AAG CFP (Final): Realising transformative climate economies? The place(s) of green finance in the Anthropocene
CfP AAG 2019, Washington DC, April 3-7. Realising transformative climate economies? The place(s) of green finance in the Anthropocene Organizers: Bregje van Veelen (Durham University), Mark Cooper (University of California, Davis), Richard Lane (Utrecht University) Discussant: Sabine Dörry (Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research) Sponsorship: Economic Geography Specialty Group, Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group This session aims to explore the cultural and political economy of green finance and its place in social and environmental transformations. We seek papers that examine the place of finance in the construction of diverse or transformative climate economies and the ways in which finance and its governance might contribute to – or hinder – a “new economic ethics for the Anthropocene” (Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010, 343). The Paris Agreement prioritizes finance as a core component of the global response to climate change. This focus on making finance work for climate change has contributed to the emergence of a range of new green finance initiatives, yet the role finance might play in social and environmental transitions and the emergence of diverse or transformative economies remains unclear. The existing literature on the cultural and political economy of green finance remains modest relative to the scale of the speed at which the issue has developed, and the transformative potential of remaking finance. Similarly, there is significant diversity within the forms of green finance and the places through which its flows, which is underexplored. In this session we seek to bring critical cultural and political economy approaches to bear on these emergent forms of finance. We are particularly interested in works that seek to “dislocate the hegemonic framing of capitalism” (Gibson-Graham 2008) to understand the role(s) of green finance in fostering diverse or transformative economies (see also Dörry and Schulz 2018). This includes work from the diverse economies approach, which challenges assumptions that the economy is inherently capitalist, a determining force rather than a site for transformation, and is separable from ecology (Gibson-Graham 2008; Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010). At the same time, we welcome papers that draw on critical approaches (e.g. Polanyian, performativity, pragmatics) that consider or critique the potential of the diverse economies concept for understanding emerging configurations of green finance. We therefore invite both conceptual and empirical contributions that seek to analyse the intersection between green finance and transformative/diverse economies to understand emerging climate economies. Questions could include, but are not limited to: -How does green finance contribute to the establishment of diverse relations – or complicate existing diverse relations – of production, labour and exchange? -How do the diverse debt relations of green finance manifest themselves in different places? -What role do metrics, indices, standards, and expertise play in supporting or obscuring difference/diversity in new financial relations? -What actors are at the heart of establishing new financial relations that can contribute to the establishment of diverse economies? -What financial struggles are taking place in particular places that are (re)defining what our economy is and who it is for, in a climate-challenged world? -How is finance engaged in the materialisation of new forms of ‘the economy’ (Mitchell 2008) through technologies of calculation and representation? We also welcome reflective contributions that consider for example the following questions: -How can our research open up new possibilities? What role can different theoretical approaches play? -Is a diverse economies lens a suitable approach to build a political research agenda for climate finance? What are its limitations? -What transformative potentials are present in finance not explicitly labelled green? How does finance in housing, transportation, food, mining, and energy contribute to new climate economies? References: Dörry and Schulz 2018 Green financing, interrupted. Potential directions for sustainable finance in Luxembourg. Local Environment. 23(7), 717-733 Gibson-Graham 2008 Diverse economies: performative practices for `other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography. 32(5), 613-632 Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010 An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode. 41(s1), 320-346. Mitchell 2008 Rethinking Economy. Geoforum. 39(3), 1116-1121. __ Multiple sessions with an additional discussant may be organized if there is sufficient interest. To aid the discussant(s) for this session, presenters will be asked to submit a written paper several weeks before the conference. We welcome
AAG Call for Papers: Realising transformative climate economies? The place(s) of green finance in the Anthropocene
Call for Papers, AAG 2019, April 3-7, Washington D.C. Paper Session: "Realising transformative climate economies? The place(s) of green finance in the Anthropocene Organizers: Bregje van Veelen (Durham University), Mark Cooper (University of California, Davis), Richard Lane (Utrecht University) Discussant: Sabine Dörry (Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research) Sponsorship: Economic Geography Specialty Group, Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group This session aims to explore the cultural and political economy of green finance and its place in social and environmental transformations. We seek papers that examine the place of finance in the construction of diverse or transformative climate economies and the ways in which finance and its governance might contribute to – or hinder – a “new economic ethics for the Anthropocene” (Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010, 343). The Paris Agreement prioritizes finance as a core component of the global response to climate change. This focus on making finance work for climate change has contributed to the emergence of a range of new green finance initiatives, yet the role finance might play in social and environmental transitions and the emergence of diverse or transformative economies remains unclear. The existing literature on the cultural and political economy of green finance remains modest relative to the scale of the speed at which the issue has developed, and the transformative potential of remaking finance. Similarly, there is significant diversity within the forms of green finance and the places through which its flows, which is under-explored. In this session we seek to bring critical cultural and political economy approaches to bear on these emergent forms of finance. We are particularly interested in works that seek to “dislocate the hegemonic framing of capitalism” (Gibson-Graham 2008) to understand the role(s) of green finance in fostering diverse or transformative economies (see also Dörry and Schulz 2018). This includes work from the diverse economies approach, which challenges assumptions that the economy is inherently capitalist, a determining force rather than a site for transformation, and is separable from ecology (Gibson-Graham 2008; Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010). At the same time, we welcome papers that draw on critical approaches (e.g. Polanyian, performativity, pragmatics) that consider or critique the potential of the diverse economies concept for understanding emerging configurations of green finance. We therefore invite both conceptual and empirical contributions that seek to analyse the intersection between green finance and transformative/diverse economies to understand emerging climate economies. Questions could include, but are not limited to: - How does green finance contribute to the establishment of diverse relations – or complicate existing diverse relations – of production, labour and exchange? - How do the diverse debt relations of green finance manifest themselves in different places? - What role do metrics, indices, standards, and expertise play in supporting or obscuring difference/diversity in new financial relations? - What actors are at the heart of establishing new financial relations that can contribute to the establishment of diverse economies? - What financial struggles are taking place in particular places that are (re)defining what our economy is and who it is for, in a climate-challenged world? - How is finance engaged in the materialisation of new forms of ‘the economy’ (Mitchell 2008) through technologies of calculation and representation? We also welcome reflective contributions that consider for example the following questions: - How can our research open up new possibilities? What role can different theoretical approaches play? - Is a diverse economies lens a suitable approach to build a political research agenda for climate finance? What are its limitations? - What transformative potentials are present in finance not explicitly labelled green? How does finance in housing, transportation, food, mining, and energy contribute to new climate economies? References: Dörry and Schulz 2018 Green financing, interrupted. Potential directions for sustainable finance in Luxembourg. Local Environment. 23(7), 717-733 Gibson-Graham 2008 Diverse economies: performative practices for `other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography. 32(5), 613-632. Gibson-Graham and Roelvink 2010 An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode. 41(s1), 320-346. Mitchell 2008 Rethinking Economy. Geoforum. 39(3), 1116-1121. __ Multiple sessions with an additional discussant may be organized if there is sufficient interest. To aid the discussant(s) for this session, presenters will be asked to submit a written paper several weeks before the conference. We welcome expressions of int
CfP AAG 2018 - Geographies of Climate Change Mitigation: Marketization, Financialization, and Decarbonization
Session: Geographies of Climate Change Mitigation: Marketization, Financialization, and Decarbonization Organizers: Mark Cooper (Lund University / University of California, Davis) Wim Carton (Lund University) John Chung-En Liu (Occidental College) Discussants: Jennifer Rice (University of Georgia) [second discussant t.b.a.] The ratification of the Paris Agreement marked a new direction for climate governance. In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement employs a bottom-up approach centered on coordinated, cooperative, multi-scalar activities. The Paris climate regime is not only likely to encourage an assortment of strategies for governing greenhouse gas emissions, but will implicate a new set of sites, scales, and actors in the mitigation of climate change. These emerging forms of emissions governance offer the potential for new forms of collaboration and social change, but will also bring new tensions and conflicts. This growing diversity of strategies, sites, scales, and actors in climate mitigation necessitates that we diversify our theoretical, empirical, and analytical approaches, but also that we build new analyses and explanations that cohere across cases, places, and processes. Drawing inspiration from Bridge et al.’s (2013) analysis of energy transitions, the geographies of climate change mitigation can be said to entail: activities within or across specific territories and economies, the structural and contextual processes that condition mitigation activities, and the generation of new – and uneven – geographies through these activities. By examining the geographies of climate governance we hope to engage some of the most pressing issues around climate change and society: What form does mitigation take in particular places, and how can we make sense of the development and effect of particular mitigation activities? What roles do different actors and governance structures play in these activities? How do the priorities of different actors align or conflict at different scales? What new geographical trends for mitigation are emerging within the Paris regime? We aim to organize one or more sessions that bring together critical perspectives on climate change mitigation and the role of markets, finance, and regulation in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize economies. Our aim is for these sessions to bring together perspectives on both the Global North and Global South, to highlight the intertwined character of geographically differentiated processes, and to explore new ways of analyzing and theorizing climate change mitigation. Paper topics could include, but are not limited to: – Compliance-based policy instruments such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade – Programs that encourage the economization of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of low-carbon economies – Non-state governance programs including private standards and sector initiatives – Carbon offsetting and offset programs such as CDM and REDD+ – Climate finance and investment in low-carbon development – The role of economists, policy advisors, private sector actors, and NGOs in the development, implementation, function, or contestation of mitigation programs – The political economy and politics of greenhouse gas mitigation and decarbonization within particular territories or sectors – Perspectives on climate justice and responsibility for mitigation post-Paris, and processes of uneven development in the implementation of mitigation programs. To aid the discussants for this session, presenters will be asked to submit a written paper several weeks before the conference. Please email abstracts (up to 250 words) to Mark Cooper (mark.coo...@svet.lu.se<mailto:mark.coo...@svet.lu.se>) by October 21st. We will confirm participation by October 23rd.
2nd CFP AAG 2015: Reinvigorating Geographies of Science: Theorizing Science through Space, Place, Scale
2nd CFP: Association of American Geographers (AAG), 21-25 April 2015, Chicago, IL Reinvigorating Geographies of Science: Theorizing Science through Space, Place, Scale Sponsored by the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group and the Economic Geography Specialty Group Session organizers: Jake Fleming (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Elizabeth Hennessy (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Mark H. Cooper (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Discussants:Rebecca Lave (Indiana University Matt Turner (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Over the past decade, geographers have increasingly investigated the politics and production of scientific knowledge. Understanding science as “produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority” (Shapin 2010) opens various avenues for geographic analysis. Geographers have productively engaged with a variety of concepts from science and technology studies (STS) to investigate the construction, circulation, and effects of scientific knowledge, particularly in structuring human-environment relationships. In this session, we seek papers that build on such approaches to theorize geographies of science—both how place matters in the production of knowledge and how that knowledge in turn shapes particular places. As articulated by David Livingstone in his 2003 Putting Science In Its Place, geographies of science make visible the arenas in which science is done, its broader setting in space and time, and its life as products and processes that travel the world, demonstrating how science is marked by the signatures of place. Livingstone’s approach offers narrative accounts of scientists doing science in place that provide deep geographical context to scientific knowledge and its production, and also illuminate the complex assemblages of actors who participate, often invisibly, in the process. At its best, the geography of science illuminates the places and processes out of which the “view from nowhere” coalesces. In recent years, geographic theorizations of place (Massey 2005), scale (Kaiser and Nikiforova 2008), landscape (Wylie 2005), and space (Woodward et al. 2012) have evolved considerably. How might these and other theorizations reinvigorate the basic contention of geographies of science that place matters in the construction of knowledge? How can these newer geographic approaches help us understand not only the production of scientific knowledge, but also its effects on place? And how do they articulate with other popular approaches to parsing the construction and circulation of scientific knowledge, such as Bourdieu’s scientific fields (1975), Latour’s centers of calculation (1987), Star and Griesemer’s boundary objects (1989), Callon’s performativity (1998), and Gieryn’s truth-spots (2002)? To date, geographers have particularly investigated ecology and laboratory sciences; what might a geographic approach to other, less clearly place-based sciences (such as economics or mathematics) look like? How do these theoretical tools help us find new ways to parse what Livingstone called the “geographical experiment” of keeping nature and culture under one conceptual umbrella? It is our hope that papers in this session will investigate these and other questions, such as: What can theoretical innovations contribute to established narrative and historical approaches to the geography of science? What place should scientists doing science have in geographical analysis? In the face of big science, transnational science, and global science, what payoff remains from demonstrating that science is made in places? Precisely how much steam has critique run out of, how did critique come to be steam-powered in the first place, and what does this have to do with the recent intellectual production of Bruno Latour? What stories does the geography of science make it possible to tell, and what political projects does it make it possible to enact? Paper topics could include, but are not limited to: - the creation and durability of sites of experiment and scientific inquiry - the geographic features or consequences of scientific controversy - epistemologies and ontologies of fieldwork - scientists as embodied/embedded actors - methodological considerations surrounding science as a spatially-embedded practice - historical geographies of science - the Stengersian “redescription” of science - the geographies of scientific and technological objects - the co-constitution of scientific labor and scientific site Please email abstracts of no more than 250 words to Jake Fleming (jeflem...@wisc.edu) by Friday, October 10. To aid the discussants for this session, presenters will be asked to submit a written
CFP AAG 2015: Reinvigorating Geographies of Science: Theorizing Science through Space, Place, Scale
CFP: Association of American Geographers (AAG), 21-25 April 2015, Chicago, IL Reinvigorating Geographies of Science: Theorizing Science through Space, Place, Scale Sponsored by the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group and the Economic Geography Specialty Group Session organizers: Jake Fleming (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Elizabeth Hennessy (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Mark H. Cooper (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Discussants:Rebecca Lave (Indiana University Matt Turner (University of Wisconsin–Madison) Over the past decade, geographers have increasingly investigated the politics and production of scientific knowledge. Understanding science as “produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority” (Shapin 2010) opens various avenues for geographic analysis. Geographers have productively engaged with a variety of concepts from science and technology studies (STS) to investigate the construction, circulation, and effects of scientific knowledge, particularly in structuring human-environment relationships. In this session, we seek papers that build on such approaches to theorize geographies of science—both how place matters in the production of knowledge and how that knowledge in turn shapes particular places. As articulated by David Livingstone in his 2003 Putting Science In Its Place, geographies of science make visible the arenas in which science is done, its broader setting in space and time, and its life as products and processes that travel the world, demonstrating how science is marked by the signatures of place. Livingstone’s approach offers narrative accounts of scientists doing science in place that provide deep geographical context to scientific knowledge and its production, and also illuminate the complex assemblages of actors who participate, often invisibly, in the process. At its best, the geography of science illuminates the places and processes out of which the “view from nowhere” coalesces. In recent years, geographic theorizations of place (Massey 2005), scale (Kaiser and Nikiforova 2008), landscape (Wylie 2005), and space (Woodward et al. 2012) have evolved considerably. How might these and other theorizations reinvigorate the basic contention of geographies of science that place matters in the construction of knowledge? How can these newer geographic approaches help us understand not only the production of scientific knowledge, but also its effects on place? And how do they articulate with other popular approaches to parsing the construction and circulation of scientific knowledge, such as Bourdieu’s scientific fields (1975), Latour’s centers of calculation (1987), Star and Griesemer’s boundary objects (1989), Callon’s performativity (1998), and Gieryn’s truth-spots (2002)? To date, geographers have particularly investigated ecology and laboratory sciences; what might a geographic approach to other, less clearly place-based sciences (such as economics or mathematics) look like? How do these theoretical tools help us find new ways to parse what Livingstone called the “geographical experiment” of keeping nature and culture under one conceptual umbrella? It is our hope that papers in this session will investigate these and other questions, such as: What can theoretical innovations contribute to established narrative and historical approaches to the geography of science? What place should scientists doing science have in geographical analysis? In the face of big science, transnational science, and global science, what payoff remains from demonstrating that science is made in places? Precisely how much steam has critique run out of, how did critique come to be steam-powered in the first place, and what does this have to do with the recent intellectual production of Bruno Latour? What stories does the geography of science make it possible to tell, and what political projects does it make it possible to enact? Paper topics could include, but are not limited to: - the creation and durability of sites of experiment and scientific inquiry - the geographic features or consequences of scientific controversy - epistemologies and ontologies of fieldwork - scientists as embodied/embedded actors - methodological considerations surrounding science as a spatially-embedded practice - historical geographies of science - the Stengersian “redescription” of science - the geographies of scientific and technological objects - the co-constitution of scientific labor and scientific site Please email abstracts of no more than 250 words to Jake Fleming (jeflem...@wisc.edu) by Friday, October 10. To aid the discussants for this session, presenters will be asked to submit a written paper
