|
Content:
1. Editorial
- Editorial – The ESEE
at 20, by Juha Hiedanpää
2.
News from ESEE and its members
- ESEE in solidarity with our
Turkish colleagues and for freedom of expression
- Social sciences and humanities
in IPBES
3. Hot topics
- Challenge of financing
investment in renewable energy, by Tim Foxon
- IPBES at a turning point?, by
György Pataki
- How Ecological Economists Should
React to the Paris Agreement, by Clive L. Spash
4. Events, jobs and
publications
- Call for Applications: Course on
Bioeconomy
- Call for Nomination of Experts:
Global Assessment and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
- Job posting: Lecturer /
Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon
Transitions
- Job posting: Departmental
Research Lecturer in the Economics of Environmental Change
- Job posting: One post-doctoral
researcher or advanced PhD candidate – Energy and the Post-Carbon
Economy
- Environmental Policy and
Governance: Current issue 26(1), Jan./Feb. 2016 and early view online
- Latest Issue of Environmental
Values now online: Vol.25, No.1, February 2016
- Special discount for ESEE
members: Handbook of Ecosystem Services
5. Students
and early career
- ESCP Europe Workshop
- The 11th ALTER-Net Summer School
- MSc in Environmental Management
and Sustainability
- MSc in Energy Law, Business,
Regulation and Policy
- New MSc in Ecological Economics
1. Editorial
Editorial
– The ESEE at 20
by
Juha Hiedanpää
The European
Society for Ecological Economics turns 20 this year. The society was
established in 1996 at the Paris conference held at Saint Quentin en
Yvelines. During this time, the operating environment of ESEE has changed
quite dramatically but has simultaneously remained almost the same – we are
still tackling the same challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change and
problems with planning for natural resource use just as during the years of
our infancy. Today, ESEE is old enough, but not too old, to adjust its
corporeal and mental habits in order to be capable of living with the change
in actor networks, in areas of collective attention and climate of ideas.
I have
watched the whole history of ESEE, first from a distance and then from
within, as a member of the board since 2013. My ESEE history begins from the
moments of its inception. During the academic year 1996-1997, I visited
Lancaster University (UK) and worked there with John O’Neill and Alan
Holland. In our fortnightly sessions, we discussed environmental history and
valuation – or, to be honest, I told them what puzzled me and they discussed
it intensively for an hour. What brilliant educative moments those were. (As
a side-note, I am still puzzled by the same questions.) It was at one of the
special Lancaster meetings that I met Clive Spash for the first time. I was
happy to hear about the birth of ESEE: ecological economics being done a
little differently than it was by the mother society ISEE, the International
Society for Ecological Economics. A few years later, Clive became the second
president of ESEE, after the inaugural presidency of Sylvie Faucheux.
Because Clive has always had a different and, I should say, a somewhat more
radical, angle on key matters in ecological economics, for the purposes of
this editorial, I decided to ask him how he sees ecological economics in
Europe these days. This was his answer:
“Ecological economics is
a conflicted movement that struggles between being co-opted by mainstream
economics and finding its own identity as a radical alternative to the
mainstream. In Europe, the greater emphasis on social and political theory,
classical institutional economics, applied ethics, philosophy of science and
history of thought have all helped maintain a better understanding of the
potential of the field to achieve social ecological transformation. However,
that potential remains unfulfilled. There remains a tendency towards adopting
simplistic ‘solutions’, seeking magic bullet approaches that lack theoretical
rigour, and adopting supposedly pragmatic positions that appeal to the
dominant neoliberal political system. The European Union that offered
potential for progressive environmental policy 20 years ago has become a
highly problematic institution pushing undemocratic back room deals such as
TTIP, neoliberalisation of environmental policy, financialisation of Nature
and the drive for innovation, technology, competition and growth above all
else. Ecological economists in Europe today need to be aware of this and do
better at supporting and seeking institutional reform.”
