Search

How, and when, does it become possible to conceptualize a truly planetary crisis? The Cold War nuclear arms race installed one powerful concept of planetary crisis in American culture. The science enabling the US nuclear arsenal, however, also produced unintended byproducts: notably, a radical new investment in the earth sciences. Cold War nuclear science ultimately produced not only bombs, but also a new understanding of the earth as biosphere. Thus, the image of planetary crisis in the US was increasingly doubled during the Cold War - the immediacy of nuclear threat matched by concerns about rapid environmental change and the cumulative effects of industrial civilization on a fragile biosphere. This paper examines the evolution of (and competition between) two ideas of planetary crisis since 1945: nuclear war and climate change. In doing so, the paper offers an alternative history of the nuclear age and considers the US national security implications of a shift in the definition of planetary crisis from warring states to a warming biosphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent scientific findings, as presented in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (AdA), indicate that climate change in the Arctic is happening now, at a faster rate than elsewhere in the world, and with major implications for peoples of the Arctic (especially indigenous peoples) and the rest of the planet. This paper examines scientific and political representations of Arctic indigenous peoples that have been central to the production and articulation of these claims. ACIA employs novel forms and strategies of representation that reflect changing conceptual models and practices of global change science and depict indigenous peoples as expert, exotic, and at-risk. These portrayals emerge alongside the growing political activism of Arctic indigenous peoples who present themselves as representatives or embodiments of climate change itself as they advocate for climate change mitigation policies. These mutually constitutive forms of representation suggest that scientific ways of seeing the global environment shape and are shaped by the public image and voice of global citizens. Likewise, the authority, credibility, and visibility of Arctic indigenous activists derive, in part, from their status as at-risk experts, a status buttressed by new scientific frameworks and methods that recognize and rely on the local experiences and knowledges of indigenous peoples. Analyses of these relationships linking scientific and political representations of Arctic climate change build upon science and technology studies (STS) scholarship on visualization, challenge conventional notions of globalization, and raise questions about power and accountability in global climate change research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the relationship between field experimentalists and simulation modellers in meteorological research on the one hand, and how this is related to climate change as a common arena of concern on the other. Climate has become the central topic in meteorological research and it is imperative to link specific research problems to climate change in order to receive funding and attract talent. In addition, climate models have become gatekeepers for claims about climate change. Hence, active participation in climate modelling processes is valuable for all parties. Observational data are used in order to develop new components — so-called parameterizations — for the climate models and these novel components therefore emerge as important boundary objects. While they serve different purposes for experimentalists and modellers in terms of translation processes, they also serve to connect these groups and reinforce their mutual dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the distribution of certainty around General Circulation Models (GCMS) - computer models used to project possible global climatic changes due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. It examines the trope of distance underpinning Donald MacKenzie's concept of 'certainty trough', and calls for a more multi-dimensional and dynamic conceptualization of how uncertainty is distributed around technology. The certainty trough describes the level of certainty attached to particular technoscientific constructions as distance increases from the site of knowledge production, and proposes that producers of a given technology and its products are the best judges of their accuracy. Processes and dynamics associated with GCM modeling challenge the simplicity of the certainty trough diagram, mainly because of difficulties with distinguishing between knowledge producers and users, and because GCMs involve multiple sites of production. This case study also challenges the assumption that knowledge producers always are the best judges of the accuracy of their models. Drawing on participant observation and interviews with climate modelers and the atmospheric scientists with whom they interact, the study discusses how modelers, and to some extent knowledge producers in general, are sometimes less able than some users to identify shortcomings of their models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper adds a new dimension to the role of scientific knowledge in policy by emphasizing the multivalent character of scientific consensus. We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate-change field—namely, climate sensitivity—operates as an ‘anchoring device’ in ‘science for policy’. In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus-estimate of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades. Nevertheless, during these years climate scientific knowledge and analysis have changed dramatically. We identify several ways in which the scientists achieved flexibility in maintaining the same numbers for climate sensitivity while accommodating changing scientific ideas. We propose that the remarkable quantitative stability