scholarly journals Permission to Say “Capitalism”: Principles for Critical Social Science Engagement With GGR Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Hall ◽  
Mark Davis

The grand scale of GGR deployment now necessary to avoid dangerous climate change warrants the use of grand interpretive theories of how the global economy operates. We argue that critical social science should be able to name the global economy as “capitalism”; and instead of speaking about “transforming the global economy” as a necessary precondition for limiting climate change, instead speak about transforming, or even transcending, capitalism. We propose three principles are helpful for critical social science researchers willing to name and analyse the structural features of capitalism and their relation to greenhouse gas removal technology, policy, and governance. These principles are: (1) Greenhouse Gas Removal technologies are likely to emerge within capitalism, which is crisis prone, growth dependent, market expanding, We use a broad Marxist corpus to justify this principle. (2) There are different varieties of capitalism and this will affect the feasibility of different GGR policies and supports in different nations. We draw on varieties of capitalism and comparative political economy literature to justify this principle. (3) Capitalism is more than an economic system, it is ideologically and culturally maintained. Globally-significant issues such as fundamentalism, institutional mistrust, precarity, and populism, cannot be divorced from our thinking about globally significant deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies. We use a broad Critical Theory body of work to explore the ideational project of maintaining capitalism and its relation to GGR governance and policy.

2021 ◽  
pp. 146879412110634
Author(s):  
Rebecca Willis ◽  
Andy Yuille ◽  
Peter Bryant ◽  
Duncan McLaren ◽  
Nils Markusson

Researchers using deliberative techniques tend to favour in-person processes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has added urgency to the question of whether meaningful deliberative research is possible in an online setting. This paper considers the reasons for taking deliberation online, including bringing people together more easily; convening international events; and reducing the environmental impact of research. It reports on four case studies: a set of stakeholder workshops considering greenhouse gas removal technologies, convened online in 2019, and online research workshops investigating local climate strategies; as well as two in-person processes which moved online due to COVID-19: Climate Assembly UK, a Citizens’ Assembly on climate change, and the Lancaster Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change. It sets out learnings from these processes, concluding that deliberation online is substantively different from in-person meetings, but can meet the requirements of deliberative research, and can be a rewarding and useful process for participants and researchers alike.


2020 ◽  
Vol 244 ◽  
pp. 118896 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Goglio ◽  
A.G. Williams ◽  
N. Balta-Ozkan ◽  
N.R.P. Harris ◽  
P. Williamson ◽  
...  

Energy Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 125-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Lomax ◽  
Mark Workman ◽  
Timothy Lenton ◽  
Nilay Shah

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pete Smith ◽  
Justin Adams ◽  
David J. Beerling ◽  
Tim Beringer ◽  
Katherine V. Calvin ◽  
...  

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.


China Report ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-205
Author(s):  
Lawrence Surendra

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 454-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Knowles ◽  
Jonathan Katz ◽  
David Gilbourne

This paper examines reflective practice by illustrating and commenting upon aspects of an elite sport psychology practitioner’s reflective processes. Extracts from a practitioner’s reflective diary, maintained during attendance at a major sporting event, focused upon issues that relate to on-going relationships and communication with fellow practitioners and athletes. Authors one and three offered subsequent comment on these accounts to facilitate movement toward critical reflection via an intrapersonal process creating considerations for the practitioners with regard to skills and personal development. These issues are discussed in relation to pragmatic topics such as “staged” and “layered” reflection encouraged by author collaboration and shared writing within the present paper. We argue these outcomes against more philosophical/opaque considerations such as the progression of critical reflection and critical social science.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document