Suchergebnisse

The article examines how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs its self-proclaimed role as 'mapmaker. We seek to contribute to the emerging literature on global environmental assessments (GEA) and climate politics by reconstructing how the IPCC imagines the corridor for climate mitigation. Our particular focus is on the emergence of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) as the preferred scientific approach to projecting mitigation pathways consistent with average global temperature target. Taking our lead from current research in science and technology studies (STS) and sociology of futures, we reconstruct the emergence of a science policy tradition of modeling in the field of climate change as a particular mode of anticipation. We summarize the main findings of this literature in order to illustrate the historical and socio-political context in which this mode of anticipation is embedded. Based on this genealogy, we demonstrate how, in its role as mapmaker, the IPCC has also functioned as a corridor maker. We highlight how the IPCC has achieved consensus on a limited set of mitigation pathways, thus effectively narrowing down the discursive space for imagining potential futures to pathways that are deemed technically feasible and cost-efficient. We conclude by discussing the political consequences of this mode of anticipation in order to give us a more comprehensive understanding of what is at stake in the politics of anticipation. We elucidate why the techno-economic framing of current mitigation pathways is highly restrictive, especially when it omits many cultural, political, and other dimensions involved in deploying CDR at scale in their 'real-world' context of application.

After decades of climate change debate, what should have been obvious from the beginning has become increasingly difficult to ignore, and increasingly urgent: tackling anthropogenic climate change was never going to be straightforward, and it was never purely a scientific, political, or economic question. Instead, something as seemingly abstract and all-encompassing as "climate change" is, and always will be, an existential question, produced by an intimate collaboration between the life worlds and convictions of many different stakeholders. If we expect people to grapple effectively with what climate change means, interdisciplinary academic collaboration—combining the data-driven knowledge of the Earth's complex systems with an understanding that is more sensitive to the unpredictable and diverse world of humans—has to be part and parcel of how experts shape their messages and share them with the public. Climate change cannot be solved by dumping facts into the public sphere. Because of the scale of sociotechnical transformations that tackling climate change necessitates—changes to the energy system, changes to the agricultural system, changes to the way cities are built, changes to mobility, to name a few—it really is a deeply uncomfortable truth. For many, adapting to climate change means a complete redefinition of their lives. Unsurprisingly, many receive this message, and climate change as its carrier, with skepticism. So, efforts to communicate the daunting complexity of climate change, and the scale of the change needed to prevent or mitigate it, have to account both for how people make sense of these facts and how this knowledge (along with its consequences and distribution) affects them. Yet so far, while there have been attempts to forge the interdisciplinary connections that are key to communicating issues relating to climate change, truly interdisciplinary collaborations have been few and far between.

The concept of the future is re-emerging as an urgent topic on the academic agenda. In this article, we focus on the 'politics of the future': the social processes and practices that allow particular imagined futures to become socially performative. Acknowledging that the performativity of such imagined futures is well-understood, we argue that how particular visions come about and why they become performative is underexplained. Drawing on constructivist sociological theory, this article aims to fill (part of) this gap by exploring the question 'how do imagined futures become socially performative'? In doing so, the article has three aims to (1) identify the leading social–theoretical work on the future; (2) conceptualize the relationship of the imagination of the future with social practices and the performance of reality; (3) provide a theoretical framework explaining how images of the future become performative, using the concepts 'techniques of futuring' and 'dramaturgical regime'.

This discussion paper provides an examination of proposed solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies and their multifaceted implications, based on insights gained from two expert workshops convened by the German Environment Agency and the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, blended with an overview of the academic literature as well as personal assessments and opinions from the authors. SRM encompasses diverse methods proposed to moderate the effects of climate change by reducing solar insolation into the earth climate system, with prominent options including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB). While some advocate for SRM research as imperative given the urgency of the climate crisis, others emphasize the need for caution due to potential technological, ecological, and geopolitical of SRM. The governance of SRM research poses significant challenges, with disagreements often rooted in divergent worldviews and values. We underscore the importance of nuanced approaches, advocating for a multilateral moratorium on the use of SRM while also supporting a stringent framework regulating research activities. Our analysis highlights the necessity of an informed and inclusive dialogue on SRM governance, balancing scientific inquiry with ethical and societal considerations.

In this paper, we argue that a key component of futures literacy is reflexivity regarding different attitudes toward the future. Various intellectual traditions and futures practices make epistemologically distinct claims about the future and its manifestations in the present. Through their different outlooks on analyzing, understanding, and influencing the future, these diverse approaches represent fundamentally different attitudes to what it means to meaningfully engage with the future. Because of this diversity of attitudes toward the future, and the different possible modes of engagement with the future, futures literacy is more complex than it appears at first glance. Looking at recent developments in futures literature, we build on four epistemologically and ontologically distinct approaches to the problem of the future. We argue that being futures literate depends on reflexivity about these different engagements with the future, and what these different approaches can offer future-oriented action respectively. Such reflexivity entails being reflexive about how different approaches to the problem of the future arise, as well as about the underlying power structures. We also investigate possibilities to cultivate this futures reflexivity and conclude with a set of questions to guide future research in deepening reflexivity as a key element of futures literacy.

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies.Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal.

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework.

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal.

Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal.