Climate Change Justice and Global Resource Commons: Local and Global Postcolonial Political Ecologies

References

• Agnew, J. 1994. The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy 1 (1):53–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allan, J. I. 2019. Dangerous incrementalism of the Paris Agreement. Global Environmental Politics 19 (1):4–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, J. 2007. The geopolitics of climate change. Geography Compass 1 (6):1361–75.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, S., and M. Mahony. 2018. The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9 (6):e547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, M. T. 2004. After the third world? History, destiny and the fate of third worldism. Third World Quarterly 25 (1):9–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaikie, P. M., and H. C. Brookfield, eds. 1987. Land degradation and society. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, P. 2011. The politics of climate justice. London, UK and Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Verso and University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, R., M. D. Gergan, P. Y. Sherpa, and C. Rampini. 2021. A plural climate studies framework for the Himalayas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 51:42–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, R., and P. Y. Sherpa. 2021. From climate adaptation to climate justice: Critical reflections on the IPCC and Himalayan climate knowledges. Climatic Change 167:3–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clémençon, R. 2016. The two sides of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Journal of Environment & Development 25 (1):3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corporate Europe Observatory. 2022. Co-opting the COP. Accessed September 5. 2023. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/10/co-opting-cop.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, N. J. W., K. Michael, and M. Mikulewicz, eds. 2023. Climate justice in the majority world: Vulnerability, resistance and diverse knowledges. London, UK, and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6):1241–99.
   Google Scholar
• Derman, B. B. 2020. Struggles for climate justice: Uneven geographies and the politics of connection. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dubash, N. K. 2009. Toward a progressive Indian and global climate politics. New Delhi, India: Centre for Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, P. 2011. History of climate modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2 (1):128–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbow, P. 2008. The believing game or methodological believing. The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning 5:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Eromose, E. E., and L. Leonard. 2022. Indigenous knowledge and climate governance: A sub-Saharan African perspective. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, T. 2006. Land use impacts on water resources—Science, social and political factors. In Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences, ed. M. G. Anderson and J. J. McDonnell. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470848944.hsa194
   Google Scholar
• Gibson-Graham, J. K., J. Cameron, and S. Healy. 2013. Take back the economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019. Summary for policymakers. In Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, ed. P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, et al., 1–34. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. H. Lee and J. Romero. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• Jafry, T. 2018. Routledge Handbook of climate justice. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2017. Virtual, visible, and actionable: Data assemblages and the sightlines of justice. Big Data & Society 4 (2):1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, K. 2018. Setting energy justice apart from the crowd: Lessons from environmental and climate justice. Energy Research and Social Science 39 (117):117–21.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., and C. Rampini. 2017. Are climate models global public goods? In Routledge handbook of the political economy of science, ed. D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, and C. Thorpe, 263–74. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, S. 2014. Environmental justice discourses in Indian climate politics. GeoJournal 79 (6):677–91.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, S. 2023. Climate justice: Taking back the commons. In Climate, science, and society: A primer, ed. Z. Baker, T. Law, M. Vardy, and S. Zehr, 127–34. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, S. Forthcoming. Political ecology of guthi: Hiding in plain sight. In Indigenous geographies: Place-scapes of resistance, resilience, and resurgence, ed. D. Smiles. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kapoor, I. 2008. The postcolonial politics of development. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kasa, S., A. T. Gullberg, and G. Heggelund. 2008. The Group of 77 in the international climate negotiations: Recent developments and future directions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics 8 (2):113–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laclau, E. 2000. Constructing universality. In Contingency, hegemony, universality, ed. J. Butler, E. Laclau, and S. Žižek, 281–307. London, UK: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, J. E., and M. Rummukainen. 2020. Taking science by surprise: The knowledge politics of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees. Environmental Science & Policy 112:10–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorde, A. 1984. Sister outsider. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. 2017. Climate justice, adaptation and the Paris Agreement: A recipe for disasters? Environmental Politics 26 (3):438–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machen, R., and E. Nost. 2021. Thinking algorithmically: The making of hegemonic knowledge in climate governance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 46 (3):555–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marston, S. A., J. P. Jones, and K. Woodward. 2005. Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (4):416–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miguel, J. C. H., M. Mahony, and M. S. A. Monteiro. 2019. “Infrastructural geopolitics” of climate knowledge: The Brazilian Earth system model and the North–South knowledge divide. Sociologias 21 (51):44–75.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, M. 1995. The third world in global environmental politics. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20 (4):550–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panda, J. P. 2017. India–China relations: Politics of resources, identity, and authority in a multipolar world order. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, B. 2007. Market failure: Why the clean development mechanism won’t promote clean development. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2):247–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rampini, C. 2021. Hydropower and Sino-Indian hydropolitics along the Yarlung-Tsangpo-Brahmaputra. In The political economy of hydropower in southwest China and beyond, ed. J. F. Rousseau and S. Habich-Sobiegalla, 235–54. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, J. L., J. Long, and A. Levenda, eds. 2023. Urban climate justice: Theory, praxis, resistance. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, A. M. 2015. The wrong solution at the right time: The failure of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Politics and Policy 43 (1):30–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, H. 2010. Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics 10 (4):317–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, P. K. 2018. Resurfacing of divergence in India–China relations. In China’s rising strategic ambitions in Asia, ed. M. S. Prathiba, 87–112. New Delhi, India: Pentagon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spivak, G. C. 1993. Outside in the teaching machine. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spivak, G. C. 2010. Can the subaltern speak? Revised edition. In Can the subaltern speak?, ed R. C. Morris, 21–78. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sultana, F. 2022. The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography 99:102638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toal, G. 1994. Critical geopolitics and development theory: Intensifying the dialogue. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19 (2):228–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tokar, B. 2010. Toward climate justice. Porsgrunn, Norway: New Compass Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wainwright, J., and G. Mann. 2018. Climate Leviathan: A political theory of our planetary future. London, UK: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Walker G. 2012. Environmental justice. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. 2005. The third world and global environmental negotiations: Interests, institutions and ideas. Global Environmental Politics 5 (3):48–69.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. 2002. Scientific uncertainty, complex systems, and the design of common-pool institutions. In The drama of the commons, ed. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E. U. Weber, 327–59. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar