J. Timmons Roberts, Bradley C. Parks, ,A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South...
1
Book Reviews A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South Politics and Climate Policy, J. Timmons Roberts, Bradley C. Parks, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2007), ISBN-13 978-0-262-68161-2, pp. 404 The pursuit of justice across the multiple dimensions of climate change is crucial to how globally we move forward into a future of tightening greenhouse gas mitigation policy and hardening climate change impacts. Fairness and justice have already been necessary parameters of international debates about the allocation of carbon reduction targets and an increasing part of the work of campaigning groups concerned with promoting equitable approaches to mitigation and adaptation. That this book uses ‘injustice’ in its title is testament to the fact that fairness is not currently being realised in the current highly unequal dynamics of climate change politics and the authors’ concern is with shifting towards both more effective and equitable outcomes. In this respect the book provides an interesting and distinctive contribution to scholarship on climate change politics with analysis and conclusions that ought to factor as much into the policy world as into the academic library. The authors draw on over 12 years of work from multiple disciplines, in particular sociology, international relations, development economics and geography. Their focus is on global inequality as an explanation for outcomes in interna- tional environmental negotiations and specifically the serious policy impasses on climate change. Their ambition is to provide a structured and rigorous analysis that can overcome the deficits they see in other work which, in their words, relies on ‘selective, anecdotal evidence, making claims of dubious generalizability and without measuring systematically inequality regarding climate change in its several dimen- sions’. Their approach is to combine some degree of measure- ment and statistical analysis with theories of the behaviour of states and of international politics in order to shed light on the complexities and particularities of the climate change ‘pro- blem structure’. They are in particular concerned with what they call the triple inequality of responsibility, vulnerability and mitigation and use both theory and statistical methods (multiple regression and path analysis) to explore each of these. The book is in this respect an eclectic and distinctive mix of accessible theoretical discussion, compelling narratives of the successes and failures of climate change negotiations and multi-dimensional cross-national statistical analysis. Readers are likely to warm to different elements of this menu, and to take their own view on whether the mix of ingredients represents a successful integration. The chapters each take on different elements of the analysis of inequality and I found myself sometimes con- vinced, sometimes less so. For example, chapter 3 focuses on disasters and provides useful data analysis and case studies of how disaster impacts play out in different contexts. Chapter 4 tries to discriminate and explain what is most important in explaining vulnerability to climate-related disasters using regression and path analysis, an approach which for this purpose I found overly cumbersome. The conclusion that the most important forces driving hydrometereological risk are the direct consequence of ‘extractive colonial legacies’ is hardly news to those familiar with political ecology work and I couldn’t find the value in ‘proving’ this through statistical analysis. In contrast chapter 5 examines different ways of ‘cutting the cake’ in terms of understanding greenhouse gas emissions and here the data analysis really began to provide interesting insights, working through the implications of using different measures of emissions and considering different explanations for why some countries emit more than others (although here and elsewhere in the book some of the presentation of data in hard to digest tables leaves much to be desired). In this way each of the different elements of their carefully constructed argument merits systematic cri- tical evaluation (more than is possible in a book review), in part because the conclusions they come to are important and significant for post-Kyoto negotiations. A key argument here is that climate change negotiations are severely hampered by a legacy of mistrust and polarized expectations between developed and developing worlds borne out of experience across multiple issue areas. There is a major ‘trust deficit’ from this historically produced political spillover which they see as essential to address if truly global and inclusive climate change negotiations are to be pursued. In their final chapter they attempt to find a way forward advocating changes in the ‘rules of the game’ that can act against a ‘downward spiral of distrust’. Whether the hope that they put in strategic reassurance and restraint, in upgrading development path- ways and in ‘insider–outsider’ relations provides a sufficient and realistic way forward remains to be seen. Gordon Walker Department of Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK Tel.: +44 1524 510256. E-mail address: [email protected]. 14 May 2008 BOOK REVIEWS doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.026 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 67 (2008) 341 – 343 available at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
-
Upload
gordon-walker -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of J. Timmons Roberts, Bradley C. Parks, ,A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South...
