In the context of global environmental change much hope is placed in the ability of resilience th... more In the context of global environmental change much hope is placed in the ability of resilience thinking to help address environment-related risks. Numerous initiatives aim at incorporating resilience into urban planning practices. The purpose of this paper is to open up a conversation on urban resilience by unpacking how diverse science methods contribute to the production of different narratives of urban resilience mobilizing different experts and forms of evidence. A number of scholars have cautioned against uncritical approaches to resilience and asked what resilience means and for whom, also pointing out the normative dimension of the concept. Building on this emerging scholarship we use insights from science and technology studies (STS) and critical social sciences to look at the knowledge infrastructures and networks of actors involved in the development of resilience strategies. Drawing on fieldwork in Manila, Nairobi, and Cape Town, we map different narratives of urban resilience identifying the ways in which science serves to legitimate or alienate particular perspectives on what should be done. We discuss the multiple roles that science methods have for resilience planning. Whereas urban resilience is often portrayed as consensual, we show that a range of narratives, with diverse socio-material implications, exist at the city level. In this way we unearth the conflict that lies beneath an apparent consensus for resilience policy and outline future research directions for urban sustainability.
This paper draws on climate justice principles developed in the context of international negotiat... more This paper draws on climate justice principles developed in the context of international negotiations between national governments to assess the distribution of carbon reduction roles between different actors involved in residential energy use within the UK. In so doing, it aims to provide a new understanding of equity aspects of current residential policy and to highlight opportunities for more effective and equitable policy. The paper uses three criteria: rights (and corresponding duties); mitigation responsibilities; and capabilities. It applies them systematically to assess the roles of five key actors involved in residential energy use in the UK. The assessment finds a suboptimal distribution of actors' roles. The paper discusses whether and how a more effective and fair allocation of outcomes, in terms of carbon reduction and fuel poverty, could be achieved with a different allocation of duties and responsibilities among actors. In particular, it raises questions about whether the right actors are being legally obliged or incentivised to deliver energy efficiency improvements, and suggests that particular actors-local authorities and community groups – are under-used and require greater government support. The paper represents the first use of international climate justice frameworks to investigate residential energy policy within a country.
ABSTRACT Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization o... more ABSTRACT Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization or individual contributes to a scheme that is projected either to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or to deliver carbon dioxide emission reductions on the part of other organizations or individuals. An activity that has been offset therefore purports to make no long-term net contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The ethical basis for using carbon offsetting as an approach to tackling climate change is very much contested. We seek to expose some of the underlying reasons for these ethical disagreements. We show that they relate both to empirical disagreements about what the likely benefits of offsetting are and, more fundamentally, to principled disagreements about the right way to discharge duties to deliver carbon reductions. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:91–98. doi: 10.1002/wcc.207 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
In the context of global environmental change much hope is placed in the ability of resilience th... more In the context of global environmental change much hope is placed in the ability of resilience thinking to help address environment-related risks. Numerous initiatives aim at incorporating resilience into urban planning practices. The purpose of this paper is to open up a conversation on urban resilience by unpacking how diverse science methods contribute to the production of different narratives of urban resilience mobilizing different experts and forms of evidence. A number of scholars have cautioned against uncritical approaches to resilience and asked what resilience means and for whom, also pointing out the normative dimension of the concept. Building on this emerging scholarship we use insights from science and technology studies (STS) and critical social sciences to look at the knowledge infrastructures and networks of actors involved in the development of resilience strategies. Drawing on fieldwork in Manila, Nairobi, and Cape Town, we map different narratives of urban resilience identifying the ways in which science serves to legitimate or alienate particular perspectives on what should be done. We discuss the multiple roles that science methods have for resilience planning. Whereas urban resilience is often portrayed as consensual, we show that a range of narratives, with diverse socio-material implications, exist at the city level. In this way we unearth the conflict that lies beneath an apparent consensus for resilience policy and outline future research directions for urban sustainability.
This paper draws on climate justice principles developed in the context of international negotiat... more This paper draws on climate justice principles developed in the context of international negotiations between national governments to assess the distribution of carbon reduction roles between different actors involved in residential energy use within the UK. In so doing, it aims to provide a new understanding of equity aspects of current residential policy and to highlight opportunities for more effective and equitable policy. The paper uses three criteria: rights (and corresponding duties); mitigation responsibilities; and capabilities. It applies them systematically to assess the roles of five key actors involved in residential energy use in the UK. The assessment finds a suboptimal distribution of actors' roles. The paper discusses whether and how a more effective and fair allocation of outcomes, in terms of carbon reduction and fuel poverty, could be achieved with a different allocation of duties and responsibilities among actors. In particular, it raises questions about whether the right actors are being legally obliged or incentivised to deliver energy efficiency improvements, and suggests that particular actors-local authorities and community groups – are under-used and require greater government support. The paper represents the first use of international climate justice frameworks to investigate residential energy policy within a country.
ABSTRACT Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization o... more ABSTRACT Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization or individual contributes to a scheme that is projected either to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or to deliver carbon dioxide emission reductions on the part of other organizations or individuals. An activity that has been offset therefore purports to make no long-term net contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The ethical basis for using carbon offsetting as an approach to tackling climate change is very much contested. We seek to expose some of the underlying reasons for these ethical disagreements. We show that they relate both to empirical disagreements about what the likely benefits of offsetting are and, more fundamentally, to principled disagreements about the right way to discharge duties to deliver carbon reductions. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:91–98. doi: 10.1002/wcc.207 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
Uploads
Papers by Keith Hyams