Its intellectually broader, critical (Continental, perhaps) and more radical
mode of doing ecological economics was the first characteristic that
attracted me to ESEE. The society had, and still has, a character of its own.
As the above quote witnesses, critical preparedness is still evident in
Clive’s thinking at a time when ESEE, as an epistemic community, is moving
towards the mainstream. I am wondering whether there is a need or a necessity
to turn back to the more radical playing fields of ESEE.
After the global economic meltdown in 2008, neoliberal thinking in the global
governance of developmental and environmental issues has only strengthened,
and the crisis did not lead to the regulatory revisions the critics had hoped
to see. Hand in hand with the recovery from the economic and financial crisis
come many concurrent trends – climate change, digitalisation processes and
the concept of ecosystem services to mention three – that have supported and contributed
to the way in which environmental governance and policy are exercised on the
global and regional levels. From the ESEE’s perspective, the challenge of
providing meaningful institutional advice and workable policy alternatives is
ridiculously large. There are two general ways to go, I think: provide
up-to-date economic pricing information about the changes in ecosystem
services and other natural values which societal planning and decision-making
apparatuses seem to lean on, or become a more critical and reformative
economic science again that identifies, designs, experiments and evaluates
the ideological and societal alternatives. These two are not necessarily
incompatible, but to make them compatible takes some intellectual effort. I
think this calls for the root mission of ESEE.
But how does Clive see the future of ecological economics in Europe?
“The only future for
ecological economics is to become a critical social science that has firm
theoretical foundations in understanding biophysical reality. Adopting
mainstream models, valuation approaches and market mechanisms merely
relegates the field to being a second rate version of the mainstream that it
has always criticised and opposed. Yet being an apologist for mainstream
ideas has become a common approach. The idea, pervasive in the journal, that
the field should be a form of environmental studies or some sustainability
science, that includes anything and everything that has the words environment
or sustainability in them, is also the antithesis of creating a field of
knowledge.
In the last 20 years the
complex of social, ecological and economic problems have not been addressed
and there has been a reversal of policies and deconstruction of institutions
aimed at controlling the worst excesses of corporate capitalism and the
consumer society. The drive for growth, markets and money is worse today,
individualisation is greater, inequity has grown, the loss of biodiversity
has not been stopped, greenhouse gases have increased relentlessly, innovative
new pollutants and substances are spreading, militarisation and
securitisation have spread and resource extraction has become more dirty and
with higher social and environmental impacts (e.g. fracking). To date
ecological economics has clearly not succeeded in addressing these issues in
any substantive way and will only be helpful if it avoids becoming another
rhetorical device for apologising about why planetary destruction and social
injustice are necessary so humans can progress. Unfortunately there are a lot
of apologists for the capital accumulating system and the growth machine who
claim to be ecological economists and there are many who divorce their
personal practice from the actions necessary to avoid the continuation of
social, ecological and economic crises. If the ESEE is to succeed it must
address these issues.”
I agree that the institutional and socioecological problems Clive lists above
are something the ESEE folks should get their hands dirty with in the next
twenty years. I am not much of a predictor, but I think that taking the task
seriously would entail, in general, more ESEE members, perhaps as dedicated
economists, becoming engaged not only in the social psychology of emotion,
cultural studies on institutional inertia and the organisational ethnography
of administrative routines but also in more reform-orientated inter- and
transdisciplinary action research on environmental policy planning,
implementation and reception for the sake of making things better.
As we can read in this newsletter, Tim Foxon points in this direction in his
Hot Topic. He asks how to encourage institutional investors to reorient their
investment portfolios towards low carbon energy. It takes effort and courage
to go against the current; to take actions that one’s peers will not take,
with or without monetary reward. Hopefully more researchers are asking what
the source (and sink) of this courageousness is, first of themselves and then
of those whom they study. Let me give another example. György Pataki
discusses the same general matter in his Hot Topic. However, he does not
focus on business enterprises but on the acts of governmental representatives
as part of the IPBES process (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services). After the policy effort has been taken, biodiversity
decline has not halted, and while the meaning and significance of ecosystem
services as constituents of socioecological resilience and human wellbeing
are becoming clearer due to the IPBES work, governments may grow more hesitant
about funding the collective efforts to find and design the conditions of
safeguarding the protection of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem
services. There is indeed something worth investigating for critical
ecological economists in the next 20 years.
