[gep-ed] Re: Winds of Change November 11th

[Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir]

Dear Colleagues
Join us on *November 11th at noon EST* for our fifth and last seminar in
our webinar series titled: *Winds of Change: Off-Shore Energy Production
and the Social Sciences.*

This series of webinars is organized by Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir and Caitlin
Cleaver (Bates College, Maine), Alison Bates (Colby College, Maine) and
Joshua Stoll and Theresa Burnham (University of Maine, Orono) and brings
together leading researchers to discuss and identify key social science
perspectives on this energy transition.

Designed primarily for an academic audience, each webinar will be led by
two speakers, who will talk for about 15 minutes each, after which we open
the floor for questions and comments.

Registration is required, please do so here
. *Please
note that we are recording this series. *

*If you would like a recording of our previous webinars, please email the
organizer below. *

*Speakers on November 11th will be:*

   - *Jan van Tatenhove, Distinguished Professor AAU, Head of Centre for
   Blue Governance, Department of Planning and Center for Blue Governance,
   Aalborg University, Denmark*
   - Regionalization at seas as reflexive institutionalization


   - *Susana Batel, Researcher at the Center for Psychological Research and
   Social Intervention (CIS), University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL),
   Portugal*
   - Title of talk:  Going beyond social acceptance: Some insights from
   onshore renewable energy transitions

On behalf of the organizers.

All the best,

Áslaug

--

Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir

Associate Dean of the Faculty
Chair of the Department of Anthropology
Professor of Politics
Pronouns: she, hers

120 Lane Hall
2 Andrews Road
Bates College
Lewiston, ME 04240

Phone: 207-786-6472
E-mail: aasge...@bates.edu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/CAGA_3u04d7Nn4yq0Uj0wH_gwgpAo52PjapC4Ukh5izG%3Daz4M3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [gep-ed] Paris enforcement responses to media inquiry

[Knox, John]

  Hi everyone,

I didn't reply to Ron's initial inquiry, but for what it's worth, I would
just add the following:

It's important to look beyond the very limited mechanisms available in
international law to push for compliance with Paris in general, and the
NDCs in particular.

The NDCs and other non-legal commitments by States are increasingly being
used in domestic litigation aimed at forcing States to reduce their
emissions more rapidly, even though those commitments are not binding under
international law. The most famous example is the Dutch Supreme Court's
2019 decision in the *Urgenda *case, but a large number of other decisions
are either pending or have recently been decided. Many of these cases rely
on rights-based arguments - that is, claims that the effects of climate
change are harming specific rights protected by constitutional law or
international human rights law, and that the failure of the government to
protect against that harm violates its obligations.To be clear, these
courts are not enforcing Paris directly. But the Paris NDCs (and other
non-binding State statements and commitments) are being cited as informing
the arguments and decisions, because these commitments make clear what
States *themselves *have said is necessary (and feasible) for them to do.

I want to emphasize that these rights-based cases are extremely unlikely to
have success in either of the two biggest emitters, whose courts are
unfriendly to this type of rights-based litigation. A serious effort was
made in the United States in the *Juliana *litigation, but it was not
successful. (In fact, the US Supreme Court is far more likely to block the
Executive from addressing climate change than to order it to take action.)
In much of the rest of the world, however, the idea of rights-based climate
litigation is not some kind of scholarly fantasy; rather, it is turning out
to be one of the most important tools civil society has to force
governments to move more quickly.

Of course, one important way that these cases can have that effect is by
adding to the political pressures whose importance Detlef rightly
emphasized.

Cheers,
John

John H. Knox
*Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law*
Wake Forest University School of Law
1834 Wake Forest Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
(336) 758-7439


On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 12:50 PM Detlef Sprinz  wrote:

> Dear Ron,
>
> let me briefly add one point to the thoughtful responses you received.
>
> In a functional sense (and given the architecture of the PA, incl. the
> selection of what went into which document, i.e., COP resolutions and the
> PA as an appendix), it is mostly domestic politics that can „enforce“ the
> PA, more specifically, domestic policies aligned (to some degree) with the
> PA.  In addition, domestic court cases and a few at the international level
> are making some headway, but nothing beats a government being removed from
> office for reasons of lack of ambition and/or lack of implementation by way
> of a regular, fair, etc. election.
>
> Empirically, I see more and more evidence going in this direction,
> starting from extremely low levels, that this is happening.  Whether it all
> adds up, in time, remains an open question.
>
> Best wishes,
> Detlef
>
> On 2. Nov 2021, at 16:35, Ronald Mitchell  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Predictably, I got excellent answers promptly from GEPED.  Here are the
> summarized results.  Hope they are helpful to others as well. Thanks to
> all, Ron
>
>
>
> *Sebastian Oberthur:* When I get these enquiries, I usually try to
> clarify (1) that enforcement is usually not the strength of international
> relations and (2) that “enforcement” in the strict sense is not the only
> way to bring about compliance (or at least behavioural change towards it).
> Then one can go on to the mechanisms usually built into modern MEAs and the
> PA that support norm-abiding behaviour, including transparency and
> “compliance”/”implementation” mechanisms (to hold countries to account,
> including blaming and shaming, recommendations, etc., occasionally
> including some sort of sanction).
>
>
>
> *Dale Jamieson:* there really is no legal enforcement.  one of the things
> that people don't seem to realize is all that paris did really was to
> reaffirm, clean up, and in small ways revise the voluntary structure of the
> FCCC (unlike say kyoto, or what the copenhagen negotiations aspired to.
> [And attached piece]
>
>
>
> *Harro van Asselt:* As I’d expect you know, there are no enforcement
> mechanisms as such under the Paris Agreement, but the question would also
> be what would need to be enforced, as most obligations in the PA are
> procedural. I guess that most journalists would be interested in whether
> the targets in NDCs could be “enforced”, but that’s not possible through
> any mechanism in the Paris Agreement. What remains then?
>
> -  The PA *Article 15 compliance mechanism *is facilitative (i.e.
> not even containing ‘withdrawal of benefit’-type 

[gep-ed] The Incremental Approach to Governing Mercury

['Pam Chasek' via gep-ed]

Just as all eyes are focused on Glasgow for COP26, the Minamata Convention
on Mercury is also holding its COP4.1 (virtually). You can follow ENB
coverage at https://enb.iisd.org/Minamata-Convention-Mercury-COP4.


You can also check out the latest Still Only One Earth policy brief on
mercury below. All of the briefs are available at
https://www.iisd.org/projects/still-only-one-earth-lessons-50-years-un-sustainable-development-policy



Regards,


Pam

Years of activism on mercury poisoning gave rise to the Minamata Convention
on Mercury. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[image: Earth Negotiations Bulletin]




[image: Mercury fish]


*The Incremental Approach to Governing Mercury*

The dangers of mercury poisoning are still with us, despite years of
activism. In the United States in 2010, more than 200,000 children were
born to mothers with methylmercury levels high enough to put their babies
at risk of neurological disease. Children in the Faroe Islands suffer
developmental delays as their traditional food sources are contaminated
with methylmercury. Inuit communities in Canada face similar dangers, due
to contamination in whales, walruses, and fish.

As parties to the Minamata Convention on Mercury meet online this week, our
latest brief asks: Why did mercury successfully move from agenda setting to
action, while other heavy metals that are toxic and persistent in the
environment (such as cadmium and lead) still lack legally binding global
action? And what still needs to be done to protect human health from heavy
metals?

*Read the brief
*





[image: ENB Logo]


 * Share  *


 * Tweet  *


 * Share  *

[gep-ed] Violent Silence: The Erasure of History and Justice in Global Climate Policy by Kashwan & Ribot

[Kashwan, Prakash]

Dear GEP-Ed Colleagues:

I used the opportunity of an invitation from Current History to co-author with 
Jesse Ribot the following piece to think broadly about climate action and 
climate justice.

