Suchergebnisse

The Anthropocene is fundamentally altering concepts of human agency and responsibility in the governance of the Earth system. These concepts are paramount in discussions about governing deliberate interventions into the global climate – often referred to as 'climate engineering'. Reflections on what it might mean for humanity to 'play God' by controlling the climate have brought religious knowledge to bear in these discussions. Using climate engineering as a paradigmatic example of human interventions which may come to define the Anthropocene, this paper presents a sociology-of-knowledge discourse analysis of interviews with environmentally active multi-faith leaders and scholars. Showing how green religious discourse provides a blueprint for a governmentality of Socio-Ecological Care (SEC), the paper argues that religious knowledge has a role to play alongside other global systems of knowledge in reconceptualising the who, what, why and how of responsible and sustainable Earth system governance in the Anthropocene.

In addition to mitigation and adaptation as strategies for governing climate futures, a third way of responding to climate change is now emerging: Intentional intervention into the global climate, often termed 'climate engineering' (CE). There is a growing awareness that formal governance of some types of CE is going to be needed in the coming years, and that informal governance is already being shaped by the discourses and practices of CE research and assessment. Increased attention is being paid to the types of scientific and societal discourses shaping the emergence of CE governance. Contributing to this literature, this thesis asks how the discursive construction of CE governance is taking place in science, industry, civil society, and politics. The project emphasises that, as discourse is the source code with which contested futures are written, 'cracking the discursive code' underpinning the CE governance debate can help critically anticipate the emergence of future governance practices and infrastructures. In this vein, the thesis peruses several interrelated aims: (1) Exploring a framework for shifting the analytical perspective on the role of discourse in (CE) governance development processes; (2) Anticipating and critically reflecting upon how given discursive structures may be making certain types of CE governance more/less thinkable and practicable, (3) emancipating those engaging in the CE governance debate to recognize and expand the bounds of the discursive structures they are reproducing, and (4) informing the design of participatory processes to further "open up" discursive diversity in CE governance development.

The Anthropocene is fundamentally altering concepts of human agency and responsibility in the governance of the Earth system. These concepts are paramount in discussions about governing deliberate interventions into the global climate – often referred to as 'climate engineering'. Reflections on what it might mean for humanity to 'play God' by controlling the climate have brought religious knowledge to bear in these discussions. Using climate engineering as a paradigmatic example of human interventions which may come to define the Anthropocene, this paper presents a sociology-of-knowledge discourse analysis of interviews with environmentally active multi-faith leaders and scholars. Showing how green religious discourse provides a blueprint for a governmentality of Socio-Ecological Care (SEC), the paper argues that religious knowledge has a role to play alongside other global systems of knowledge in reconceptualising the who, what, why and how of responsible and sustainable Earth system governance in the Anthropocene.

An era (2005–2015) centered around the Copenhagen Accord saw the rise of several immature sociotechnical strategies currently at play: carbon capture and storage, REDD+, next-generation biofuels, shale gas, short-lived climate pollutants, carbon dioxide removal, and solar radiation management. Through a framework grounded in governmentality studies, we point out common trends in how this seemingly disparate range of strategies is emerging, evolving, and taking effect. We find that recent sociotechnical strategies reflect and reinforce governance rationalities emerging during the Copenhagen era: regime polycentrism, relative gains sought in negotiations, 'co-benefits' sought with other governance regimes, 'time-buying' or 'bridging' rationalities, and appeals to vulnerable demographics. However, these sociotechnical systems remain conditioned by the resilient market governmentality of the Kyoto Protocol era. Indeed, the carbon economy exercises a systemic structuring condition: While emerging climate strategies ostensibly present new tracks for signalling ambition and action, they functionally permit the delaying of comprehensive decarbonization.

The Anthropocene is giving rise to novel challenges for global environmental governance. The barriers and opportunities shaping the ways in which some of these complex environmental challenges become governable on the global level are of increasing academic and practical relevance. In this article, we bring neo-institutionalist and post-structuralist perspectives together in an innovative framework to analyse how both institutional and discursive structures together bound and shape the global governance opportunities which become thinkable and practicable in the face of new global environmental challenges. We apply this framework to explore how governance of climate engineering – large scale, deliberate invention into the global climate system – is being shaped by discursive and institutional structures in three international forums: The London Convention and its Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Environment Assembly. We illustrate that the 'degree of fit' between discursive and institutional structures made climate engineering (un)governable in each of these forums. Furthermore, we find that the 'type of fit' set the discursive and institutional conditions of possibility for what type of governance emerged in each of these cases. Based on our findings, we critically discuss the implications for the future governance of climate engineering at the global level.

As the technical and political challenges of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches become more apparent, the oceans may be the new "blue" frontier for carbon drawdown strategies in climate governance. Drawing on lessons learnt from the way terrestrial carbon dioxide removal emerged, we explore increasing overall attention to marine environments and mCDR projects, and how this could manifest in four entwined knowledge systems and governance sectors. We consider how developments within and between these "frontiers" could result in different futures—where hype and over-promising around marine carbon drawdown could enable continued time-buying for the carbon economy without providing significant removals, or where reforms to modeling practices, policy development, innovation funding, and legal governance could seek co-benefits between ocean protection, economy, and climate.

As the technical and political challenges of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches become more apparent, the oceans may be the new "blue" frontier for carbon drawdown strategies in climate governance. Drawing on lessons learnt from the way terrestrial carbon dioxide removal emerged, we explore increasing overall attention to marine environments and mCDR projects, and how this could manifest in four entwined knowledge systems and governance sectors. We consider how developments within and between these "frontiers" could result in different futures—where hype and over-promising around marine carbon drawdown could enable continued time-buying for the carbon economy without providing significant removals, or where reforms to modeling practices, policy development, innovation funding, and legal governance could seek co-benefits between ocean protection, economy, and climate.

As the technical and political challenges of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches become more apparent, the oceans may be the new "blue" frontier for carbon drawdown strategies in climate governance. Drawing on lessons learnt from the way terrestrial carbon dioxide removal emerged, we explore increasing overall attention to marine environments and mCDR projects, and how this could manifest in four entwined knowledge systems and governance sectors. We consider how developments within and between these "frontiers" could result in different futures—where hype and over-promising around marine carbon drawdown could enable continued time-buying for the carbon economy without providing significant removals, or where reforms to modeling practices, policy development, innovation funding, and legal governance could seek co-benefits between ocean protection, economy, and climate.

Since net zero targets have become a keystone of climate policy, more thought is being given to actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while con­tinu­ing to drastically reduce emissions. The ocean plays a major role in regulating the global climate by absorbing a large proportion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emis­sions. As the challenges of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches are increasingly recognised, the ocean may become the new "blue" frontier for carbon removal and storage strategies in the EU and beyond. However, the ocean is not an "open frontier"; rather, it is a domain of overlapping and sometimes conflicting rights and obligations. There is a tension between the sovereign right of states to use ocean resources within their exclusive economic zones and the international obli­gation to protect the ocean as a global commons. The EU and its Member States need to clarify the balance between the protection and use paradigms in ocean governance when considering treating the ocean as an enhanced carbon sink or storage site. Facilitating linkages between the ongoing review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the establishment of the Carbon Removal Certification Framework could help pave the way for debate about trade-offs and synergies in marine eco­system protection and use. (author's abstract)