TOP
2. News from ESEE
and its members
ESEE in solidarity with our Turkish colleagues and for
freedom of expression
21 March 2016
The European
Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE) herewith expresses its concern for
the academics in Turkey being investigated, and three being held in
prison since March 15, for expressing their views—under the petition “We
Will Not be a Party to this Crime”—on the conflict in the South-East region
of Turkey, and condemns the recent steps taken against the scholars who have
been calling for peace in the country.
Concerned about
the decline of academic freedoms in Turkey and in line with its commitment to
the defense of freedom of representation and dissemination of ideas, the ESEE
urges the government of Turkey to fully respect the right of scholars to
express their opinions in public without censorship or restraint. We also
urge the Higher Education Council (YÖK) to withdraw its request to the
rectors to open up an inquiry on the signatories.
While our expression of solidarity extends to all people and academics
affected by the repressive measures taken by the Government of Turkey, the
ESEE is particularly concerned with the ecological economics community of
scholars, intellectuals, practitioners, and activists in Turkey who are
facing prosecution for their commitment to peace and social justice.
Irene Ring, Erik Gómez-Baggethun & Tom Bauler (president /
vice-presidents)
Social sciences and humanities in IPBES
ESEE President Irene Ring represented the Society in November 2015 in Bonn at
a Workshop on “Social sciences and humanities in the Intergovernmental Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)”, convened by German IPBES
Coordination Office.
The recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims at providing a mechanism to
synthesize, review, assess and critically evaluate relevant information and
knowledge generated worldwide on the status of and trends in biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
The role of natural scientists is quite obvious in the IPBES process: they
have proven to be (pro-)active contributors to global assessments and related
policy debates. By contrast scholars from the social sciences and humanities
remain a minority, even though their role in identifying the barriers for
policy implementation and the sustainable use of natural resources is
generally recognized.
Recommendations and associated policy options emerging
from the one-day multidisciplinary expert meeting in Bonn were formulated by
the experts in a policy-relevant format and contain practical measures to
overcome the identified low representation of experts from the fields of
social sciences and humanities in IPBES assessment and review processes.
The document was made available for discussions at the IPBES stakeholder
days, which took place from 20 to 21 February 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
and was available at the subsequent fourth Plenary of the IPBES, held from 22
to 28 February 2016 in Kuala Lumpur as well. The deliberations and outcomes
of IPBES-4 will be used as an opportunity to rethink the role of social
sciences and humanities and their scientific communities in biodiversity
politics and science.
More information
TOP
3. Hot topics
Challenge
of financing investment in renewable energy
by Tim Foxon, SPRU –
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
Under the Paris Agreement in December 2015, nations committed to holding the
increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above
pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase
to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. This should provide a clear signal to
businesses and investors that there is international political support for a
new direction in energy policy to achieve a transition to low carbon energy
systems, despite the fact the current national commitments fall short of what
is needed to achieve these targets. However, implementing the agreement
requires mobilising high levels of investment in renewable energy and other
low carbon technologies, including energy efficiency measures.
A recent workshop organised by my new SPRU colleagues Mariana Mazzucato and
Gregor Semeniuk, and hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), examined
the challenge of Financing Innovation in Renewable Energy. Drawing on
projections by BNEF, Christopher Knowles from the European Investment Bank
argued that an additional $8.6 trillion of investment in clean energy is
needed within the next 25 years to keep on track for 2 °C target, roughly
double the business as usual level of global energy investment. Despite the
growth of renewable energy funds, supported by the European Investment Bank
and other public development banks, and new instruments, such as climate
bonds, less than 1% of the assets held by institutional investors, including
pension funds and insurance companies, are currently invested in clean energy
projects. More work is needed to encourage these institutional investors to
reorient their investment portfolios towards low carbon energy, and to divest
from supposedly ‘safe’ investments in fossil fuel companies, whose assets
would become ‘stranded’ if governments back up their commitments at Paris
with action.
