Making the Climate Malleable? “Weak” and “Strong” Governance Objects and the Transformation of International Climate Politics
Global Studies Quarterly, ISSN: 2634-3797, Vol: 4, Issue: 3
2024
- 1Citations
- 2Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Object-oriented theories have been used to understand how the climate and other entities like “the economy” have been produced as discrete, malleable and politically salient “governance objects.” These have structuring effects not only on policy debates but also on entire polities and the international system. However, a failure to distinguish between different kinds of governance objects has obscured their fundamentally different political implications. This article revises earlier definitions and develops a novel distinction between “weakly” and “strongly” malleable governance objects. The former are governable only in terms of not being perturbed in relation to a baseline condition, while “strongly governable” objects are construed as malleable along multiple dimensions, the telos of governing them no longer a given. The weak/strong distinction is applied to elicit implications of four climate strategies: mitigation, adaptation, and prospective “geoengineering” techniques of carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification that would deliberately alter the climate. Increasingly billed as risky but necessary, given the fraught politics of mitigation, geoengineering is shown to potentially transform the climate from weak to more strongly governable object. This could “untether” climate governance from the aim of remaining close to a pre-industrial climate, with a "design approach" to geoengineering adding layers of politicization, potentially increasing the fractiousness of global climate politics. However the analysis also highlights possible new routes to depoliticization of the climate, were it to be retethered—potentially to security imperatives or economic indicators. Analysis of governance objects requires much greater attention to types of malleability and politicization.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85204997859&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae062; https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/doi/10.1093/isagsq/ksae062/7814685; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae062; https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/4/3/ksae062/7814685
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know