Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Lear, Shannon
dc.contributor.authorNeal, Abigail P.
dc.contributor.authorStallings, Lauren Louise M.
dc.contributor.authorWadood, Sierra
dc.contributor.authorPark, Jimin
dc.contributor.authorHane, Madisen K.
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-17T20:14:47Z
dc.date.available2021-11-17T20:14:47Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-16
dc.identifier.citationO’Lear S, Hane MK, Neal AP, Stallings LLM, Wadood S and Park J (2021) Environmental Geopolitics of Climate Engineering Proposals in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Front. Clim. 3:718553. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2021.718553en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/32193
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental geopolitics offers an analytical approach that considers how environmental themes are brought into the service of geopolitical agendas. Of particular concern are claims about environment-related security and risk and the justification of actions (or inactions) proposed to deal with those claims. Environmental geopolitical analysis focuses on geographical knowledge and how that knowledge is generated and applied to stabilize specific understandings of the world. Climate engineering is a realm in which certain kinds of geographical knowledge, in the form of scientific interpretations of environmental interactions, are utilized to support a selective agenda that, despite claims about benefiting people and environments on a global scale, may be shown to reinforce uneven relationships of power as well as patterns of injustice. This paper focuses on how the IPCC AR5 discusses and portrays climate engineering. This particular conversation is significant, since the IPCC is widely recognized as reflecting current, international science and understanding of climate change processes and possible responses. We demonstrate an initial, environmental geopolitical analysis of this portrayal and discussion around climate engineering proposals by observing how the role and meaning of environmental features is limited, how human agency and impact in these scenarios is selective, and how insufficient attention is paid to spatial dimensions and impacts of these proposals. This paper contributes to a larger conversation about why it matters how we engage in discussion about climate impacts and issues; a central argument is that it is vital that we consider these proposed plans in terms of what they aim to secure, for whom, how and where.en_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaen_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2021 O’Lear, Hane, Neal, Stallings, Wadood and Park. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectGeoengineeringen_US
dc.subjectGeopoliticsen_US
dc.subjectSecurityen_US
dc.subjectRisken_US
dc.subjectCritical geopoliticsen_US
dc.subjectIPCCen_US
dc.titleEnvironmental Geopolitics of Climate Engineering Proposals in the IPCC 5th Assessment Reporten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorO’Lear, Shannon
kusw.kuauthorHane, Madisen K.
kusw.kuauthorNeal, Abigail P.
kusw.kuauthorStallings, Lauren Louise M.
kusw.kuauthorWadood, Sierra
kusw.kuauthorPark, Jimin
kusw.kudepartmentGeography and Atmospheric Scienceen_US
kusw.kudepartmentEnvironmental Studiesen_US
kusw.kudepartmentJournalism and Mass Communicationsen_US
kusw.kudepartmentGlobal and International Studiesen_US
kusw.kudepartmentPolitical Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fclim.2021.718553en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2021 O’Lear, Hane, Neal, Stallings, Wadood and Park. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as: Copyright © 2021 O’Lear, Hane, Neal, Stallings, Wadood and Park. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.