Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Climate Change

View current issue Submit your manuscript

The students striking for action on climate change admirably display civic engagement on a pressing issue. Nevertheless, their movement’s message focuses far too heavily on the need to ‘listen to science’, which is at most a point of departure for answering the ethical and political questions central to climate action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Durkheim, É. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Oxford Univ. Press, 1912).

  2. Beck, U. World Risk Society (Polity, 1999).

  3. Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity (Polity, 2012).

  4. Sarewitz, D. Environ. Sci. Pol. 7, 385–403 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howarth, R. & Ingraffea, A. Nature 477, 271–273 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jasanoff, S. & Simmet, H. Soc. Studies Sci. 47, 751–770 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. IPCC. Special Report: Global warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  8. Russell, B. A History of Western Philosophy (Simon & Schuster, 1959).

  9. Hansson, S. O. in Risk: Philosophical Perspectives (ed. Lewens, T.) 31–45 (Routledge, 2007).

  10. Hansson, S. O. in Handbook of Safety Principles (eds Moller, N. et al) 258–283 (Wiley, 2017).

  11. Robinson, M. & Shine, T. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 564–569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cripps., E. Polit. Philos. Econ. 16, 308–325 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanbur, R. & Shue, H. (eds) Climate Justice: Integrating Economics and Philosophy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  14. Shi, L. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 131–137 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schlosberg, D. & Collins, L. B. WIRES Clim. Change 5, 359–374 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hale, T. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16, 12–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Falkner, R. Int. Aff. 92, 1107–1125 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., Ott, H. & Beuermann, C. Clim. Pol. 17, 150–170 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laclau, E. On Populist Reason (Verso, 2005).

  20. Fraune, C. & Knodt, M. Energ. Res. Soc. Sci. 43, 1–7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Global Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Roberts, J. T. & Parks, B. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy (MIT Press, 2006).

  23. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T. & Khan, M. R. Power in a warming world: The new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environmental inequality (MIT Press, 2015).

  24. Warren, M. Nature 567, 291–292 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Darrick Evensen

Authors
  1. Darrick Evensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrick Evensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evensen, D. The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 428–430 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0481-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0481-1

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation