Search results

El cambio climático ha sido objeto de estudio frecuente desde distintos ámbitos de las ciencias sociales en las últimas décadas, también desde la comunicación. Gracias a ello, se ha generado una cada vez más abundante evidencia de la realidad compleja que se esconde tras la inacción política al respecto. Sin embargo, a la hora de comunicar esta realidad, los medios de comunicación, y una parte de la academia, han tendido a simplificar esta complejidad poniendo el foco en el contramovimiento climático y el negacionismo literal del fenómeno. Este contramovimiento ha sido abundantemente estudiado en los Estados Unidos, lo que ha puesto en evidencia la existencia de un negacionismo del cambio climático antropogénico muy influyente en ese país. Pero la investigación académica ha hecho también evidente que la inacción política al respecto del clima no puede explicarse solo con el concepto de negacionismo; ni en los Estados Unidos, ni mucho menos en Europa. En este artículo problematizamos el uso del concepto negacionismo en su uso indiscriminado actual y sugerimos incorporar un marco conceptual y de análisis más sofisticado, que aporte más matices y se alinee con las evidencias de la investigación académica. Se trata no solo de comunicar de forma crítica la realidad de la inacción política con respecto al clima sino de hacerlo también identificando todo el espectro real de responsabilidades, que no se reducen a negar o no negar el cambio climático ; Climate change has been the subject of much research in various fields of the social sciences in recent decades, including that of communication. As a result, much evidence has been accumulated on the complex reality behind political inaction in this regard. However, when it comes to communicating this reality, the media, and part of academia, have tended to simplify this complexity by focusing on the climate countermovement and literal denialism of the phenomenon. This countermovement has been extensively studied in the United States, revealing the existence of a highly influential anthropogenic climate change denialism in that country. However, academic research has also shown that political inaction on the climate cannot be explained by denialism alone; not in the United States, and much less in Europe. In this article, we question the current indiscriminate use of the concept of denialism and suggest the incorporation of a more sophisticated conceptual and analytical framework that provides more nuance and aligns with the evidence emerging from academic research. It is a matter not only of critically communicating the reality of political inaction with regard to the climate, but also of identifying the entire spectrum of responsibilities, which are not limited to simply denying or not denying climate change. ; Este trabajo ha sido financiado por la Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) y el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) (CSO2016-78421-R), y por el Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (FPU18/04207).

Current international climate governance from a risk-political perspective points to a paradoxical moment in world risk society. While the probability of negative climate impacts increases and we can see the emergence of a common risk perception among international decision-makers, nation states in the international climate regime fail to agree on effective preventive measures that could mitigate the harming effects of global warming. While at the discursive level climate change is constructed as one of the major risks in the twenty-first century, the focus in international climate governance remains on voluntary measures and market-based instruments. Drawing on discourse theory, this paradox can be explained as the outcome of a discursive struggle in climate politics. Risk, in this perspective, is a political technology to govern the future that is embedded within broader political rationalities. Until 2007, risk management in climate governance was established as a form of advanced liberal government based on individualisation and self-responsibility. The growing consensus on dangerous climate change ultimately reinforces this advanced liberal risk management by presenting climate change as a 'naturalised' de-bounded risk and blurring its socio-economic causes.

This Open Access book presents a multidisciplinary perspective to increase our understanding of climate policies that are rooted in the natural moral inclinations of people, families and firms. Which policies prevent a widening gap between higher and lower educated people? Which policy instruments are there, and how could they be used? What is the role of free entrepreneurship? In this book, academics from different fields have brought together their knowledge and expertise to reflect on the following three questions: How are the polarised positions on climate change of different groups related to their moral outlook, world view, tradition, cultural norms and values? What is a good distribution of responsibilities between firms, households and the government relating to climate change? What are possible avenues where the climate policies are a natural extension of moral inclinations of families and firms, such as the stewardship for the natural environment and the climate? This book will be of interest to policy and decision-makers, students of social and behavioural sciences, and those interested climate change policies and how this effects our lives.