In work with colleagues Stephen Hall at Leeds and Ronan Bolton at Edinburgh,
we interviewed a number of people from the investment community in UK and
Germany (Hall et al., 2015). This work identified a number of structural
constraints to renewable energy investment, including the immaturity of the
sector as an asset class, the lack of liquidity of long-term investments in
renewable energy, the short-term drivers on fund managers and the lack of
secondary market vehicles. Markets in the real world are not the efficient
markets of conventional economic theory, but need encouragement and
incentives to adapt to the new world signalled by the Paris Agreement.
Ecological economists have an important role to play in engaging with the
sometimes opaque world of investment finance to address these challenges,
support social movements such as divestment campaigns, and help to mobilise
the levels of investment needed for a rapid transition to low carbon energy
systems, to meet the Paris commitments.
Reference
Hall, S., Foxon, T.J. and Bolton, R. (2015). Investing in low carbon
transitions: Energy finance as an adaptive market. Climate Policy (online) [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2015.1094731]
IPBES at a turning point?
by
György Pataki
A year ago one of the hot topics in this newsletter was a general
introduction to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) to the European ecological economics community. Now, after
the 4th Plenary of the member states in Kuala Lumpur, we are beginning to
confront emerging contradictions with regard to the future operation of
IPBES.
On the one hand, one may well see a global policy-making body on biodiversity
and ecosystem services (BES) that is very actively pursuing its mandate,
which is to produce knowledge assessments within the very limited timeframe
of its 5-year long first work programme. The first major deliverables have
been discussed and evaluated by Member States at the recent Plenary
(IPBES-4): the thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food
production (“pollination assessment”) and the methodological assessment on
scenarios and modelling of BES (“scenario and modelling assessment”). Both
have been accepted, with considerable media coverage.
On the other hand, during the Plenary and within the so-called budget contact
group, experts working for IPBES were shocked to learn of the unwillingness
of most member states to provide the funding IPBES needs to carry out the
first work programme that member states had previously accepted and mandated
as the core function of IPBES. Thus the question unavoidably arises regarding
the commitment of national governments to IPBES as a meaningful and effective
global policy-making body for BES. It seems to be contradictory to create and
mandate a global biodiversity policy organisation, in addition to the
existing ones, and then fall short of providing the necessary resources to
carry out the mandated tasks. What might be the reasons for national
governments acting in this way? Is this an issue specifically relevant to
IPBES or is it a general situation to all UN-related efforts for global
cooperation?
As a member of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) that is supposed to
oversee and facilitate the knowledge performance of IPBES, I see experts of
diverse knowledge backgrounds committing their time and expertise to enhance
the cause of biodiversity conservation from global, regional and local
levels. IPBES’s operations are highly dependent on their voluntary
(uncompensated) or semi-voluntary (partly compensated) work. The
unwillingness of governments to fund IPBES’ work programme leads to questions
concerning the commitment of these same national governments to halt and
reverse biodiversity decline globally, regionally and locally. Such a message
of lack of commitment to IPBES has negative impact on the motivation and
commitment of all stakeholders to the IPBES process, who are made up of
diverse knowledge-holders who have already contributed significantly to
assessing knowledge and providing policy support regarding BES.
After Kuala Lumpur we now face a situation in which previously agreed
assessments have been postponed: these include the thematic assessment on
invasive alien species and their control (“IAS assessment”) and the
assessment of methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of values
of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services
(“valuation assessment”). The Plenary has also decided that the thematic
assessment on the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity
(“sustainable use assessment”) requires additional expert work on scoping.
All of these assessments will be on the agenda of the next Plenary (IPBES-5,
March 2017, Bonn) to be discussed and decided upon regarding their timing and
funding.
More positive news reached those who were concerned with the fate of the
global assessment of BES: the Plenary decided to issue a call for expert nominations to start carrying out this
assessment. Meanwhile, four regional assessments of BES in Africa, the
Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia (ECA) are ongoing and
first drafts are expected to be delivered this Spring. Call for nominations
for review editors to provide structured critical feedback on these drafts will
be issued soon by the IPBES Secretariat.
Time will tell to what extent IPBES will progress in real terms, that is,
being effective at a global level to institutionalise knowledge production
and policy support mechanisms that will positively contribute to the cause of
biodiversity. IPBES will either fail to come up to the expectations of
diverse stakeholders, who have made concerted efforts to make global
collaboration for knowledge generation work, and lead to policy support in
favour of biological and biocultural diversity. IPBES has already received
significant academic attention through critical pieces of analysis, which may
contribute to directing IPBES towards effective institutionalisation and
impact. IPBES still states that it looks forward to the critical and
constructive attention of the ecological economics community.
More information on IPBES will be happily provided upon request. Contact:
György Pataki at gyorgy.pataki@uni-corvinus.hu , MEP for the Eastern
European Region
How
Ecological Economists Should React to the Paris Agreement
by Clive L. Spash
At the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris,
France, 30 November to 11 December 2015, an Agreement was reached by the
international community including 195 countries. The Agreement was
immediately hailed, by participants and the media, as a major turning point
for policy in the struggle to address human induced climate change. One of
the apparent reasons to celebrate was the admission by the COP that the
unilateral targets set by the world’s governments—as part of the pre-Paris
process—are totally inadequate for a 50:50 chance of achieving an average
global temperature rise of 2°C. They will more likely head the planet to 3°C,
or more. Another is that, despite this, the COP now recognise the real target
should be reduced down to 1.5°C. Full marks for honesty and zero marks for
achievement.
Ecological economists should also immediately be concerned about the
divergence between claimed intentions and the real ongoing actions of nation
States. The reality being enforced through social and economic systems
remains one of increasing energy and material throughput due to industrial
production and fashion conscious conspicuous consumption. These systems are
not set to change and, so, neither is their social metabolism. Countries like
China and India have massively expanded the number of coal fired power
stations, are building more and plan even more; Canada backed out of Kyoto to
create the largest environmental devastation of any land area on the planet
in the form of fracking; countries like the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand
and Norway (to name but a few) have ongoing programmes supporting exploration
and development of conventional and/or non-conventional fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, Germany assumes the mantle of a Green Economy while expanding
brown coal production, pushing car sales, and cutting investment in public
transport, while its citizens are celebrating the success of their
competitive growth economy by flying more. Then there is the whole area of
Nation State commitment to ‘security’ expenditure and the fossil fuel
intensive military-industrial complex.
This is all before we even get to the private sector of the economy and their
interests. The raw fact is that some of the largest international
corporations are valued on the basis of fossil fuel assets that are toxic. At
least 60% cannot be burnt for a 50:50 chance of 2°C and more likely 80% when
considering the budget available for the energy sector (Spash 2016). Despite
this the energy corporations continue to look for fossil fuel reserves to add
to their toxic assets. Just consider how effective was the Paris Agreement
when they suffered no share price impact at all? Well not very surprising
given that the Agreement makes no mention of any fossil fuels at all.
The rhetoric of Paris just does not match the reality of government and
corporate policy and their real intentions and actions. Whether the issue is
building more power stations, roads, airports, shopping malls, industrial
parks, housing, urban areas or whatever, all current infrastructure remains
fossil fuel dependent and much creates social dependency on continued fossil
fuel supply. Yet, despite this, people are saying: ‘this is an important
first step and a key policy moment’, just as they did at Rio (1992) when the
UNFCCC was established and then at Kyoto (1997) with the Protocol, and indeed
at most every COP meeting a breakthrough of some sort has been announced and
there has been great applause by the participants. After a quarter of a
century of international ‘concern’ the lack of substance in the Paris
Agreement is breathtaking.
