Advertisement

In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris

  • Bård Lahn
Original Paper

Abstract

The Paris Agreement is built on a tension between the common goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C and the differentiation that follows from the principle of equity. Scientific expertise is commonly seen as providing important means to overcome this tension, for example in the Agreement’s “global stocktake”, which is said to be undertaken “in the light of equity and the best available science”. This raises the question of how scholarly communities best can contribute to deliberations on equitable differentiation in the effort required to meet common temperature goals. To discuss this question, the paper looks to the literature within Science and Technology Studies on the role of science in policymaking, where disagreement exists over the merits of “heating up” controversies through politicization, versus “cooling down” issues by seeking consensus. It assesses two cases in which scientific expertise has engaged with questions of equitable effort-sharing in international climate politics: The “Bali Box” of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and the “Civil Society Equity Review” undertaken prior to COP21 in Paris. Based on a comparison of the two cases, it is argued that scientific contributions should not shy away from highlighting conflicts in values and interests, and that “heating up” discussions about climate justice may be a valuable contribution to overcoming the tensions of the Paris Agreement.

Keywords

Paris Agreement Science/policy Climate justice North/South equity Politicization/depoliticization 

Abbreviations

AR4

Fourth Assessment Report (of the IPCC)

CERP

Climate Equity Reference Project

COP

Conference of the Parties (to the UNFCCC)

INDC

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

STS

Science and Technology Studies

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Göran Sundqvist, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. This work has been carried out as part of CICEP – Strategic Challenges in International Climate and Energy Policy, funded by the Research Council of Norway (Project No. 209701).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. ActionAid, APMDD, CAN South Asia et al. (2015). Fair shares: A civil society equity review of INDCs. Report, November 2015. http://civilsocietyreview.org/report. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.
  2. Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S., & Kemp-Benedict, E. (2008). The right to development in a climate constrained world: The Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. Sociological Review, 46(S1), 244–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cassegård, C., Soneryd, L., Thörn, H., & Wettergren, Å. (Eds.). (2017). Climate action in a globalizing world: Comparative perspectives on environmental movements in the Global North. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chatterton, P., Featherstone, D., & Routledge, P. (2012). Articulating climate justice in Copenhagen: Antagonism, the commons, and solidarity. Antipode, 45(3), 602–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01025.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem at large. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 307–337. doi: 10.1111/0004-5608.00245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. den Elzen, M., & Höhne, N. (2008). Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets. Climatic Change, 91(3), 249–274. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9484-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goeminne, G. (2012). Lost in translation: Climate denial and the return of the political. Global Environmental Politics, 12(2), 1–8. doi: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gupta, J., & Arts, K. (2017). Achieving the 1.5 °C objective: Just implementation through a right to (sustainable) development approach. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9376-7.
  14. Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., et al. (2007). Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Holz, C., Kartha, S., & Athanasiou, T. (2017). Fairly sharing 1.5: National fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9371-z.
  16. Höhne, N., & Ellerman, C. (2008). The EU’s emission reduction target, intended use of CDM and its +2 °C. Note IP/A/ENVI/NT/2008–14. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  17. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  18. Klinsky, S., & Dowlabati, H. (2009). Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy, 9, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klinsky, S., et al. (2017). Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change, 44, 170–173. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lahn, B., & Sundqvist, G. (2017). Science as a ‘fixed point’? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics. Environmental Science & Policy, 67, 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lahsen, M. (2004). Transnational locals. In S. Jasanoff & M. L. Mortello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 151–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248. doi: 10.1086/421123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Machin, A. (2013). Negotiating climate change: Radical democracy and the illusion of consensus. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  25. McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In Sheila Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 46–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Okereke, C. (2010). Climate justice and the international regime. WIREs Climate Change, 1(3), 462–474. doi: 10.1002/wcc.52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pepermans, Y., & Maeseele, P. (2016). The politicization of climate change: Problem or solution? WIREs Climate Change, 7, 478–485. doi: 10.1002/wcc.405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretive possibilities and underlying politics. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65, 493–514. doi: 10.1017/S0020589316000130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., & Underdal, A. (2002). Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1023/A:1015041613785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sarewitz, D. (2000). Science and environmental policy: An excess of objectivity. In R. E. Frodeman & V. R. Baker (Eds.), Earth Matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of community (pp. 79–98). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. SEI (2016). SEI U.S. center 2016 annual report. Stockholm Environment Institute. http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-US-AnnualReport-2016.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2017.
  36. Shaw, C. (2015). The two degrees dangerous limit for climate change: Public understanding and decision making. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Sundqvist, G. (2014). ‘Heating up’ or ‘cooling down’? Analysing and performing broadened participation in technoscientific conflicts. Environment & Planning A, 46, 2065–2079. doi: 10.1068/a4611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232. doi: 10.1177/0263276409358728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voigt, C., & Ferreira, F. (2016). ‘Dynamic differentiation’: the principles of CBDR-RC, progression and highest possible ambition in the Paris Agreement. Transnational Environmental Law, 5(2), 285–303. doi: 10.1017/S2047102516000212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winkler, H., Höhne, N., & Cunliffe, G., et al. (2017). Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair—more rigour needed. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. (Forthcoming in this issue.)Google Scholar
  41. Winkler, H., Vorster, S., & Marquard, A. (2009). Who picks up the remainder? Mitigation in developed and developing countries. Climate Policy, 9(6), 634–651. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wynne, B. (2010). Strange weather, again: Climate science as political art. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 289–305. doi: 10.1177/0263276410361499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CICERO Center for International Climate ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations