Torn between war and peace: Critiquing the use of war to mobilize peaceful climate action

Kester, Johannes; Sovacool, Benjamin K.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.026

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second issue is that-despite the prevalence of war rhetoric in climate change resistance (57)-militaries have for a long time had a direct, yet relatively neglected, role in causing climate change. Everyday military operations directly generate vast emissions of GHGs (58). Recent research found the US military to be the world's largest institutional consumer of petroleum and emitting more GHGs than most medium-sized countries (59).…”

Section: Geopolitics and Militarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?

Stoddard

Anderson

Capstick

et al. 2021

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

283

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite three decades of political efforts and a wealth of research on the causes and catastrophic impacts of climate change, global carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise and are 60% higher today than they were in 1990. Exploring this rise through nine thematic lenses—covering issues of climate governance, the fossil fuel industry, geopolitics, economics, mitigation modeling, energy systems, inequity, lifestyles, and social imaginaries—draws out multifaceted reasons for our collective failure to bend the global emissions curve. However, a common thread that emerges across the reviewed literature is the central role of power, manifest in many forms, from a dogmatic political-economic hegemony and influential vested interests to narrow techno-economic mindsets and ideologies of control. Synthesizing the various impediments to mitigation reveals how delivering on the commitments enshrined in the Paris Agreement now requires an urgent and unprecedented transformation away from today's carbon- and energy-intensive development paradigm. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 46 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Section: Geopolitics and Militarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?

Stoddard

Anderson

Capstick

et al. 2021

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

283

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oels (2012) warns that making climate a security issue can promote elitism and close it off from local populations; Kester et al (2017) note that invoking a security logic can even be dangerous lead to hasty and unintended consequences.…”

Section: : Conclusion and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Security is "an accentuated discourse on vulnerability" (Barnet, 2003, p.1), socially constructed rather than objective, it is attached to what is regarded as the most vulnerable of entities such as the nation; property; income; and basic needs (Kester et al 2017). Defining particular risks is a political one (Waever, 1995), but Fletcher (2009, p.808) points out that security provides Republicans and Democrats the opportunity for cooperation on climate change mitigation legislation.…”

Section: National Security (Interventionists and Isolationists)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

Brown

Sovacool

2017

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the results of an investigation into the frequency in which four candidates of the 2016 US. Presidential primary season communicated their political positions on climate change, and how they subsequently framed these stances in numerous contextual drivers alongside energy policies. A systematic content analysis of political debates, campaign speeches, and press statements reveals how Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz undertook in vote-seeking behaviour to create distinct stances on energy and climate issues. Results indicate not only partisan polarization, but also-that stakeholder dynamics, control of communications and communication frequency are inter-dependent and reinforcing in generating differing climate positions. Institutional dynamics exacerbate these 'logic schisms' rather than providing a means of collective decision making. We test such climate discourse according to a typology of scientific, economic, national security, and moral frames. We also assess how particular frames morph over time, and are impacted by exogenous factors such as global climate change negotiations, national environmental crises (such as the Flint Water Crisis), and contestation over stranded assets and fossil fuel divestment. We find that political climate discourse must communicate to collective, bipartisan interests whilst avoiding politically divisive climate frames. National security is offered as a means of potential reconciliation and the discourse surrounding this must be deliberative in order to promote consensus driven politics and raise public awareness, bringing more stakeholders into the discussion. Keywords 2: Political Communication, Discourse, Content Analysis, and FramesThis section of the paper presents our key conceptual approaches, namely those of political communication, discourse, content analysis, and frames. Thus, the framework utilized in this study is the result of synthesising several literatures. Political communication and political economy literature provide the assumption that all candidates seek power and communicate policy stances to gain votes. Content analysis reveals the extent to which candidates regard the issue of climate change as a source of political capital, denoted by the frequency in which the issue is raised. Discourse analysis and framing literature reveal how the candidates communicate a narrative by specifically constructing climate stances to engage specific stakeholders. How candidates employ certain frames will ultimately uncover whether candidates frame their stances different in context specific situations in order to maximise political capital. Discourse and logic schisms

show abstract

“…The framing of blame in climate change has been challenging with a lack of an obvious enemy. The enemy (or target of change) has been named as the carbon military industrial complex, capitalism, government inaction, and ourselves or humanity (80). The nature of the identification of climate change as a problem, within any given diagnostic frame, influences the perception of whether there is a problem, the evaluation of whether a different decision needs to be made, and the determination of the entity which should be held responsible for solving the problem.…”

Section: Framing and Climate Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Decision-Making

Orlove

Shwom

Markowitz

et al. 2020

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change decision-making has emerged in recent decades as an area of research and practice, expanding on an earlier focus on climate policy. Defined as the study of decisions relevant for climate change, it draws on developments in decision science, particularly advances in the study of cognitive and deliberative processes in individuals and organizations. The effects of climate, economic, social, and other framings on decision-making have been studied, often showing that nonclimate frames can be as effective, or more effective, than climate frames in promoting decision-making and action. The concept of urgency, linked to the ideas of climate crisis and climate emergency, has taken on importance in recent years. Research on climate decision-making has influenced numerous areas of climate action, including nudges and other behavioral interventions, corporate social responsibility, and Indigenous decision-making. Areas of transformational change, such as strategic retreat in the face of sea-level rise, are emerging. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 45 is October 19, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Torn between war and peace: Critiquing the use of war to mobilize peaceful climate action

Cited by 16 publications

References 36 publications

Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?

Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

Climate Decision-Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About