develop ways to re-ensoul the culture that is costing us the Earth. It tentatively explores the conditions that may be needed to develop a psychology of the environment and proposes a practical starting point-namely for the international Gestalt community to declare a climate emergency and to attend to the phenomenal field itself.

Climate crisis? The politics of emergency framing

Groups opposing climate change have been springing up in many countries, constituting a climate change movement. Quite a few writers and movement leaders see climate change as an emergency that requires urgent action by governments to bring the problem under control. However, framing climate change as an emergency has several potential disadvantages. It may implicitly prioritise climate change over other important social issues. It can orient the movement toward government-led solutions, even though most governments are less supportive of action than their populations, rather than building popular support for long-term efforts. Finally, emergency framing may be counterproductive: it can disempower citizens because the problem seems too big, whereas providing practical opportunities for action is a better long-term approach.

Climate Change and the Politics of Apocalyptic Redirection

Political Studies Review

Alison McQueen's study of the historical role of apocalyptic ideas in realist political theory cautiously proposes the 'redirection' of apocalyptic thought as a plausible alternative to its rejection. Apocalyptic redirection, so understood, uses apocalyptic language to describe potential future catastrophes in order to inspire drastic action to prevent them. Although McQueen acknowledges that apocalyptic redirection may have certain risks, she suggests it may be an appropriate response to the crisis of climate change. In this article, I aim to show that this use of the discourse of apocalyptic redirection is ideologically problematic. I argue that it involves conflating the interests of those who are at least moderately materially comfortable with the interests of humanity as a whole. I will also draw on the 2019 “Stop Adani Convoy” in Australia as a case study to show how the ideological character of this discourse renders it ill-suited to generating popular support for action on climate change, and liable to reproduce existing power relations.

Politics for the day after tomorrow: The logic of apocalypse in global climate politics

2012

The recent global climate change discourse is a prominent example of a securitization of environmental issues. While the problem is often framed in the language of existentialism, crisis or even apocalypse, climate discourses rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather put forth a governmental scheme of piecemeal and technocratic solutions often associated with risk management. This article argues that this seeming paradox is no accident but follows from a politics of apocalypse that combines two logics – those of security and risk – which in critical security studies are often treated as two different animals. Drawing on the hegemony theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, however, this article shows that the two are inherently connected. In the same way as the Christian pastorate could not do without apocalyptic imageries, today’s micro-politics of risk depends on a series of macro-securitizations that enable and legitimize the governmental machinery. This claim is backed up by an inquiry into current global discourses of global climate change regarding mitigation, adaptation and security implications. Although these discourses are often framed through the use of apocalyptic images, they rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather advance a governmental scheme of risk management. Tracing the relationship between security and risk in these discourses, we use the case of climate change to highlight the relevance of our theoretical argument.