of the climate sensitivity range has helped to hold together a variety of different social worlds relating to climate change, by continually translating and adapting the meaning of the ‘stable’ range. But this emergent stability also reflects an implicit social contract among the various scientists and policy specialists involved, which allows ‘the same’ concept to accommodate tacitly different local meanings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The metrics used in environmental management are performative. That is, the tools deployed to classify and measure the natural world interact with the things they were designed to observe. The idea of performativity also captures the way these interactions shape or distort the governance activities that metrics are used to inform. The performativity of metrics reveals how mundane practices of measurement and auditing are inscribed with substantial power. This has proven particularly true for the global warming metrics, like GWP100, that are central to the management of anthropogenic climate change. Greenhouse gases are materially heterogenous, and the metrics used to commensurate their various warming impacts influence the distribution of both culpability and capital in climate policy and markets. The publication of a new warming metric, GWP* (or GWP Star), has generated a modest scientific controversy, as a diverse cast of stakeholders recognize this performativity seek to influence the metrological regime under which they live. We analyse this controversy, particularly as it unfolded in the fractious discourse around sustainable food and farming, to develop the concept of reflexive performativity : where actors are anticipatory and strategic in their engagement with the metrics that are used to govern their lives. We situate this idea in relation to, and in tentative evidential support of, the concept of reflexive modernization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on two projects – one at a large chemical company and the other at a small start-up – to intervene in the relations between cows and ruminal microbes to reduce bovine methane emissions. It describes these interventions as 'symbiotic engineering': a biopolitical technique targeting holobionts and becoming effective by working on interlaced sets of living things. Based on the analysis of these cases, the article elucidates a planetary symbiopolitics (Helmreich) that connects 'molecular biopolitics' (Rose) and 'microbiopolitics' (Paxson) to 'bovine biopolitics' (Lorimer, Driessen) and the politics of climate change. We critically investigate the spatial imaginaries of symbiotic engineering practices that single out the microbial realm as an Archimedean point to address planetary problems. This technoscientific vision resonates with the notion of the 'symbiotic planet' advanced by Lynn Margulis that depicts the Earth System, or Gaia, as a vast set of relations among living things down to the tiniest microbes. Margulis' concept, as well as the 'symbiotic view of life' (Gilbert, Scott, Sapp) has been embraced in recent debates in STS as a way to think of multispecies worldings. The article contributes critically to these debates by showing what happens when the topology of the symbiotic Earth becomes the operating space for symbiotic engineering practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global 'carbon budget' of allowable CO2 emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this 'modifying-work' for the politics of climate change. It finds that the 'modified climate issue' must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on 'issue formation' in STS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This ethnographic study at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) follows a group of scientists and communications specialists as they compose visualizations and analyses of near-real-time Arctic sea ice data. Research participants collectively make scientific judgments about near-real-time data in a highly visible public venue with 'relational agility'. They balance multiple phenomena including knowledge of how sceptics attack climate science, reflexivity about the conventions through which sea ice data is gathered, the needs of journalists working in a news cycle paced by Twitter, and the liveliness and vitality of sea ice itself. Relational agility, understood as a way of coordinating the social in relation to this plurality of contingent practices and processes, provides insight into the science and politics of nonlinear climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has two aims: first, to understand the co-production of climate science and the state, and second, to provide a test case for Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory. To these ends, the article reconstructs the historical formation of a US climate science field, with an analytic focus on inter-field dynamics and heterogeneous networking practices. Drawing from primary- and secondary-source materials, the historical analysis focuses on relations between scientists and state actors from the 1930s to the 1960s. The account shows how actors with positions linking scientific and bureaucratic fields constructed critical nodes and ‘hinges’ that co-produced war-making and state expansion on the one hand, and a relatively autonomous climate science field on the other. The analysis explains the emergence of climate science by focusing on the WWII-era transformation of meteorology and oceanography into distinct disciplines, the emergence of ‘basic’ research as a central principle of post-war government, and the formation of a climate science field by the 1960s centered on computerized modeling and populated by an interdisciplinary scientific elite. The article concludes by indicating how these processes led to the subsequent development of climate change as a science–state conundrum that has reorganized the climate science field in recent decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article