In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris
The Paris Agreement is built on a tension between the common goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C and the differentiation that follows from the principle of equity. Scientific expertise is commonly seen as providing important means to overcome this tension, for example in the Agreement’s “global stocktake”, which is said to be undertaken “in the light of equity and the best available science”. This raises the question of how scholarly communities best can contribute to deliberations on equitable differentiation in the effort required to meet common temperature goals. To discuss this question, the paper looks to the literature within Science and Technology Studies on the role of science in policymaking, where disagreement exists over the merits of “heating up” controversies through politicization, versus “cooling down” issues by seeking consensus. It assesses two cases in which scientific expertise has engaged with questions of equitable effort-sharing in international climate politics: The “Bali Box” of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and the “Civil Society Equity Review” undertaken prior to COP21 in Paris. Based on a comparison of the two cases, it is argued that scientific contributions should not shy away from highlighting conflicts in values and interests, and that “heating up” discussions about climate justice may be a valuable contribution to overcoming the tensions of the Paris Agreement.
KeywordsParis Agreement Science/policy Climate justice North/South equity Politicization/depoliticization
Fourth Assessment Report (of the IPCC)
Climate Equity Reference Project
Conference of the Parties (to the UNFCCC)
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Science and Technology Studies
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The author would like to thank Göran Sundqvist, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. This work has been carried out as part of CICEP – Strategic Challenges in International Climate and Energy Policy, funded by the Research Council of Norway (Project No. 209701).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
- ActionAid, APMDD, CAN South Asia et al. (2015). Fair shares: A civil society equity review of INDCs. Report, November 2015. http://civilsocietyreview.org/report. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.
- Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S., & Kemp-Benedict, E. (2008). The right to development in a climate constrained world: The Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.Google Scholar
- Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Cassegård, C., Soneryd, L., Thörn, H., & Wettergren, Å. (Eds.). (2017). Climate action in a globalizing world: Comparative perspectives on environmental movements in the Global North. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem at large. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Gupta, J., & Arts, K. (2017). Achieving the 1.5 °C objective: Just implementation through a right to (sustainable) development approach. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9376-7.
- Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., et al. (2007). Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Holz, C., Kartha, S., & Athanasiou, T. (2017). Fairly sharing 1.5: National fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9371-z.
- Höhne, N., & Ellerman, C. (2008). The EU’s emission reduction target, intended use of CDM and its +2 °C. Note IP/A/ENVI/NT/2008–14. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
- Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
- Lahsen, M. (2004). Transnational locals. In S. Jasanoff & M. L. Mortello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 151–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Machin, A. (2013). Negotiating climate change: Radical democracy and the illusion of consensus. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In Sheila Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 46–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sarewitz, D. (2000). Science and environmental policy: An excess of objectivity. In R. E. Frodeman & V. R. Baker (Eds.), Earth Matters: The earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of community (pp. 79–98). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- SEI (2016). SEI U.S. center 2016 annual report. Stockholm Environment Institute. http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-US-AnnualReport-2016.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2017.
- Shaw, C. (2015). The two degrees dangerous limit for climate change: Public understanding and decision making. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- UN (2015). Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2017.
- Winkler, H., Höhne, N., & Cunliffe, G., et al. (2017). Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair—more rigour needed. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. (Forthcoming in this issue.)Google Scholar