scholarly journals Unsustainable Borders: Globalization in a Climate-Disrupted World

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-37
Author(s):  
Simon Dalby
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Severe Climate Change

   Climate change and the responses to it reveal starkly different assumptions about borders, security and the ethical communities for whom politicians and activists speak. Starting with the contrasting perspectives of international activist Greta Thunberg and United States President Donald Trump on climate change this essay highlights the diverse political assumptions implicit in debates about contemporary globalization. Rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions and increasingly severe climate change impacts and accelerating extinctions are the new context for scholarly work in the Anthropocene. Incorporating insights from earth system sciences and the emerging perspectives of planetary politics suggests a novel contextualization for contemporary social science which now needs to take non-stationarity and mobility as the appropriate context for investigating contemporary transformations. The challenge for social scientists and borders scholars is to think through how to link politics, ethics and bordering practices in ways that facilitate sustainability, while taking seriously the urgency of dealing with the rapidly changing material context that globalization has wrought.

scholarly journals Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Wildfire Risk in the United States

Forests ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 3197-3211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjin An ◽  
Jianbang Gan ◽  
Sung Cho
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
The United States ◽  
Wildfire Risk

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eelco J. Rohling
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Greenhouse Gases ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Emission Reduction ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Is Implementation

This chapter outlines the challenge facing us. The Paris Agreement sets a target maximum of 2°C global warming and a preferred limit of 1.5°C. Yet, the subsequent combined national pledges for emission reduction suffice only for limiting warming to roughly 3°C. And because most nations are falling considerably short of meeting their pledges, even greater warming may become locked in. Something more drastic and wide-ranging is needed: a multi-pronged strategy. These different prongs to the climate-change solution are introduced in this chapter and explored one by one in the following chapters. First is rapid, massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Second is implementation of ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Third may be increasing the reflectivity of Earth to incoming sunlight, to cool certain places down more rapidly. In addition, we need to protect ourselves from climate-change impacts that have already become inevitable.

Rolling Back Climate Regulation: Trump’s Assault on the Planet

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Regulatory Policies ◽  
Climate Regulation ◽  
Climate Crisis ◽  
Trump Administration

The Donald Trump administration has engaged in a number of crimes related to climate change. This article examines these climate crimes, in particular, the administration’s organized denial of global warming and its political omissions concerning the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions that result in the rollback of existing regulatory policies related to the climate crisis. This criminality is explored through the lens of the concept of state–corporate crime, a concept utilized by a number of green criminologists to analyze environmental harms. The Trump administration’s rollback of climate change regulations is first located within its historical, political, and social contexts. Then, the specific actions and political omissions that constitute these rollbacks are described and analyzed as state–corporate environmental crimes.

Assessing climate change impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, N losses in drainage and crop production in a subsurface drained field

2020 ◽  
Vol 705 ◽  
pp. 135969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianjing Jiang ◽  
Zhiming Qi ◽  
Lulin Xue ◽  
Melissa Bukovsky ◽  
Chandra A. Madramootoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
N Losses ◽  
Gas Emissions

scholarly journals Climate change impacts and greenhouse gas mitigation effects on U.S. water quality

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 1326-1338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent Boehlert ◽  
Kenneth M. Strzepek ◽  
Steven C. Chapra ◽  
Charles Fant ◽  
Yohannes Gebretsadik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

scholarly journals Climate change impacts on freshwater recreational fishing in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Jones ◽  
Constance Travers ◽  
Charles Rodgers ◽  
Brian Lazar ◽  
Eric English ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recreational Fishing

The Emergence Of A Climate Anthropology In Northeast Brazil

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Nelson ◽  
Timothy Finan
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Climate Variability ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Theoretical Ground ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Human Environment

Climate studies have traditionally fallen within the purview of the natural sciences where cause and predictable pattern are sought for such phenomena as climate change and climate variability. In the past, social scientists had little occasion to cross disciplinary paths with atmospheric or oceanographic scientists. Not that social science has ignored climate, for anthropology and geography claim a rich literature on the impacts of climate variability, particularly drought, on human populations (e.g., Franke and Chasin 1980; Watts 1983; Langworthy and Finan 1997). New theoretical ground, fertilized by an increasing number of empirical studies, now promises to bear the fruit we call climate anthropology. The expanding social science agenda has responded to two relatively recent advances in the natural sciences. The first has been the widening scientific consensus regarding global climate change and its anthropogenic causes. Global change cannot be adequately characterized without understanding the human-environment interactions that have contributed to the phenomenon, forcing social and natural scientists to pursue common research objectives. The second influence on climate anthropology has been the improvement in scientific understanding of oceanic/atmospheric interactions, thus allowing for more refined predictability of climatic events, particularly extreme ones. It is with this advance in climate predictability that climate anthropology is beginning to reap an exceedingly bountiful harvest in both theory and application.

The Anthropocene’s dating problem: Insights from the geosciences and the humanities

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Nichols ◽  
Bina Gogineni
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Human Activities ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Geologic Record ◽  
Earth’S System

The Anthropocene, generally defined, is the time when human activities have a significant impact on the Earth System. However, the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences have different understandings of how and when human activities affected the Earth System. Humanities and social science scholars tend to approach the Anthropocene from a wide range of moral-political concerns including differential responsibility for the change in the Earth System and social implications going forward. Geologists, on the other hand, see their work as uninfluenced by such considerations, instead concerning themselves with empirical data that might point to a ‘golden spike’ in the geologic record – the spike indicating a change in the Earth System. Thus, the natural sciences and the humanities/social sciences are incongruent in two important ways: (1) different motivations for establishing a new geologic era, and (2) different parameters for identifying it. The Anthropocene discussions have already hinted at a paradigm shift in how to define geologic time periods. Several articles suggest a mid-20th century commencement of the Anthropocene based on stratigraphic relationships identified in concert with knowledge of human history. While some geologists in the Anthropocene Working Group have stated that the official category should be useful well beyond geology, they continue to be guided by the stratigraphic conventions of defining the epoch. However, the methods and motivations that govern stratigraphers are different from those that govern humanists and social scientists. An Anthropocene defined by stratigraphic convention would supersede many of the humanities/social science perspectives that perhaps matter more to mitigating and adapting to the effects of humans on Earth’s System. By this reasoning, the impetus for defining the Anthropocene ought to be interdisciplinary, as traditional geologic criteria for defining the temporal scale might not meet the aspirations of a broad range of Anthropocene thinkers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document