DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Consensus and Controversy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

'SINTEF'A24071 Report Consensus!and!Controversy! ! The!Debate!on!Man&Made!Global!Warming ! Author Emil!A.!Røyrvik ! (Source: Du Zhenjun. Winds, 2010. Fotomontaje.) SINTEF'Technology'and'Society' Industrial Management! 2013&04&12! SINTEF'Teknologi'og'samfunn! SINTEF!Technology!and!Society' REPORT'NO. ISBN CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION'THIS'PAGE Address:! A24071 978&82&14&05582&5 Unrestricted Unrestricted Postboks!4760!Sluppen! ! NO&7465!Trondheim! NORWAY! Telephone:+47!!73593000! TeleFax:+47!!73590330! [email protected]! www.sinteF.no! Enterprise!/VAT!No:! NO!948007029!MVA! ' 2!of!82! Table!of!contents! 1! Introduction'..........................................................................................................................'5! 1.1! The'four'myths'of'climate'change'................................................................................................'7! 1.2! Scope'and'definitions'................................................................................................................'10! 1.3! Notes'on'the'philosophy'of'science'............................................................................................'11! 2! Consensus'perspectives'in'science'(and'the'public)'..............................................................'15! 2.1! Consensus'repertoires'...............................................................................................................'20! 2.2! Critique'of'the'consensus'studies'...............................................................................................'22! 3! Hot'debates'.........................................................................................................................'27! 3.1! “The'hockey'stick”'.....................................................................................................................'27! 3.2! The'measure'of'measuring:'A'note'on'temperature'constructions'.............................................'34! 3.3! “Climategate”'............................................................................................................................'37! 4! Contrarian'perspectives'in'science'(and'the'public)'.............................................................'41! 4.1! Surveys'and'petitions'of'dissenting'and'contrarian'positions'.....................................................'50! 5! Conclusions'.........................................................................................................................'65! 6! Bibliography'........................................................................................................................'69! ! PROJECT'NO.' REPORT'NO.' VERSION' 3!of!82! 60T301! A24071 978&82&14&05582&5 ! ! ! ! ! PROJECT'NO.' REPORT'NO.' VERSION' 4!of!82! 60T301! A24071 978&82&14&05582&5 ! ! ! ! ! 1 Introduction' The debate about man-made global warming is literally a hot topic. In fact it’s a discourse, and an empirical prospect, as some would argue, with quite a deadly intensity. This is a report about that debate. The title of the latest book by one of the central scientists in this field is telling: ”The hockey stick and the climate wars” (Mann 2012). This alleged ”climate war” is a scientific, political, economic, social and moral public field that is co-constructed and intersects in numerous ways, and which, to some extent at least, is characterized by the rhetoric of apocalypse, war and the communicative logic of the military trenches. Several other popular titles illustrate this: “The Suicidal Planet: How to prevent global climate catastrophe (Hillman 2007); “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” (Hansen 2009); ”Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” (Hoggan and Littlemore 2009); “The Climate Crisis” (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010); “Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence” (Parenti 2011). The language of fear and constructions of “catastrophe” regarding global warming has been firmly established during the last two decades, and professor of climate change Mike Hulme argues that this language has been embellished in the post 9/11 era (2009: 66). A report by the Institute of Public Policy Research in London commented on a comprehensive study of climate change discourses in the British media from 2006/2007 the following way: “The alarmist repertoire uses an inflated language, with terms such as “catastrophe”, “chaos” and “havoc”, and its tone is often urgent. It employs a quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgement, heaven and hell” (2007: 55). Likewise, the widely popular “tipping point” metaphor signifies the possible coming of sudden apocalypse. The goal of this report is to enter this more or less inhospitable battlefield and take stock of the debate about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. This will be done by both describing and counting the particular actors, activities and technologies (of both enchantment and production) performing on the scenes of this “theatre of war”, and also by bringing to the table a more distanced and analytical perspective of the field as such, using as a guiding metaphor the (hopefully) neutral UN-observers’ approach to zones of conflict and tension. The zone we are entering here and its particular mix of morality, science, politics, and polemics can certainly be explosive, confusing, and condescending. PROJECT'NO.' REPORT'NO.' VERSION' 5!of!82! 60T301! A24071 978&82&14&05582&5 ! ! ! ! ! There are several reasons for writing such a report. Needless to say, the debate on anthropogenic global warming is of high significance and consequence to people and society. More specifically, because of all that is publicly written and said about the dangers of global warming, one could easily get the impression that the major scientific issues on the subject is settled, and that the debate is, or is being, closed and “black boxed” (Latour 1987). On the other hand, there seems to be vocal and persistent scientists and advocates that on various grounds resist the alleged consensus. These voices sometimes claim that their legitimate dissent is silenced and marginalised in both scientific and public discourse. Thus, an explicit goal of this report has been to give the dissenting or “contrarian” perspectives a serious treatment. Has the science of anthropogenic global warming reached such a level of consensus saturation and cohesion that the debate is, legitimately or not, closed and “black boxed”? To be able to answer this question the contrarian perspectives receives relatively more space in this report. This choice is also justified by the wide attention and institutional support and promotion the consensus perspective(s) have received, not least through the IPCC. In a 2007 speech before the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change (and also former Prime Minister of Norway, and former Director-General of the World Health Organization) conveyed the mixture of politics, polemics, science and morality when she, in relation to global warming, famously stated that: “So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.”1 This statement has several significant and problematic aspects that will be discussed in this report. Has doubt been eliminated in the case of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming? Is it possible to eliminate doubt, and are efforts to do so pursuits pertinent to science and democracy in open societies? Is it immoral and reckless to question and doubt? The Brundtland statement displays both explicitly and implicitly key premises upon which the debate on global warming is being played out, and this report seeks to unfold some of the most important of these premises. As noted above, in the American vernacular the particular geo-political arenas of war is often labelled a “theatre of war”. Even though the subject matter of this report is both deserving of, and demands to be taken highly seriously, the theatre metaphor is in itself also quite appropriate. The PROJECT'NO.' REPORT'NO.' VERSION' 6!of!82! 60T301! A24071 978&82&14&05582&5 ! ! ! ! ! debate on global warming has a theatrical ambience to it on several levels. It abounds with stories of tragedy, untergang and apocalypse, of crisis, saviours and salvation, and in several of these also (unintended) genres of melodrama and comedy is not difficult to detect. It borrows several of its communicative scripts from classical narratives, often including plots of good and evil, of culprits and heroes, and of nature’s ultimate revenge upon the unlimited folly of a humanity of myopic fools and malfeasants. The theatrical tropes of the debate is also squarely pinpointed by the fact that the play’s definitive number one villain and enfant terrible is the agent and actor (or rather “actant” in the vocabulary of actor-network-theory) that goes by the name of CO2. Carbon dioxide. This gas is quite literally the “smoking gun” (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010: 11) of the play, metaphorically represented as something like the (Lord of The Rings’) Sauron in the saga of global warming, and believed to play the major role in causing anthropogenic global warming – with all its possible detrimental consequences.
Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 18-1451 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN HARRY W. MACDOUGALD SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION CALDWELL, PROPST & 560 W. Crossville Rd., Ste. 104 DELOACH, LLP Roswell, GA 30075 Two Ravinia Dr., Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30346 (404) 843-1956 hmacdougald@ cpdlawyers.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae June 2019 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, Southeast- ern Legal Foundation (SLF) respectfully moves for leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of the Petition. Petitioner has consented to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Respondent Michael Mann has withheld consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Accordingly, this motion for leave to file is necessary. SLF is a nonprofit, public interest law firm and policy center founded in 1976 and organized under the laws of the State of Georgia. SLF is dedicated to bring- ing before the courts issues vital to the preservation of private property rights, individual liberties, limited government, and the free enterprise system. SLF regularly appears as amicus curiae before this and other federal courts to defend the U.S. Consti- tution and the individual right to the freedom of speech on political and public interest issues.
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing

    Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing

    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
  • Meet the Man Who Has Exposed the Great Climate Change Con Trick

    Meet the Man Who Has Exposed the Great Climate Change Con Trick

    Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick JAMES DELINGPOLE SPECTATOR.CO.UK 11 JULY 2009 James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book. Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy. Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change. ‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority.
  • Volume 2: Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA's Use of IPCC

    Volume 2: Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA's Use of IPCC

    EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Volume 2: Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.0 Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC.................................................................6 2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermine IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment ........................................................................................................................6 2.1.1 Overview....................................................................................................................6 2.1.2 Accuracy of Statement on Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level..................8 2.1.3 Validity of Himalayan Glacier Projection .................................................................9 2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses .......................................12 2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, and African Mountain Snow Impacts..............................20 2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rainforest Dieback Projection ................................................21 2.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection ..............................................23 2.1.8 Summary..................................................................................................................33
  • World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency

    World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency

    Viewpoint World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 by Oregon State University user on 05 November 2019 WILLIAM J. RIPPLE, CHRISTOPHER WOLF, THOMAS M. NEWSOME, PHOEBE BARNARD, WILLIAM R. MOOMAW, AND 11,258 SCIENTIST SIGNATORIES FROM 153 COUNTRIES (LIST IN SUPPLEMENTAL FILE S1) cientists have a moral obligation as actual climatic impacts (figure 2). forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon has now Sto clearly warn humanity of any We use only relevant data sets that are started to increase again (figure 1g). catastrophic threat and to “tell it like clear, understandable, systematically Consumption of solar and wind energy it is.” On the basis of this obligation collected for at least the last 5 years, has increased 373% per decade, but and the graphical indicators presented and updated at least annually. in 2018, it was still 28 times smaller below, we declare, with more than The climate crisis is closely linked to than fossil fuel consumption (com- 11,000 scientist signatories from excessive consumption of the wealthy bined gas, coal, oil; figure 1h). As around the world, clearly and unequiv- lifestyle. The most affluent countries of 2018, approximately 14.0% of ocally that planet Earth is facing a are mainly responsible for the his- global GHG emissions were covered climate emergency. torical GHG emissions and generally by carbon pricing (figure 1m), but Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from have the greatest per capita emissions the global emissions-weighted aver- 50 nations met at the First World (table S1).
  • The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy

    The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy

    PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 Work Package 6 _ GM Food THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 WORK PACKAGE 6 _ GM FOOD THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 1 The Paganini Project Focussing on selected key areas of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology, PAGANINI investigates the ways in which participatory practices contribute to problem solving in a number of highly contentious fields of EU governance. PAGANINI looks at a particular dynamic cluster of policy areas concerned with what we call “the politics of life”: medicine, health, food, energy, and environment. Under “politics of life” we refer to dimensions of life that are only to a limited extent under human control - or where the public has good reasons to suspect that there are serious limitations to socio-political control and steering. At the same time, “politics of life” areas are strongly connected to normative, moral and value-based factors, such as a sense of responsibility towards the non-human nature, future generations and/or one‟s
  • Climate Change and Its Causes a Discussion About Some Key Issues

    Climate Change and Its Causes a Discussion About Some Key Issues

    Climate Change and Its Causes A Discussion About Some Key Issues Nicola Scafetta 1;2 1Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) Lab, Coronado, CA 92118, USA 2Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. Abstract This article discusses the limits of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory advocated by the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change. A phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data themselves is proposed. At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model. *************************************************************************************** This work is made of • An translation into English of the paper: Scafetta N., “Climate Change and Its causes: A Discussion about Some Key Issues,” La Chimica e l’Industria 1, p. 70-75 (2010); • Several additional supporting notes are added to the paper; • An extended appendix section part is added to cover several thematic issues to support particular topics addressed in the main paper. (not in this preprint) This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video Cite as: arXiv:1003.1554v1 [physics.geo-ph] 8 Mar 2010 Scafetta N., “Climate Change
  • Weathering the End Times Donald W

    Weathering the End Times Donald W

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Liberty University Digital Commons Eruditio Ardescens The Journal of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Volume 2 | Issue 2 Article 2 February 2016 Weathering the End Times Donald W. Holdridge Sr. Liberty University School of Divinity, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/jlbts Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Holdridge, Donald W. Sr. (2016) "Weathering the End Times," Eruditio Ardescens: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/jlbts/vol2/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Liberty University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Eruditio Ardescens by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Weathering the End Times Cover Page Footnote The uthora has been teaching graduate courses in the area of OT Studies for LU's School of Divinity since 2009. This article is available in Eruditio Ardescens: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/jlbts/vol2/iss2/2 WEATHERING THE END TIMES Donald W. Holdridge Sr.1 Today’s scientists disagree over what the earth will look like in the centuries to come. Some seriously doubt whether there will be much of a future if civilization’s industrial activities continue to increase the temperature of the planet. Where do Christians line up on the future global climate debate and how do the prophetic Scriptures contribute to this discussion? Introduction: What’s all the Fuss About? One cannot turn on the evening news without hearing something alarming about the effects of Anthropogenic (man-generated/caused) Climate Change (ACC) impacting one part of the earth or another.
  • The Paris Climate Agreement: Harbinger of a New Global Order

    The Paris Climate Agreement: Harbinger of a New Global Order

    Swarthmore International Relations Journal Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 1 January 2019 ISSN 2574-0113 The Paris Climate Agreement - Harbinger of a New Global Order Shana Herman,’19 Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://works.swarthmore.edu/swarthmoreirjournal/ Recommended Citation Herman, Shana,’19 (2019) “The Paris Climate Agreement - Harbinger of a New Global Order,” Swarthmore International Relations Journal at Swarthmore College: Vol. 1: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://works.swarthmore.edu/swarthmore/vol1/iss3/1 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Works. it has been accepted for inclusion in Swarthmore International Relations Journal at Swarthmore College by an authorized administrator or Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore The Paris Climate Agreement - Harbinger of a New Global Order Shana Herman Swarthmore College I. Introduction In recent decades, climate change has become an increasingly tangible threat to human existence on Earth. In fact, a combination of climate-related forces (e.g. natural disasters, extreme weather events, and droughts) and carbon-related forces (e.g. air pollution and asthma) already claim about five million lives annually.1 This value is only projected to increase and will account for about six million global deaths per year by 2030.2 While climate change has and will continue to disproportionately affect low-income communities, people of color, and indigenous populations, as well as poorer and smaller countries and island nations that are the least responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that have contributed to it, climate change is indisputably a collective global crisis with shared consequences that will ultimately affect every country on Earth, regardless of affluence or military prowess.3 Recently, as the consequences of anthropogenic climate change have grown increasingly visible, countries have begun to come together to address this crisis on an international level.
  • Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise

    Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts RHETORIC FOR BECOMING OTHERWISE: LIFE, LITERATURE, GENEALOGY, FLIGHT A Dissertation in English by Abram D. Anders © 2009 Abram D. Anders Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 ii The dissertation of Abram D. Anders was reviewed and approved* by the following: Richard M. Doyle Professor of English and Science, Technology and Society Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Jeffrey T. Nealon Liberal Arts Research Professor of English Xiaoye You Assistant Professor of English and Asian Studies Robert A. Yarber, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Art Robert R. Edwards Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and Comparative Literature Department of English Graduate Director *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise begins with the Isocratean premise that thought, speech, writing are best understood as bridges between the already said of language and the emerging circumstances that are the occasions for their production. This argument is rehearsed across a variety of domains and instances following Isocrates exhortation that the rhetorician or practitioner of philosophia can only model the movement of discourse without expecting to provide any “true knowledge” or “absolute theory” for how to encounter the problematics of an endlessly deferred present. As a matter of rhetoric, becoming otherwise is the continually renewed task of creating something new from the resources of language and for the demands of an ever deferred present—Presocratics versus Classicists (Chapter 1). As a matter of health, becoming otherwise is the necessity of overcoming limitation and suffering in order to achieve new norms of health and pursue the ever changing opportunities of a self‐developing capacity for producing new capacities—Normativity versus Normalization (Chapter 2).
  • The Pathway to a Green New Deal: Synthesizing Transdisciplinary Literatures and Activist Frameworks to Achieve a Just Energy Transition

    The Pathway to a Green New Deal: Synthesizing Transdisciplinary Literatures and Activist Frameworks to Achieve a Just Energy Transition

    The Pathway to a Green New Deal: Synthesizing Transdisciplinary Literatures and Activist Frameworks to Achieve a Just Energy Transition Shalanda H. Baker and Andrew Kinde The “Green New Deal” resolution introduced into Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019 articulated a vision of a “just” transition away from fossil fuels. That vision involves reckoning with the injustices of the current, fossil-fuel based energy system while also creating a clean energy system that ensures that all people, especially the most vulnerable, have access to jobs, healthcare, and other life-sustaining supports. As debates over the resolution ensued, the question of how lawmakers might move from vision to implementation emerged. Energy justice is a discursive phenomenon that spans the social science and legal literatures, as well as a set of emerging activist frameworks and practices that comprise a larger movement for a just energy transition. These three discourses—social science, law, and practice—remain largely siloed and insular, without substantial cross-pollination or cross-fertilization. This disconnect threatens to scuttle the overall effort for an energy transition deeply rooted in notions of equity, fairness, and racial justice. This Article makes a novel intervention in the energy transition discourse. This Article attempts to harmonize the three discourses of energy justice to provide a coherent framework for social scientists, legal scholars, and practitioners engaged in the praxis of energy justice. We introduce a framework, rooted in the theoretical principles of the interdisciplinary field of energy justice and within a synthesized framework of praxis, to assist lawmakers with the implementation of Last updated December 12, 2020 Professor of Law, Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University.
  • Lonnie G. Thompson

    Lonnie G. Thompson

    Lonnie G. Thompson Curriculum Vitae Distinguished University Professor, School of Earth Sciences Senior Research Scientist, Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Phone: (614) 292-6652|Fax: (614) 292-4697 E-mail: [email protected] Key Indicators of Scholarly Excellence Elected Member of The National Academy of Sciences, 2005 United States Medal of Science, 2007, awarded by the President of the United States at the White House, Washington, D.C. Elected Foreign Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2009 Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Science, 2002, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam Benjamin Franklin Medal, The Franklin Institute, 2012 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, 2005 Dan David Prize in Geosciences, 2008 The Common Wealth Award for Science and Invention, 2002 Vega Medal, 2002, Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005 Elected Member of the American Philosophical Society, 2006 Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, 2001 Honorary Doctoral Degree, 2013, University of Pennsylvania’s 257th Commencement, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Honorary Doctorate of Science, 2011, University of Lancaster, United Kingdom Honorary Doctorate of Science Degree, Spring 2009, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Honorary Doctorate of Science Degree, Spring 2009, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York Additional Indicators of Scholarly Excellence (chronological)