Suchergebnisse

Awarding Certified Emission Reductions to Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto Protocol involves comparing the actual emissions of the project to a counterfactual "baseline" emissions level. The baseline of a project is intended to represent the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the project. Accordingly, there is a high degree of uncertainty in determining CDM baselines. In the years since the emergence of the CDM, scientific and political debates have occurred about how best to cut through this uncertainty and arrive at the fixed, quantitative figures necessary for the quantification and commodification of greenhouse gas emissions. My research explores the decision-making process by which practical quantifying conventions are adopted in order to narrow the operational realm of uncertainty. It focuses on the role of scientists and the use of scientific rhetoric in the negotiation process and also explores risk and the perceptions of risk held by a range of important actors. This exploratory paper is intended to serve as a springboard for future work by providing a description of the nature of the uncertainty in CDM baselines, and by exploring the ramifications of decision-making in the face of this uncertainty. It concludes with a list of future questions that probe the ways in which different actors may be expected to maneuver within this uncertainty.

AbstractIn order to advance a neatly deductive argument, Christopher J. Preston must make a number of assumptions and framing decisions that exclude important practical points from the scope of his analysis. We do not criticize him for doing so, as these simplifications allow him to advance a concise argument about an ethically complex subject. However, as scholars of politics and law, we are interested in what this ethical argument means—and does not mean—for the messy politics of climate engineering. Accordingly, in our response we unpack the political implications of some of Preston's assumptions and framing decisions in an effort to add a layer of practical richness to the abstraction of Preston's analysis.

The emergence of the global administrative sector and its new forms of knowledge production, expert rationality, and standardization, remains an understudied topic in science studies. Using a coproductionist theoretical framework, we argue tha the mutual construction of epistemic and legal authority across international organizations has been critical for constituting and stabilizing a global regime for the regulation of food safety. The authors demonstrate how this process has also given rise to an authoritative framework for risk analysis touted as ''scientifically rigorous'' but embodying particular value choices regarding health, environment, and the dispensation of regulatory power. Finally, the authors trace how enrollment of the Codex Alimentarius in World Trade Law has heightened institutional dilemmas around legitimacy and credibility in science advice at the global level. Taken together, the case illustrates the importance of attending to the iterative construction of law and science in the constitution of new global administrative regimes.