Suchergebnisse

Cet article analyse, à partir d'un colloque international qui s'est tenu à Paris en 2014, la construction de la confiance à la fois dans les sciences et les politiques du climat. Comment, par quels méthodes et procédés, les communautés de modélisateurs établissent-elles la validité de leurs modèles ? Quel lien existe-t-il entre la confiance dans les simulations numériques du réchauffement et la capacité du système international à prendre en charge le risque climatique ? À partir du constat de l'existence d'un lien intime entre ces différentes formes de confiance, l'article met en cause une conception de l'expertise comme devant rester complètement indépendante du processus politique. Plus généralement, il pose la question d'une « constitution » pour les relations sciences-politiques au niveau global à l'heure où les nouveaux paradigmes de recherche et les paradigmes politiques convergent vers une importance accrue du niveau régional et de l'échelle locale. ; Taking as a starting point the communications at an international conference held in Paris in 2014, the article analyzes the construction of confidence in climate sciences and politics. How, by which methods and procedures, do climate modeling communities establish the validity of their models? What link can be established between the confidence in numerical simulations of global warming and in the capacity of the international system to successfully tackle the climate issue? The article shows that the existence of a close link between these different forms of confidence questions common belief that expertise should be completely separated from the political process. More generally, it examines the necessity of a " constitution " for the science-policy relationship at the global level at a time where new paradigms for research and for policy converge toward increasing importance of regional and local levels. L'année 2009 a été une année mouvementée pour les sciences et les politiques du climat : l'affaire dite du « Climategate », qui trouve ses origines dans le piratage de mails privés de chercheurs (Hulme, 2013), a été le pré-lude d'une attaque en règle contre les méthodes des cli-matologues et le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC). Parallèlement, la confé-rence climatique de Copenhague s'est soldée par un échec, ébranlant la confiance dans la capacité du système

The European leadership strategy in the area of international climate polities consists of two components: numerical objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a European carbon market (ETS) to achieve these reductions. Reexamining the history of the ETS' adoption in the early 2000s helps elucidate the paradox of this tool's rapid promotion. In the 1990s, community institutions had taken a very different stance, with Europe supporting an 'ecotax' project and rejecting recourse to the carbon market and other flexible mechanisms'. Three factors shaped the new direction taken by European climate policies: the emergence in the 1970s of a movement critical of environmental regulation, which, in contrast to market-based tools, was seen as ineffective and excessively rigid by economists and legal scholars; political negotiations between Rio and Kyoto, with their power struggles, uncertainties and the failure of inter-European negotiations regarding a tax-based approach; the debate over the principle of subsidiarity, the particular moment in the European construction in which the Commission ratified the creation of the carbon market. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractClimate change now constitutes a major issue in world politics, intersecting with and shaping many other political domains, and wider patterns of social and economic life. Global climate governance is also no longer restricted to multilateral negotiations under the UN Climate Convention: it increasingly extends beyond the international climate regime toclimatizeother areas of global politics. This concept of climatization points to a powerful but uneven process of extension, translation, and social coordination, as climate change becomes the frame of reference through which other policy issues and forms of global activism are mediated and hierarchized. This special issue brings together contributions on both theoretical aspects and empirical cases of the climatization process. The introduction sets out a conceptual framework to systematize these observations and guide further research. First, we identify the preconditions for, and driving forces behind, climatization. We then sketch the contours of an emergent 'climate logic' that reshapes affected domains, and examine the wider implications of climatization for global politics. Beyond the climate case, we hope this will provide new ways to observe and understand contemporary transformations of global society and global governance.

Climate change now constitutes a major issue in world politics, intersecting with and shaping many other political domains, and wider patterns of social and economic life. Global climate governance is also no longer restricted to multilateral negotiations under the UN Climate Convention: it increasingly extends beyond the international climate regime to climatize other areas of global politics. This concept of climatization points to a powerful but uneven process of extension, translation, and social coordination, as climate change becomes the frame of reference through which other policy issues and forms of global activism are mediated and hierarchized. This special issue brings together contributions on both theoretical aspects and empirical cases of the climatization process. The introduction sets out a conceptual framework to systematize these observations and guide further research. First, we identify the preconditions for, and driving forces behind, climatization. We then sketch the contours of an emergent 'climate logic' that reshapes affected domains, and examine the wider implications of climatization for global politics. Beyond the climate case, we hope this will provide new ways to observe and understand contemporary transformations of global society and global governance.

En Europe, l'Allemagne fait figure de bon élève de la transition énergétique avec près de 50 % de sa consommation d'électricité assurée par les renouvelables. Dans cet entretien, Stefan Aykut discute les conditions politiques de cette décarbonation basée sur des prix de rachat élevés, une très grande décentralisation et sans recours au nucléaire. Il revient aussi sur ses limites : de la non-remise en cause du modèle de consommation au réenchantement technique promu par la nouvelle coalition gouvernementale entre les verts, les sociaux-démocrates et les libéraux.