Yet the Paris Agreement is not lacking in content or meaning. A key aspect in
terms of international policy was to tie action on human induced climate
change to economic growth. The UN resolution for “transforming our world”,
agreed earlier last year, is a document highlighted in the introduction to
the Paris Agreement. The aim is a new campaign for economic growth as
‘sustainable development’. Supposed concerns over inequity and poverty are
translated into the need for 7% growth rates for developing countries, which
is now an agreed international goal. Pushing economic growth for poverty
alleviation as the only ethical policy response under climate change is
something that has been heavily promoted by Stern and his elite associates
from the political, banking and finance worlds (Spash 2014). Many in
ecological economics applaud Stern despite the fundamental contradictions of
his approach and policy recommendations.
Unfortunately the ‘development as growth’ agenda has also been supported by
some prominent ecological economists. For example, the aspirations for
achieving prosperity without growth have been restricted to the already
industrialised countries, the globally rich Nation States. Only those
economies that have already had 200 years of economic growth need to avoid
further growth, others must be allowed to follow the same path. Of course,
growth offers a convenient ‘get out’ when challenged about what happens to
the 6 billion, or more, who have not benefited from the capital accumulating
system. Rather conveniently the original concerns about biophysical and
social reality are forgotten along the way, i.e. that this system is both
socially exploitative and created the environmental crisis in the first place.
So how do the pundits pushing the ‘better-growth, better climate’ political
agenda square this circle? Same old story: technology, innovation,
decoupling. A future promise of a solution around some hidden corner.
Promotion of biotech, carbon capture and storage, geoengineering and new
energy systems. A set of miraculous cures for social and political failures
using corporate science and the profit motive. This can be combined with
attacks on government programmes of energy provision as illicit subsidies, while
new energy provision systems are to be legitimated by private ownership
(backed by massive government transfer payments, justified as correcting
market failures and internalising externalities). So the stock market,
banking and finance sectors are not upset by the Paris Agreement because it
offers a potential business bonanza if not a neoliberal nirvana.
Ecological economists should not be fooled into believing the unbelievable,
nor be cajoled into adopting the myth that economic growth is now the ethical
way forward to a ‘new economy’ in which all poverty and oppression will be
removed by spreading industrialisation and the competitive market system
further than ever before. Ecological economists should remember that the
concept of “inclusive sustained growth” remains the same utopian
vision—rhetorically employed by a self-serving social elite—that it has
always been. Amongst all the economists in the world, a foundational
knowledge of biophysical reality should ground the ecological economist’s understanding
and provide a firm basis for connecting the environmental crisis to the
social reality of resource exploitation in a capital accumulating economy.
Therein lies an important task. Ecological economists should now set to work
explaining why Paris changes nothing, and what are the necessary alternatives
to create a materially grounded, truly ecological and socially just economic
system.
Spash, C. L. (2014).
Better Growth, Helping the Paris COP-out?: Fallacies and Omissions of the New
Climate Economy Report. Vienna, Institute for Environment and Regional
Development. On line at https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwsre/sre-disc-2014_04.html.
Spash, C. L. (2016). The
Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality. Vienna, Institute for Multilevel
Governance and Development. On line at http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/sre-disc/sre-disc-2016_01.pdf.
Forthcoming in Globalizations vol.13 no.6.
TOP
4. Events, jobs and
publications
Call for Applications: Course on Bioeconomy
The Bioeconomy Initiative of
the Czech University of South Bohemia organizes a course on Bioeconomy on May
23-28, 2016.
The course offers a multidisciplinary approach to Bioeconomy, covering a wide
spectrum of topics from natural sciences, economics, business, law, and
communication. It is addressed to Master, PhD. Students and experts from
various backgrounds, aiming to enhance their knowledge in a challenging
domain which currently is the flagship of the European Strategy in domains of
Innovative Research and Technology Applications.
