‘Power with’ and ‘power to’ in environmental politics and the transition to sustainability

Scholars of environmental politics demand serious reform of international governance and institutions to protect planet Earth. There is therefore an urgent need to discuss what causes change and gridlock in environmental politics. Serious reform is inextricably tied up with questions of power. The diversity with which studies on environmental politics understand power is exposed through three ideal type concepts: power with (learning and cooperation), power to (resistance and empowerment) and power over (coercion and manipulation). So far, scholars have mainly used analysis of coercive power (over) to explain gridlock in environmental politics; also needed is explicit acknowledgement of coaction and individual agency that can enable transition to more sustainable societies.     

What’s ‘evangelical’ got to do with it? Disentangling the impact of evangelical Protestantism on environmental outcomes

Empirical research on the relationship between evangelical Protestants and the environment has generated a range of divergent findings. Measurements of evangelical Protestants vary greatly, as do the dependent environmental outcomes they are used to predict. Serious questions remain concerning when and how ‘evangelicals’ diverge from others in their environmental views and behaviors. Here, two foundational questions concerning the relationship between evangelical Protestants and the environment are explored. First, do religious effects differ based on how evangelicals are defined and measured? Second, does the relationship vary with the outcome variable used? Utilizing 14 dependent variables from two nationally representative data sets, among the measures of evangelical Protestantism, biblical literalism is the most important predictor of environmental outcomes. Negative religious effects are more pronounced when questions concern future environmental outcomes, but not current environmental concerns, and when outcomes are related to collective actions rather than individual ones.     

Comment on ‘Climate sensitivity,agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND’

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - Dayaratna et al. (Environ Econ Policy Stud 22:433–448, 2020) proposes several improvements to economic- and climate-simulating IAMs and to their...     

Climate change and institutional change: what is the relative importance for economic performance?

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - A growing empirical literature attempts to assess the effect of climate and institutional quality (measured by e.g. economic freedom) on economic...     

Climate justice,adaptation and the Paris Agreement: a recipe for disasters?

A Capability Approach is adopted to critically analyse, in the interests of Climate Justice, whether the Paris Agreement is likely to adequately protect human and non-human Capabilities from the worst impacts of climate disasters. The mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage provisions of the Paris Agreement are not convincing. Adaptation offers only a modest response to climate change, compared with mitigation, and current financial commitments to fund adaptation in developing countries are far too low. Consequently, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have a long way to go in their negotiations before they have any hope of meeting their agreed temperature goals, and protecting human and non-human Capabilities from climate disasters.     

What’s missing from Ostrom? Combining design principles with the theory of sociocultural viability

Since 1990, Elinor Ostrom’s design principles for common property resource (CPR) institutions have been highly influential, offering a counter to pessimistic arguments about resource users’ prospects of cooperating to manage CPRs sustainably. However, the theoretical underpinnings of Ostrom’s theory have been criticised: as unfairly negative towards macro-level interventions; as utilising an overly narrow conceptualisation of rationality; and under appreciative of the role of power. These criticisms are examined using insights drawn from the theory of sociocultural viability (cultural theory, for short), a theory of plural rationality related to context. Utilising the case of Faroese whaling, the research aim is to assess the extent that cultural theory ameliorates criticisms laid at Ostrom’s design principles. It finds that Ostrom’s research trajectory was reaching the limits of methodological individualism’s ability to grasp rational behaviour and suggests the design principles may in effect be integrated with cultural theory.     

Extractivism and the rights of nature: governmentality, ‘convenient communities’ and epistemic pacts in Ecuador

Ecuador’s recently adopted conflict resolution techniques have aggravated the always tense encounters between Amazonian indigenous communities, oil companies and the state. The state’s governmentality project portrays these socio-environmental conflicts as mere technical–managerial issues while societal coalitions re-politicize them through territorial defense struggles. The Cofán Dureno case highlights how the self-proclaimed ‘Citizen’s Revolution’ government seeks to redefine socio-natural relationships and territorial identities, devising ‘communities of convenience’. These correspond to the state’s own images, political structure and ideology, promoting ‘community participation’ to facilitate oil extraction. Ecuador’s constitutionally recognized Rights of Nature (paradoxically installed by the same government) are analyzed with a focus on their potential for resisting socio-environmental injustice. The internationally celebrated inclusion of these rights in the Constitution was advocated by nonindigenous intellectual activists but influenced and supported by the indigenous movement. Beyond legal implications, these rights might foster an epistemic pact between indigenous and nonindigenous society to defend territories from extractive industries.