Search

This commentary replies to Joshua Newman's article and 'counter narrative' about the Rudd government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), shelved in 2010. Newman argues that other analyses of the CPRS amount to a 'prevailing narrative' that Labor should have pursued an alliance with the Greens and independents for stronger climate mitigation policy rather than bipartisan Coalition support in parliament. His narrower empirical focus on parliamentary norms and practices is not sufficient for establishing a compelling explanation of the events surrounding the CPRS. Newman's analysis is valuable, but it gives us a weak grip on the key issues of interpretation and explanation we're all facing with regard to that political moment. I reflect on the methodological challenges when establishing meaning and causation in political analysis of the CPRS because it involves evaluating party-political strategy amid a deepening crisis for the state as it (mis)manages climate change with ad hoc market solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How is global‐North predominance in the making of organized knowledge affected by the rise of new domains of research? This question is examined empirically in three interdisciplinary areas – climate change, HIV‐AIDS, and gender studies – through interviews with 70 researchers in Southern‐tier countries Brazil, South Africa and Australia. The study found that the centrality of the North was reinstituted as these domains came into existence, through resource inequalities, workforce mechanisms, and intellectual framing. Yet there are tensions in the global economy of knowledge, around workforce formation, hierarchies of disciplines, neoliberal management strategies, and mismatches with social need. Intellectual workers in the Southern tier have built significant research centres, workforces and some distinctive knowledge projects. These create wider possibilities of change in the global structure of organized knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines a group of intellectual workers who occupy a peripheral but not powerless position in the global economy of knowledge. How do they handle relations with the global metropole, especially in new fields of research where established hierarchies are in question? Three new domains of knowledge - climate change, HIV/AIDS and gender studies - are studied through interviews with 70 active researchers in Southern-tier countries Brazil, South Africa and Australia. A pattern of extraversion, involving active adoption of paradigms from the metropole, is widespread and institutionally supported. Major alternative knowledge formations have not emerged in these domains. However contestations of more specific kinds are frequent. Paradigms are adapted, criticism is offered, activism is engaged, capacities are developed and allegiances sometimes changed. The valorization of local knowledge, which goes beyond the abstractions of universalized paradigms, is particularly significant. Not stark subordination, but a complex collective negotiation characterizes the response of intellectual workers in the Southern tier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reviews the literature on gender relations and climate change. Gender analysis contributes to our understanding of: (1) vulnerability and climate change impacts; (2) adaptations in different contexts; (3) responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions; (4) inequalities in climate governance; and (5) knowledges and social action on climate change. Overall, the literature has established that gender relations are an integral feature of social transformations associated with climate change. This poses a challenge to gender-blind social research into climate change. Without gender analysis, we omit key aspects of social life in a changing climate. It is vital that the gendered character of climate change is recognized and further explored in the social sciences and humanities. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e451. doi: 10.1002/wcc.451 For further resources related to this article, please visit the . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting on the origins and directions of social movement strategy on climate and energy issues in the last decade, the shifts in ‘climate movement’ practice are discussed using a neo-Polanyian account of the political economy of climate change combined with sociological analysis of the strategic decisions campaigners reported making. Since the mid-2000s, Australia’s climate movement has been engaged in three concurrent arenas of political contestation. The longest-standing arena of movement activity has been negotiations over climate policy. More recently, activists and communities are engaged in a struggle over the expansion of fossil fuels. A third contest has been waged over the present and future position of renewable energy technologies in Australia’s electricity market. In the wake of climate policy failure, energy campaigns have been deepened, and it seems that a broader energy justice agenda is being forged. New strategic dilemmas are visible in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost two decades since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, global greenhouse gas emissions are still rising rapidly. We argue that the global climate policy focus on carbon markets has played a significant role in the failure to reduce emissions. There are 16 compliance carbon markets in operation across the world. Many more are planned, although there have been numerous problems with carbon trading, including ineffectiveness, weak regulation and implementation, instances of fraud, little to no emissions reduction and major legitimacy issues for governments and the private sector. In this paper we take a “strong” position, arguing that carbon markets do not have a role to play in a policy scenario that requires radical emissions reductions in order to avoid dangerous greenhouse gas concentrations. We put forward 10 reasons why carbon markets should not be the preferred climate policy choice, which we have collated from positions taken by grassroots social movement organizations, think tanks, NGOs and other political advocacy groups as well as individual scientists and scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the response of the Australian just carbon emissions trading policy to the climatic change. Topics discussed include reasons for not meeting trading policy by Australia include limited restrictions and protections in carbon offset regulation, inadequate emissions reduction target, and over-generous industry compensation, the implications of marketisation in climate policy and proposal of trading scheme among advertising experts and the federal government bureaucracy.