Deadline for applications is April
15, 2016.
More
information
Call for Nomination of Experts: Global Assessment and
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
IPBES (The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services) invites the nomination of experts for Deliverable 2(c):
Global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services and Deliverable
3(biii): Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. For more information and the
application form, please click here.
Deadline for applications is May
5, 2016.
More information
Job posting: Lecturer / Associate Professor in
Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon Transitions
University of Leeds,
School of Earth and Environment, has announced an opening as Lecturer /
Associate Professor in Sustainability, Economics, and Low-Carbon Transitions.
Closing Date is April
15, 2016.
More
information
Job Posting: Departmental Research Lecturer in the
Economics of Environmental Change
The Environmental Change Institute (ECI) and the School of Geography of the
Environment (SoGE) in Oxford are seeking to appoint a Departmental Research
Lecturer.
The primary purpose of the post is to conduct research, in collaboration with
the ECI’s research programmes, on the economic drivers of and responses to
environmental change. To undertake this role, you must hold a doctorate in
economics or a closely related field, with a focus on environmental change
which might include climate, energy, biodiversity, water or food systems.
This post is a full-time, 5-year appointment.
To apply for this role and for further details, including the job description
and selection criteria, please click here.
The closing date is 12.00 noon on Wednesday March 30, 2016, and interviews will
be held on Monday April
18, 2016.
Job posting: One post-doctoral researcher or advanced
PhD candidate – Energy and the Post-Carbon Economy
The Department of
Environmental Studies at the Faculty of Social Studies (FSS) of Masaryk
University (MU) is inviting applications for one post-doctoral researcher,
advanced PhD candidate or highly experienced research assistant.
Deadline for applications is April
4, 2016.
More
information
For informal enquiries about this position please contact Martin Černý (cerny.m@mail.muni.cz)
or Christian Kerschner (christian.kerschner@mail.muni.cz).
Environmental Policy and Governance: Current issue
26(1), Jan./Feb. 2016 and early view online
Environmental Policy and Governance
The current issue 26/1, Jan/Feb 2016:
- Chaliganti, R., Müller, U., Policy Discourses and Environmental Rationalities
Underpinning India's Biofuel Programme, Environmental Policy and
Governance 26, 2016, 16-28, doi: 10.1002/eet.1697.
- Gallego-Álvarez, I.,
Fernández-Gómez, M.J., Governance, Environmental And Economic Factors: An
international analysis, Environmental Policy and Governance 26,
2016, 29-44, doi: 10.1002/eet.1695.
- Knüppe, K., Pahl-Wostl, C.,
Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Sustainable Groundwater Management: A Comparative Study
of Local Policy Changes and Ecosystem Services in South Africa and
Germany, Environmental Policy and Governance 26, 2016, 59-72, doi:
10.1002/eet.1693.
- Kramarz, T., World Bank Partnerships and the Promise of Democratic
Governance, Environmental Policy and Governance 26, 2016, 3-15, doi:
10.1002/eet.1696.
- Novak, J.M., Axelrod, M., Patterns of Multi-Level Fisheries Governance and Their
Impact on Fishermen's Adaptation Strategies in Tamil Nadu, India,
Environmental Policy and Governance 26, 2016, 45-58, doi:
10.1002/eet.1694.
Currently in the Early View:
- Feichtinger, J., Pregernig, M., Beyond Mandated Participation: Dealing with hydropower
in the context of the water framework directive, Environmental
Policy and Governance, 2016, doi: 10.1002/eet.1699.
- Hagen, B., Middel, A., Pijawka,
D., European Climate Change Perceptions: Public support for
mitigation and adaptation policies, Environmental Policy and
Governance, 2015, doi: 10.1002/eet.1701.
- Negev, M., Interagency Aspects of Environmental Policy: The Case of
Environmental Health, Environmental Policy and Governance, 2015,
doi: 10.1002/eet.1700.