This book provides a new approach to thinking about the politics and geographies of climate governance. It argues that in order to understand the nature and potential of the range of new responses to climate change emerging at multiple scales we need to examine how governance is accomplished - how it is undertaken, practised and contested. Through a range of case studies drawn from communities, corporations and local government, the book examines how climate change comes to be governed and made to matter as an issue with which diverse publics should be concerned. It concludes that rather than seeking the solution to climate change once and for all, we need to engage with the ways in which we can channel our intentions to ameliorate the climate problem to more progressive ends.

"An unbiased and comprehensive overview, based on the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Using no jargon, it looks at tackling and adapting to man-made climate change, and works through the often confusing potential solutions. Bert Metz is the former co-chair of the IPCC, at the center of international climate change negotiations. His insider expertise provides a cutting edge assessment of issues at the top of the political agenda. He leads the reader succinctly through ambitious mitigation scenarios, in combination with adapting our future societies to different climate conditions and the potential costs of these measures. Illustrations and extensive boxed examples motivate students to engage with this essential global debate, and questions for each chapter are available online for course instructors. Minimal technical language also makes this book valuable to anyone with an interest in action to combat climate change"--Provided by publisher

What are the manifest and likely future consequences of climate change? How will the world respond to the challenges of climate change in the twenty-first century? How should people think about confronting the politics of climate change? In this highly accessible introduction to the predicted global impacts of climate change, Constance Lever-Tracy provides an authoritative guide to one of the most controversial issues facing the future of our planet. Discussing how the social and natural sciences must work together more effectively in confronting climate change, Lever-Tracy provides a sober, critical assessment of the politics of global warming and climate change. By combining sociology, environmental studies and politics, Confronting Climate Change will serve as an introduction that will appeal to students and general readers alike.

Existing 'climate change' policy instruments should be withdrawn. Climate science cannot provide the knowledge that is needed to justify them. Anthropogenic global warming is a putative interpersonal conflict rather than market failure. Where property rights need protecting, tort litigation on the basis of strict liability is appropriate. By providing a public arena for the competitive testing of scientific hypotheses, such litigation would also promote the advancement of climate science.

While Arctic sea ice continues to melt, down in the Antarctic, ice is actually accumulating -- and at record levels. Capping off an anomalously high three-year trend, September 2014 saw 7.76 million square miles covered in ice; that's more than 500,000 square miles above the average documented between 1981 and 2010. Glaciologist Ted Scambos and his colleagues are trying to figure out what, exactly, is happening. A senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Scambos has been tramping around the Antarctic since the 1990s. Scambos's next big trip likely will be to a ridge on the East Antarctic Plateau, thought to be the coldest place on Earth. Foreign Policy recently caught up with Scambos to learn what is required to live and work at the bottom of the world. Adapted from the source document.

The challenges posed by climate change - the impact of which extends from small remote island villages to the entire planet - demand collective action by governments, industries, and societies at large. The private sector, equipped with significant financial resources and a commitment to innovation, has a leading role to play in the urgent global effort to reduce the negative effects of climate change and create a thriving zero-carbon economy of the future. Private sector engagement in climate action can take many forms, from the development of new technologies and financial instruments to participation in policy development. When governments establish inclusive dialogues with representatives of the private sector as well as international organizations, civil society, and communities, they can produce more integrated and comprehensive strategies for addressing this crisis. To support countries as they implement the Paris Agreement, a group of public and private sector partners has come together to develop six fundamental principles to support the establishment and enhancement of climate dialogue at all levels - global, regional, national, and local. These principles are focused on bringing the public and private sectors together as a single, well-structured platform from which to identify challenges and implement solutions for climate change issues. Guidelines for the six dialogue for climate action (D4CA) principles are: principle 1, urgency; principle 2, inclusion; principle 3, awareness; principle 4, efficiency; principle 5, transparency; and principle 6, accountability.

2021's Conference of Parties, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26), is crucially important as governments—for the first time since the Paris Agreement—are expected to agree on concrete commitments and greater ambitions to limit global warming to 1·5°C. COP26 President-Designate Alok Sharma stated that delivery of US$100 billion in climate finance is going to be the key to whether the goals of COP26 succeed or fail. At the same time, people worldwide have started acknowledging the impacts of the climate crisis on peace and security—otherwise called the climate security nexus.1, 2 The concern then becomes where and how objectives and investments in adaptation and peacebuilding can be aligned, and how trade-offs between climate finance, peace, and security can be minimised or avoided.