 |
 |
Dear Chris, "I conclude that the two degree limit is a construct which makes possible an international environmental regime safe for the interests of elite actors." Sounds like a nice academic exercise but there's a huge elephant in the ointment I'm afraid. I'm contending here, and many who know a lot more about these things have said as much, that the two degree limit is a chimera. The race has been lost and the forces we have unleashed means that the process called climate change is now unstoppable, unless we seek to counter them by employing geoengineering techniques on an unprecedented scale - a task I would assert is very likely to be beyond the powers of the 'international community' to organise. In a nutshell, we've pumped huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere which will be trapping the sun's radiation for hundreds of years ahead while we remain continuing to increase the rate of CO2 emissions (despite the best efforts of venture capitalists), the world's forests are either retreating or are being razed to the ground, the phyto plankton of the oceans are being crippled through acidification and the Arctic sea-ice is shrinking faster than man-kind has ever experienced. There never has been or could be a 'safe' temperature for the globe. With heavy crossing of fingers we could have - theoretically - calculated a 'safe' level of CO2 accumulated emissions - and that could have been heavily influenced by concerns over whether the poor 'should' be allowed to take a heavier toll than the rich. This was the debate which was won in the process of establishing the Kyoto protocol - but little good has it done anybody, unfortunately. The two degree limit is a 'comfort blanket' for the 'elite actors' enabling them to deceive themselves that we can finesse our/their way around the virtual inevitability of the process we have had our backs behind ever since we learned to play with fire. Brian Orr On 9 Nov 2011, at 09:24, Christopher Shaw wrote: > Dear all > > Mark has kindly invited me to share a very brief outline of my > thesis with the list members, it being of some relevance to the > issues discussed here. I think the best thing I can do is just post > the abstract for the thesis, and if anyone is interested in further > details I can email chapters/initial attempts at journal papers on > to them. (I say, not as a boast but in support of my claims to the > validity and quality of the thesis, that the examiners passed it > without correction, and the external examiner Brian Wynne, probably > the most respected scholar in the field of science and society > studies, remarked it was as good as any piece of work he has > examined). > > Cheers > > Chris > > CHOOSING A DANGEROUS LIMIT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO > HOW THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS CONSTRUCTED IN PUBLIC DISCOURSES > > > International climate change policy is predicated on the claim that > climate change is a phenomenon with a single, global dangerous limit > of two degrees of warming above the pre-industrial average. However, > climate science does not provide sufficient empirical evidence to > determine such an exact limit. In addition, a single limit > incorrectly assumes that social and physical vulnerabilities to > climate change are uniformly distributed in space and time. Public > commentaries play an important role in shaping public engagement > with an abstract concept such as climate change. This research > project examines how public discourses construct the dangerous > limits to climate change decision making process. My analysis draws > on elite theory to argue that the two degree limit is a discourse > which constructs climate change as a problem solvable within > existing value systems and patterns of social activity. A comparison > of primary and secondary data drawn from diverse sources is used to > chart the key historical, social and cultural elements present in > the construction and reproduction of the two degree dangerous limit > discourse. The historical dimension of my analysis shows that public > commentaries have ‘black boxed’ the genesis of the two degree > dangerous limit idea. I demonstrate how claims of a consensus > amongst elite policy and science actors are central to developing a > dangerous limit ideology amongst influential public audiences. The > two degree discourse elevates the idea of a single dangerous limit > to the status of fact, and in so doing marginalises egalitarian and > ecological perspectives. I conclude that the two degree limit is a > construct which makes possible an international environmental regime > safe for the interests of elite actors. >