We talk about adopting (the spirit of) "Exploiter Pays Principle." This was a 
challenging topic that Jesse and I have been deliberating on for a while. We 
truly appreciate critical feedback of all sorts. (Abstract below)

The entire issue is devoted to the theme of Climate Transformations. Current 
History has made this open access, so please check it out.

Best wishes,
Prakash

Violent Silence: The Erasure of History and Justice in Global Climate Policy
Prakash Kashwan & Jesse Ribot

A widespread failure to recognize the social and political-economic causes of 
climate-related crises is an erasure of history that hides potential solutions 
and absolves guilty parties of responsibility. This blocking out of causality 
is perpetuating slow and silent violence against present and future 
generations. These erasures are illustrated by two short cases: the causes of 
famine and dislocation in the Sahel, and the causes of farmers' suicides in 
India. The essay highlights the need to recognize histories of exploitation, 
and introduces the "Exploiter Pays Principle," in order to deliver justice in 
climate policymaking. 
https://online.ucpress.edu/currenthistory/article/120/829/326/118790/Violent-SilenceThe-Erasure-of-History-and-Justice

-
Prakash Kashwan, Ph.D. (Google 
Scholar)
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut
Co-Director, Research Program on Economic and Social Rights, Human Rights 
Institute

Editor, Environmental Politics
Vice Chair/Program Chair, Environmental Studies Section, International Studies 
Association (ISA)

University of Connecticut
365 Fairfield Way, Storrs, CT 06269
Phone: 860-486-7951
https://kashwan.net/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/BLAPR05MB7299445AD7C7723B74D12F27EC8B9%40BLAPR05MB7299.namprd05.prod.outlook.com.


Kashwan & Ribot - Violent Silence - Current History.pdf
Description: Kashwan & Ribot - Violent Silence - Current History.pdf

[gep-ed] COP26 Event on the Potential Role of Ocean-Based Carbon Removal Approaches

[Wil Burns]

We hope that you will join us for this COP26 event. Advanced registration is 
required. Wil


https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-potential-role-of-ocean-based-carbon-removal-approaches-tickets-202429832077?keep_tld=1


The Potential Role of Ocean-Based Carbon Removal Approaches
by Northwestern University, Environmental Policy and Culture 
Program

This webinar will examine the potential role of ocean-based technologies and 
processes to help the global community combat climate change.
About this event
In the ensuing years after the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, it has 
become increasingly obvious that achievement of its temperature objectives will 
require both aggressive emissions reductions initiatives and large-scale 
deployment of carbon dioxide removal/negative emissions technologies to either 
avoid passing critical climatic thresholds. While much of the early research of 
carbon dioxide removal options focused on terrestrial approaches, there has 
been increasing attention to the potential role of the world's oceans given 
both sustainability considerations and the fact that oceans already serve as a 
huge carbon sink with much additional potential for storing carbon.
However, research in this context, as well as potential large-scale deployment 
of such options, also pose potentially substantial risks to marine 
environments. Moreover, there is likely to be substantial public backlash to 
research absent the existence of a sound regulatory framework for risk 
assessment, monitoring, and public deliberation.
This presentation will include the potential risks and benefits presented by 
difference ocean-based geoengineering options. It will also include a 
discussion of regulatory efforts to date by international treaty regimes, and 
other potentially pertinent regimes, including those with a marine regulatory 
focus, as well as the potential role of the UNFCCC/Paris Agreement. The 
overarching thesis will be that anticipatory governance could both optimize 
facilitation of research and minimize risks.
SPEAKERS:

  *   Professor Wil Burns, Environmental Policy & Climate Program, Northwestern 
University

  *   Romany Webb, Senior Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, 
Columbia University





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/CH2PR04MB694986B14C14570DA91C04B6A48B9%40CH2PR04MB6949.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
<>