Introduction : COP21 and the "climatisation" of global debates / Jean Foyer, Stefan C. Aykut, Edouard Morena -- Governing through verbs : the practice of negotiating and the making of a new mode of governance / Stefan C. Aykut -- The necessary and inaccessible 1.5°C objective : a turning point in the relations between climate science and politics? / Hélène Guillemot -- The business voice at COP21 : the quandaries of a global political ambition / Sarah Benabou, Nils Moussu, Birgit Müller -- The ins and outs of climate movement activism at COP21 / Joost de Moor, Edouard Morena, Jean-Baptiste Comby -- Follow the money : climate philanthropy from Kyoto to Paris / Edouard Morena -- The partial climatisation of migration, security and conflict / Lucile Maertens, Alice Baillat -- Climate change, a new "buzzword" for the "perpetual present" of development aid? / Aurore Viard-Crétat, Christophe Buffet -- Objectifying traditional knowledge, re-enchanting the struggle against climate change / Jean Foyer, David Dumoulin -- The end of fossil fuels? : understanding the partial climatisation of energy policy / Stefan C. Aykut, Monica Castro.

AbstractThe 2015 Paris agreement represents a deep-rooted change in global climate governance. While existing scholarly assessments highlight centralinstitutionalfeatures of the Paris shift, they tend to overlook itssymbolic and discursivedimensions. Our analysis shows that the Paris architecture combines two core elements: an iterative pledge and review process to stimulate global climate action, and a 'performative' narrative aimed at aligning actors' expectations on the prospect of a low-carbon future. We therefore suggest calling it anincantatorysystem of governance. We then examine the origins of the new approach and find that the rise of 'soft law' approaches and communicative techniques in global climate governance are both indicative of a broader process: the entry of management culture in international organisations. Against this backdrop, we examine the prospects, limitations and caveats of the new approach and discuss its wider implications for global politics.

International audience ; The 2015 Paris agreement represents a deep-rooted change in global climate governance. While existing scholarly assessments highlight central institutional features of the Paris shift, they tend to overlook its symbolic and discursive dimensions. Our analysis shows that the Paris architecture combines two core elements: an iterative pledge and review process to stimulate global climate action; and a 'performative' narrative aimed at aligning actors' expectations on the prospect of a low-carbon future. We therefore suggest calling it an incantatory system of governance. We then examine the origins of the new approach, and find that the rise of 'soft law' approaches and communicative techniques in global climate governance are both indicative of a broader process: the entry of management culture in international organisations. Against this backdrop, we examine the prospects, limitations and caveats of the new approach and discuss its wider implications for global politics.

The 2015 Paris agreement represents a deep-rooted change in global climate governance. While existing scholarly assessments highlight central institutional features of the Paris shift, they tend to overlook its symbolic and discursive dimensions. Our analysis shows that the Paris architecture combines two core elements: an iterative pledge and review process to stimulate global climate action, and a 'performative' narrative aimed at aligning actors' expectations on the prospect of a low-carbon future. We therefore suggest calling it an incantatory system of governance. We then examine the origins of the new approach and find that the rise of 'soft law' approaches and communicative techniques in global climate governance are both indicative of a broader process: the entry of management culture in international organisations. Against this backdrop, we examine the prospects, limitations and caveats of the new approach and discuss its wider implications for global politics.

International audience ; The 2015 Paris agreement represents a deep-rooted change in global climate governance. While existing scholarly assessments highlight central institutional features of the Paris shift, they tend to overlook its symbolic and discursive dimensions. Our analysis shows that the Paris architecture combines two core elements: an iterative pledge and review process to stimulate global climate action; and a 'performative' narrative aimed at aligning actors' expectations on the prospect of a low-carbon future. We therefore suggest calling it an incantatory system of governance. We then examine the origins of the new approach, and find that the rise of 'soft law' approaches and communicative techniques in global climate governance are both indicative of a broader process: the entry of management culture in international organisations. Against this backdrop, we examine the prospects, limitations and caveats of the new approach and discuss its wider implications for global politics.

International audience ; Anticipatory expertise has become an indispensable core ingredient of contemporary attempts to govern complex problem. It has also become a field of contention, wherein a variety of technologies of knowledge production, social groups, and visions of the future coexist and compete. Indeed, the production of predictions and forecasts for public policy is not only an epistemic endeavour, but also an intrinsically contested and political activity. The special issue builds on ongoing scholarly discussions about anticipatory knowledge and its 'performativity' on policy and governance, to take a fresh look at the politics of anticipatory expertise.

International audience ; Anticipatory expertise has become an indispensable core ingredient of contemporary attempts to govern complex problem. It has also become a field of contention, wherein a variety of technologies of knowledge production, social groups, and visions of the future coexist and compete. Indeed, the production of predictions and forecasts for public policy is not only an epistemic endeavour, but also an intrinsically contested and political activity. The special issue builds on ongoing scholarly discussions about anticipatory knowledge and its 'performativity' on policy and governance, to take a fresh look at the politics of anticipatory expertise.

International audience Anticipatory expertise has become an indispensable core ingredient of contemporary attempts to govern complex problem. It has also become a field of contention, wherein a variety of technologies of knowledge production, social groups, and visions of the future coexist and compete. Indeed, the production of predictions and forecasts for public policy is not only an epistemic endeavour, but also an intrinsically contested and political activity. The special issue builds on ongoing scholarly discussions about anticipatory knowledge and its 'performativity' on policy and governance, to take a fresh look at the politics of anticipatory expertise.