Book Reviews
A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South Politicsand Climate Policy, J. Timmons Roberts, Bradley C. Parks, MITPress, Cambridge,MA (2007), ISBN-13978-0-262-68161-2, pp. 404
The pursuit of justice across the multiple dimensions ofclimate change is crucial to how globally we move forwardinto a future of tightening greenhouse gas mitigation policyand hardening climate change impacts. Fairness and justicehave already been necessary parameters of internationaldebates about the allocation of carbon reduction targets andan increasing part of the work of campaigning groupsconcerned with promoting equitable approaches tomitigationand adaptation. That this book uses ‘injustice’ in its title istestament to the fact that fairness is not currently beingrealised in the current highly unequal dynamics of climatechange politics and the authors’ concern is with shiftingtowards both more effective and equitable outcomes. In thisrespect the book provides an interesting and distinctivecontribution to scholarship on climate change politics withanalysis and conclusions that ought to factor asmuch into thepolicy world as into the academic library.
The authors draw on over 12 years of work from multipledisciplines, in particular sociology, international relations,development economics and geography. Their focus is onglobal inequality as an explanation for outcomes in interna-tional environmental negotiations and specifically the seriouspolicy impasses on climate change. Their ambition is toprovide a structured and rigorous analysis that can overcomethe deficits they see in other work which, in their words, relieson ‘selective, anecdotal evidence, making claims of dubiousgeneralizability and without measuring systematicallyinequality regarding climate change in its several dimen-sions’. Their approach is to combine some degree of measure-ment and statistical analysis with theories of the behaviour ofstates and of international politics in order to shed light on thecomplexities and particularities of the climate change ‘pro-blem structure’. They are in particular concerned with whatthey call the triple inequality of responsibility, vulnerabilityand mitigation and use both theory and statistical methods(multiple regression and path analysis) to explore each ofthese. The book is in this respect an eclectic and distinctivemix of accessible theoretical discussion, compelling narrativesof the successes and failures of climate change negotiationsand multi-dimensional cross-national statistical analysis.Readers are likely to warm to different elements of thismenu, and to take their own view on whether the mix ofingredients represents a successful integration.
The chapters each take on different elements of theanalysis of inequality and I found myself sometimes con-
vinced, sometimes less so. For example, chapter 3 focuses ondisasters and provides useful data analysis and case studies ofhow disaster impacts play out in different contexts. Chapter 4tries to discriminate and explain what is most important inexplaining vulnerability to climate-related disasters usingregression and path analysis, an approach which for thispurpose I found overly cumbersome. The conclusion that themost important forces driving hydrometereological risk arethe direct consequence of ‘extractive colonial legacies’ ishardly news to those familiar with political ecology work and Icouldn’t find the value in ‘proving’ this through statisticalanalysis. In contrast chapter 5 examines different ways of‘cutting the cake’ in terms of understanding greenhouse gasemissions and here the data analysis really began to provideinteresting insights, working through the implications ofusing different measures of emissions and consideringdifferent explanations for why some countries emit morethan others (although here and elsewhere in the book some ofthe presentation of data in hard to digest tables leaves muchto be desired). In this way each of the different elements oftheir carefully constructed argument merits systematic cri-tical evaluation (more than is possible in a book review), inpart because the conclusions they come to are important andsignificant for post-Kyoto negotiations. A key argument hereis that climate change negotiations are severely hampered bya legacy of mistrust and polarized expectations betweendeveloped and developing worlds borne out of experienceacross multiple issue areas. There is a major ‘trust deficit’from this historically produced political spillover which theysee as essential to address if truly global and inclusive climatechange negotiations are to be pursued. In their final chapterthey attempt to find a way forward advocating changes in the‘rules of the game’ that can act against a ‘downward spiral ofdistrust’. Whether the hope that they put in strategicreassurance and restraint, in upgrading development path-ways and in ‘insider–outsider’ relations provides a sufficientand realistic way forward remains to be seen.
Gordon WalkerDepartment of Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre,
Lancaster University, UKTel.: +44 1524 510256.
E-mail address: [email protected].
14 May 2008
B O O K R E V I E W S
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.026
E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 7 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 3 4 1 – 3 4 3
ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i r ec t . com
www.e l sev i e r. com/ loca te / eco l econ
