Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T06:42:58.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Bentley B. Allan
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that the climate came to take on a geophysical rather than a bioecological form in global governance because it emerged from a dynamic, interactive process between states and scientists. In the 1950s, state agencies, especially elements of the US military, steered and accelerated the development of the geophysical sciences, which set the discursive frame within which climate politics now plays out. In the 1990s, scientists and IO experts responded to states' requests to study carbon sinks by expanding the climate to include new greenhouse gases and land-use practices. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies as well as discursive theories of global governance, I theorize object constitution as a process of co-production in which states steer the development of scientific knowledge and scientists assemble epistemic objects. This contingent interaction of political and scientific actors shapes the form and content of global governance objects. The argument extends and challenges the epistemic communities literature and theories of the global governance life cycle that focus on how problems end up on the agenda of states rather than the processes of problem construction.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , Winter 2017 , pp. 131 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Andrew. 1995. Things of Boundaries. Social Research 62 (4):857–82.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth. 2012. The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30 (4):571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Bentley B. Forthcoming. Scientific Cosmology and International Orders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alley, R.B., J. Marotzke, Nordhaus, W.D., Overpeck, J.T., Peteet, D.M., Pielke, R.A. Jr, Pierrehumbert, R.T., Rhines, P.B., Stocker, T.F., Talley, L.D., and Wallace, J.M.. 2003. Abrupt Climate Change. Science 299 (5615):2005–10.Google Scholar
Aradau, Claudia, and Munster, Rens Van. 2007. Governing Terrorism Through Risk: Taking Precautions, (un)Knowing the Future. European Journal of International Relations 13 (1):89–115.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bodansky, Daniel. 2001. The History of the Global Climate Change Regime. In International Relations and Global Climate Change, edited by Luterbacher, Urs and Sprinz, Detlef F., 23–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, Harriet, Andonova, Liliana, Betsill, Michele M., Compagnon, Daniel, Hale, Thomas, Hoffmann, Matthew J., Newell, Peter, Paterson, Mathew, Roger, Charles, and VanDeveer, Stacy. 2014. Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2007. Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1):99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, William C., Mitchell, Ronald B., and Cash, David W.. 2006. Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental Assessments. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, edited by Mitchell, Ronald B., Clark, William C., Cash, David W. and Dickson, Nancy M., 1–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corry, Olaf. 2013a. Constructing a Global Polity: Theory, Discourse and Governance. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corry, Olaf. 2013b. The Rise and Fall of the Global Climate Polity. In Governing the Climate: New Approaches to Rationality, Power, and Politics, edited by Stripple, Johannes and Bulkeley, Harriet, 291–34. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cozzens, Susan E., and Woodhouse, Edward J.. 1995. Science, Government, and the Politics of Knowledge. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald, Petersen, James C., and Pinch, Trevor, 533–53. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, ed. 2000. Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davis Cross, Mai'a. 2013. Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later. Review of International Studies 39 (1):137–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeritt, David. 2001. The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (2):307–37.Google Scholar
Deudney, Daniel H. 1999. Bringing Nature Back In: Geopolitical Theory from the Greeks to the Global Era. In Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics, edited by Deudney, Daniel H. and Matthew, Richard A., 25–51. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Doel, Ronald E. 2003. Constituting the Postwar Earth Sciences: The Military's Influence on the Environmental Sciences in the USA After 1945. Social Studies of Science 35 (5):635–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, Daniel. 2001. State Structure, Technological Leadership and the Maintenance of Hegemony. Review of International Studies 27 (1):3–25.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul N. 2010. A Vast Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul N. 2012. Entangled Histories: Climate Science and Nuclear Weapons Research. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68 (4):28–40.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2011. Emissions Trading: Commission Welcomes Vote to Ban Certain Industrial Gas Credits. 21 January. Available at <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-56_en.pdf>>Google Scholar
Evangelista, Matthew. 1988. Innovation and the Arms Race: How the United States and the Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flato, Gregory, and Marotzke, Jochem. 2013. Evaluation of Climate Models. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 9. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1977–78. Translated by Burchill, Graham. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron. 2000. In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America's Antistatism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. 2014. Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report. Washington, DC: Global Commission on Energy and Climate.Google Scholar
