Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to apply club good theory to challenges in climate justice and to identify the opportunities for creating a club of countries or regions to support climate justice and/or mitigate climate change, as well as the threats that such clubs could lead to the real exclusion of large parts of the world from climate justice.
Design/methodology/approach
A theoretical analysis is provided regarding the conditions for creating a club for climate change mitigation. Indicators of good governance and trust, as well as the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN), are used to assess the capacity for creating such a club.
Findings
While opportunities for achieving climate justice are identified, climate change mitigation is likely to be at most a club good at the global level, thus excluding the most vulnerable countries, regions and groups of people. Although the threats of climate change may be acknowledged, they are easily neglected. Economic growth is likely to be a condition for economic sustainability, which in turn tends to be a condition for environmental sustainability. Decision makers should be conscious of the potential danger of creating a club for climate change mitigation based on the belief that economic growth and technology will solve these problems, as such a club is likely to be either unsustainable, or very small, while deepening existing injustice.
Originality/value
The authors provide an overview of the complexity of issues involved, to gain an appreciation of the vast, perhaps insurmountable, challenges facing climate justice. A club good approach is applied to issues of climate justice, emphasizing the limitations of the all-inclusiveness of climate justice and sustainable development.
This paper has been corrected online and in print in order to clarify Dr. Crockford's scientific expertise and financial links in relation to the arguments made in the paper (BioScience 68: 281-287). The corrected text is as follows: First change: Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears. Second change: Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from organizations that downplay AGW (e.g., Dr. Crockford has previously been paid for report writing by the Heartland Institute).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.