Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Continuing to emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) moves our planet closer to crossing critical tipping points, making ongoing development of fossil fuels an act of climate injustice. Yet, the United States has doubled down on unconventional oil and gas (UOG), becoming the top global producer of hydrocarbons. Significant segments of the public resist UOG drilling, mobilizing to limit or stop production due to intersecting climate, environmental, and public health concerns. However, regulatory conflicts complicate the power of public resistance and problematize the role of the state in facilitating industry. UOG production has rapidly expanded with little capacity for public participation in decision-making. We contend this is a climate injustice—where procedural injustices across levels of governance make it difficult for the public to prevent fossil fuel extraction. We examine these injustices across state legislative, judicial, and executive governance processes in Colorado where residents have actively resisted UOG production. We demonstrate how the public consistently faces procedural inequities and power disadvantages across multiple sites and levels of decision-making, resulting in multilevel disempowerment. In this high-stakes context, our policy ethnography illustrates how these multilevel procedural injustices can facilitate rapid expansion of UOG production, where state-sanctioned activities also constitute broader acts of climate violence and injustice.

This review article examines the concept of slow violence in relation to the current climate collapse. It outlines the extractive relationship between states in the Global North and Global South, and explores how this relationship creates and sustains disproportionate climate violence for the Global South. It critiques proposed adaptation and mitigation solutions for the Global South that emphasize market‐led proposals and a return on investments that mostly benefit the Global North. It argues that these proposals fail to critically engage with the root causes of vulnerability to climate change and Greenhouse Gas emissions that cause climate change. The review uses World Systems Theory to analyze the power differentials between South and North, and concepts such as the "Color Line," "Necropolitics," and "Slow Violence" to underline the post‐colonial character of this relationship. These provide historical context to the current hegemonic role of the Global North in carbon emission negotiations and responses. In doing so, the article highlights the need to think about climate change, and solutions to climate change, as a driver of slow violence and surplus climate violence by the Global North against the Global South.

AbstractResource extraction relies on human interaction with the underground, often near rural communities. Yet, little research has explored localized, place‐based relationships to the underground and subsequent concerns tied to proposed energy activities. This paper highlights the importance of place in localized risk perceptions of proposed shale exploration in two rural communities in the United Kingdom. Through qualitative case studies we examine how senses of place and place‐based knowledges are shaped by underground landscapes. Further, we explore how these inform local risk perceptions of shale gas exploration. Our findings demonstrate how senses of place and place‐based knowledges in each community are embedded in local rural culture that stretches back multiple generations, and are at least in part rooted in human connections to, and understanding of, the subsurface. Connections between surface and underground aspects of places create concerns about distinctiveness, which heighten residents' perceptions of more generalized shale gas risks. The research findings broaden our understanding of how places encompass both surface and underground landscapes, with significant implications for risk perceptions in energy contexts. These findings raise important questions for incorporating place‐based and plural sets of knowledge in risk management and decision‐making for future underground energy projects that contribute to net‐zero strategies.

Cover -- Endorsement Page -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Editors -- Contributors -- Foreword -- Preface: Environmental justice in the Anthropocene -- Part I Thinking on the Anthropocence -- Introduction: Just Anthropocene? -- Chapter 1 Examining the Anthropocene: A contested term in capitalist times -- Chapter 2 The selective invisibility of oil and climate injustice in the Anthropocene and beyond -- Part II Environmental justice as spatial justice -- Introduction: Contextualizing spatial justice -- Chapter 3 Environmental justice and autocracy in Eastern Europe: The case of Hungary -- Chapter 4 Navigating environmental justice in Chile: The case of Pascua Lama -- Chapter 5 Towards socio-ecological inclusion: Scaling up housing innovation in Vienna -- Chapter 6 From water insecurity to water injustice: How tourism produces environmental injustice along Nicaragua's "Emerald Coast" -- Chapter 7 Jatropha bioenergy in Yucatán, Mexico: An examination of energy justice -- Chapter 8 Keeping it local: The continued relevance of place-based studies for environmental justice research and praxis -- Chapter 9 Determinants of household electricity consumption in Mexico by income level -- Chapter 10 Environmental justice and the Sabal Trail pipeline -- Chapter 11 Injustices in implementing donor-funded climate change resilience projects in Bangladesh: North-South dichotomy? -- Part III Just transitions -- Introduction: Pursuing just transitions: growing from seed to blossom -- Chapter 12 Just energy systems: Five questions and countless responses for regenerative energy communities -- Chapter 13 Authoritarian environmentalism as just transition?: A critical environmental justice examination of state environmental intervention in northwestern China.

To date, little research has investigated how public perceptions of policies to ban or restrict fossil-fuel extraction change over time; yet this topic is of crucial importance as countries worldwide seek to transition towards 'net zero' economies. This study addresses this gap by focusing on public responses to the 2019 moratorium on shale gas extraction in England, using an analytical framework comprising awareness, interpretations and opinions, and a mixed-method approach combining national survey, social media and local case interviews. Findings show high levels of awareness and support for the moratorium, yet differences between coalitions of interest based on ideology, scale and demographics. Social media analyses reveal a peak in public response across several days during a general election campaign in which different parties took divergent positions on shale gas. Public support for the moratorium – and induced seismicity as the primary reason for its introduction - was evidenced by the national survey, yet coincided with scepticism about its timing, extent and motivation, as indicated by social media activity and local case interviews. For some publics, the moratorium was a ploy to ensure electoral support, embedded in public distrust. This study indicates the merits of a mixed-method approach to understand the psychological and institutional context of public responses to policy change as it unfolds over time, and discusses the longer term implications of politicised attitudes for energy transitions.

The spatio-temporal response of online communities towards shale gas development ('fracking') across the UK was explored using Twitter network analysis over 2019. For the first half of the year the debate was driven by a well-informed community based primarily in the North of England with a history of shale gas activity. Changes in the political environment in the second half of the year, driven by the general election, saw the co-opting of the online debate at the national scale by three political communities clearly seeking to push their own political agendas.