foregrounds comparison as a key practice in science by discussing the case of chronological comparability in paleoclimatology. Based on an ethnographic study of a paleoclimate research project, I illustrate how paleoclimatologists are able to produce comparative data on and images of past climates through the use of ‘proxies’. I focus on the calibration of a type of algae as a proxy for climate variables. Such comparability is one illustration of the myriad ways in which relatively standardized forms of comparison underlie conceptions of ‘climate change’ and of ‘climate’ itself. The work of comparison discussed here has relevance for a variety of practices of qualification, quantification, monitoring, and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In studies of environmental issues, the question of how to establish a productive interplay between science and policy is widely debated, especially in relation to climate change. The aim of this article is to advance this discussion and contribute to a better understanding of how science is summarized for policy purposes by bringing together two academic discussions that usually take place in parallel: the question of how to deal with formalization (structuring the procedures for assessing and summarizing research, e.g. by protocols) and separation (maintaining a boundary between science and policy in processes of synthesizing science for policy). Combining the two dimensions, we draw a diagram onto which different initiatives can be mapped. A high degree of formalization and separation are key components of the canonical image of scientific practice. Influential Science and Technology Studies analysts, however, are well known for their critiques of attempts at separation and formalization. Three examples that summarize research for policy purposes are presented and mapped onto the diagram: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the European Union’s Science for Environment Policy initiative, and the UK Committee on Climate Change. These examples bring out salient differences concerning how formalization and separation are dealt with. Discussing the space opened up by the diagram, as well as the limitations of the attraction to its endpoints, we argue that policy analyses, including much Science and Technology Studies work, are in need of a more nuanced understanding of the two crucial dimensions of formalization and separation. Accordingly, two analytical claims are presented, concerning trajectories, how organizations represented in the diagram move over time, and mismatches, how organizations fail to handle the two dimensions well in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acts of scientific calculation have long been considered central to the formation of the modern nation state, yet the transnational spaces of knowledge generation and political action associated with climate change seem to challenge territorial modes of political order. This article explores the changing geographies of climate prediction through a study of the ways in which climate change is rendered knowable at the national scale in India. The recent controversy surrounding an erroneous prediction of melting Himalayan glaciers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a window onto the complex and, at times, antagonistic relationship between the Panel and Indian political and scientific communities. The Indian reaction to the error, made public in 2009, drew upon a national history of contestation around climate change science and corresponded with the establishment of a scientific assessment network, the Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment, which has given the state a new platform on which to bring together knowledge about the future climate. I argue that the Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment is indicative of the growing use of regional climate models within longer traditions of national territorial knowledge-making, allowing a rescaling of climate change according to local norms and practices of linking scientific knowledge to political action. I illustrate the complex co-production of the epistemic and the normative in climate politics, but also seek to show how co-productionist understandings of science and politics can function as strategic resources in the ongoing negotiation of social order. In this case, scientific rationalities and modes of environmental governance contribute to the contested epistemic construction of territory and the evolving spatiality of the modern nation state under a changing climate. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Over the past 10 years, Mexican officials and scientists have promoted the project of protecting Mexican forests in order to mitigate climate change, forests acting to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This article compares existing policies around mass reforestation and markets for environmental services, and their relationships to a policy in construction – Reduced Emissions through Degradation and Deforestation. Mass reforestation policies collapsed in the face of politicized audits and stories about corruption; markets for environmental services continued with little criticism, stabilized in part by the charisma of Reduced Emissions through Degradation and Deforestation policies. I explain the collapse of mass reforestation policies as being due to failed knowledge performances by officials and scientists; such failures are assessed by more or less skeptical publics who expect specific ways of performing credible public knowledge. Areas of nonknowledge can be tamed as calculable uncertainty, or alternatively transformed into ontological indeterminacy, scandals, and stories of corruption. Areas of nonknowledge are not pathological: they may support, as well as undermine, climate science, the authority of institutions, or the credibility of carbon accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]