Graham, Loren R. 1993. Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Eric. 2013. Contrasts, Counterfactuals, and Causes. European Journal of International Relations 19 (4):823–46.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Eric. 2014. Constructive Illusions: Misperceiving the Origins of International Cooperation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Guha, Ramachandra. 2000. Environmentalism: A Global History. Longman World History Series. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone. International Organization 46 (1):187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Peter M., and McCabe, David. 2001. Amplifiers or Dampeners: International Institutions and Social Learning in the Management of Global Environmental Risks. In Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vol. 1, edited by Social Learning Group, 323–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hadden, Jennifer. 2015. Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie, and Pollack, Mark A.. 2002. Mainstreaming in Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations 8 (3):339–373.Google Scholar
Hamblyn, Richard. 2009. Terra: Tales of the Earth—Four Events that Changed the World. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. 2010. Toward Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures. Ropley, UK: Zero Books.Google Scholar
Hart, David M., and Victor, David G.. 1993. Scientific Elites and the Making of US Policy for Climate Change Research, 1957–74. Social Studies of Science 23 (4):643–80.Google Scholar
Hecht, Alan D., and Tirpak, Dennis. 1995. Framework Agreement on Climate Change: A Scientific and Policy History. Climatic Change 29 (4):371–402.Google Scholar
Howe, Joshua. 2014. Behind the Curve: Science and Politics of Global Warming. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Hulme, Mike. 2011. Reducing the Future to Climate: A Story of Climate Determinism and Reductionism. Osiris 26 (1):245–66.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC). 1995. Matters Relating to Commitments: Methodological Issues. A/AC.237/WG.I/L.25Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 1995. Summary of the Eleventh Session of the INC for a Framework Convention on Climate Change. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (11). Available at <http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/1211001e.html>>Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 1999. Summary of the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change: 25 October–5 November 1999. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (123). Available at <http://www.iisd.ca/download/asc/enb12123e.txt>>Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2000. Summary of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change: 13–25 November 2000. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (163). Available at <http://www.iisd.ca/download/asc/enb12163e.txt>>Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2001. Summary of the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 29 October–10 November 2001. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (189). Available at <http://www.iisd.ca/download/asc/enb12189e.txt>>Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2007. Summary of the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Third Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 3–15 December 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (354). Available at <http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12354e.html>>Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. The Idiom of Co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Jasanoff, Sheila, 1–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. A New Climate for Society? Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3):233–53.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila, and Wynne, Brian. 1998. Science and Decision-making. In Human Choice and Climate Change: The Societal Framework, edited by Rayner, Steve and Malone, Elizabeth L., 1–87. Columbus, OH: Battelle.Google Scholar
Juda, Lawrence. 1978. Negotiating a Treaty on Environmental Modification Warfare: The Convention on Environmental Warfare and Its Impact on Arms Control Negotiations. International Organization 32 (4):975–91.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keiber, Jason. 2015. Surveillance Hegemony. Surveillance and Society 13 (2):168–81.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Victor, David G.. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 9 (1):7–23.Google Scholar
Kingsland, Sharon E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Snidal, Duncan, and Lipson, Charles. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.Google Scholar
Kwa, Chunglin. 1987. Representations of Nature Mediating Between Ecology and Science Policy: The Case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science 17 (3):413–42.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1990. Drawing Things Together. In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steven, 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenton, Timothy M., Held, Hermann, Kriegler, Elmar, Hall, Jim W., Lucht, Wolfgang, Rahmstorf, Stefan, and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim. 2008. Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (6):1786–93.Google Scholar
Leslie, Stuart W. 1993. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, Eva. 2009. Revisiting the Politics of Expertise in Light of the Kyoto Negotiations on Land Use Change and Forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6):404–12.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, Eva, and Stripple, Johannes. 2011. Making Climate Change Governable: Accounting for Carbon as Sinks, Credits, and Personal Budgets. Critical Policy Studies 5 (2):187–200.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, Eva, Stripple, Johannes, and Wiman, Bo. 2009. Earth System Governmentality: Reflections on Science in the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 19 (1):7–13.Google Scholar
Lovelock, James. 2007. Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald. 2009. Making Things the Same: Gases, Emission Rights and the Politics of Carbon Markets. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 34 (3–4):440–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2011. Reflexivity and the Construction of the International Object: The Case of Human Rights. International Political Sociology 5 (3):259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2012. Human Rights and the Hegemony of Ideology: European Lawyers and the Cold War Battle Over International Human Rights. In Lawyers and the Construction of Transnational Justice, edited by Dezalay, Yves and Garth, Bryant, 258–76. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marlin-Bennett, Renée. 2004. Knowledge Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Masco, Joseph. 2010. Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis. Social Studies of Science 40 (1):7–40.Google Scholar
Mayer, Maximilian. 2012. Chaotic Climate Change and Security. International Political Sociology 6 (2):165–85.Google Scholar
Merlingen, Michael. 2003. Governmentality: Towards a Foucauldian Framework for the Study of IGOs. Cooperation and Conflict 38 (4):361–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Methmann, Chris. 2013. The Sky Is the Limit: Global Warming as Global Governmentality. European Journal of International Relations 19 (1):69–91.Google Scholar
Miller, Clark A. 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Jasanoff, Sheila, 46–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics. American Political Science Review 85 (1):77–96.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver, and Sending, Ole Jacob. 2010. Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Oels, Angela. 2005. Rendering Climate Change Governable: From Biopower to Advanced Liberal Government? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3):185–207.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2015. Main Science and Technology Indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB>. Accessed 8 July 2014..+Accessed+8+July+2014.>Google Scholar
Paterson, Matthew, and Stripple, Johannes. 2012. Virtuous Carbon. [Special Issue]. Environmental Politics 21 (4):563–82.Google Scholar
Pistorius, Till. 2012. From RED to REDD+: The Evolution of a Forest-Based Mitigation Approach for Developing Countries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 (6):638–45.Google Scholar
Revelle, Roger, and Suess, Hans E.. 1957. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades. Tellus 9 (1):18–27.Google Scholar
Rotberg, Robert I., and Rabb, Theodore K., eds. 1981. Climate and History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, Harvey M. 1990. Science and the Navy: The History of the Office of Naval Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schreurs, Miranda A., Clark, William C., Dickson, Nancy M., and Jäger, Jill. 2001. Issue Attention, Framing, and Actors: An Analysis of Patterns Across Arenas. In Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, vol. 1, edited by Social Learning Group, 349–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stavins, Robert. 2014. Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken? An Economic View of the Environment [blog] 25 April. Available at <http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/>. Accessed 10 July 2014..+Accessed+10+July+2014.>Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 2008. Historical Institutionalism. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, edited by Porta, Donatella Della and Keating, Michael, 118–38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 1970. Man's Impact on the Global Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Study of Man's Impact on Climate (SMIC). 1971. Inadvertent Climate Modification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Mark Z. 2012. Toward an International Relations Theory of National Innovation Rates. Security Studies 21 (1):113–52.Google Scholar
Thompson, Alexander. 2010. Rational Design in Motion: Uncertainty and Flexibility in the Global Climate Regime. European Journal of International Relations 16 (2):269–96.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R. 1990. Long Waves, Technological Innovation, and Relative Decline. International Organization 44 (2):201–33.Google Scholar
Torrance, Wendy E.F. 2006. Science or Salience: Building an Agenda for Climate Change. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence edited by Mitchell, Ronald B., Clark, William C., Cash, David W., and Dickson, Nancy M., 29–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1998. Report on the Conference of the Parties on Its Third Session, Held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1fGoogle Scholar
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2007. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Thirteenth session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1.Google Scholar
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2009. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to the Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at Its Fifth session. FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/L.15.Google Scholar
United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD). 2011. The UN-REDD Programme Strategy, 2011–2015. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/forests/Portals/142/docs/UN-REDD%20Programme%20Strategy.pdf>. Accessed 5 February 2013..+Accessed+5+February+2013.>Google Scholar
van der Sluijs, Jeroen, van Eijndhoven, Josée, Shackley, Simon, and Wynne, Brian. 1998. Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy: The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity. Social Studies of Science 28 (2):291–323.Google Scholar
Victor, David. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gernot. 2011. Carbon Trading Grows Up. Environmental Defense Fund: Market Forces [blog] 28 January. Available at <http://blogs.edf.org/markets/2011/01/28/carbon-trading-grows-up/>. Accessed 8 March 2016..+Accessed+8+March+2016.>Google Scholar
Wapner, Paul. 1996. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Weart, Spencer. 2003. The Discovery of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Martin L. 2007. A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of Economic Literature 45 (3):703–24.Google Scholar
Weldes, Jutta. 1999. Constructing National Interests. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2001. Driving with the Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design. International Organization 55 (4):1019–49.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2015. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
World Meteorological Organization. 1989. The Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security. Toronto, Canada, June 27–30, 1988. WMO No. 710. Geneva: WMO.Google Scholar