- Paavola, J., Multi-Level Environmental Governance: Exploring the
economic explanations, Environmental Policy and Governance, 2015,
doi: 10.1002/eet.1698.
- Wamsler, C., From Risk Governance to City–Citizen Collaboration:
Capitalizing on individual adaptation to climate change, Environmental
Policy and Governance, 2016, doi: 10.1002/eet.1707.
Latest Issue of Environmental Values now online:
Vol.25, No.1, February 2016
Special Issue on The
Ethics of Engineering the Climate
- Baatz, C., Heyward, C., Stelzer,
H., Editorial: The Ethics of Engineering the Climate.
- Keary, M., The New Prometheans: Technological Optimism in Climate
Change Mitigation Modelling.
- Baatz, C., Can We Have It Both Ways? On Potential Trade-Offs
Between Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management.
- Svoboda, T., Aerosol Geoengineering Deployment and Fairness.
- Stelzer, H., Schuppert,
F., How Much Risk Ought We to Take? Exploring the
Possibilities of Risk-Sensitive Consequentialism in the Context of
Climate Engineering.
- Preston, C. J., Climate Engineering and the Cessation Requirement: The
Ethics of a Life-Cycle.
Recently posted articles forthcoming in future issues:
Recently posted reviews forthcoming in future issues:
- Vogel, S., Thinking Like a Mall: Environmental Philosophy After the
End of Nature, TAMA WEISMAN
- Willett, C., Interspecies Ethics, LOUISE WESTLING
- Warnock, M., Critical Reflections on Ownership, MARKKU OKSANEN
- Olive, A., Land Stewardship, And Legitimacy: Endangered Species
Policy in Canada and the United States, RICHARD STONES
- Wissenburg, M., Schlosberg, D.,
(eds.), Political Animals and Animal Politics, ROBERT GARNER
- Katz, E., Anne Frank’s Tree: Nature’s Confrontation with
Technology, Domination, and the Holocaust, AVNER DE-SHALIT
- Orr, S. K., Environmental Policymaking and Stakeholder
Collaboration: Theory and Practice, NICK A. KIRSOP-TAYLOR
Special discount for ESEE members: Handbook of
Ecosystem Services
Edited by Marion
Potschin, Roy Haines-Young, Robert Fish, R. Kerry Turner
Routledge has provided ESEE members with a special 20% discount code for the
new book Handbook of
Ecosystem Services. To place an order use code DC361 on www.routledge.com. Your
discount will then be allocated.
More information
TOP
5. Students and early career
ESCP Europe Workshop
ESCP Europe
invites you to submit abstracts for their workshop Agent-based modelling in
Ecological Economics - A useful tool or just a fancy gadget? The
workshop takes place in Berlin May 20th-21st, 2016.
Extended deadline for submission is April
1, 2016.
More information
The 11th ALTER-Net Summer School
The 11th ALTER-Net
Summer School Biodiversity,
ecosystem services and sustainable management of socio-ecosystems
is now open for applications. The Summer School takes place on 7-17 September
2016 in Peyresq, Haute-de-Provence, France
Deadline for applications is April
29, 2016 (18:00 CET).
More
information
MSc in Environmental Management and Sustainability
The MSc in Environmental Management and Sustainability programme is designed
to offer recent graduates a thorough understanding of theory and practice in
the areas of sustainable development. The programme provides graduates with a
key set of skills and the real-world knowledge crucial to achieving success
in their chosen career.
Specialization Streams: Environmental Management - Sustainable Tourism
Management)
Next intake: October 2016
More information
MSc in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and Policy
The IHU "Master of Science in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and
Policy" has as its objective the provision of postgraduate level
studies, specialization and experience in Energy Law, Βusiness, Energy
Policy, and Geostrategy, as well as the general regulatory intervention in
the area of the energy sector as a whole. It offers a highly flexible
qualification suitable for a wide range of career opportunities in many
sectors.
Next intake: October
2016
More information
New MSc in Ecological Economics
The University of Leeds is pleased to announce its new MSc in Ecological
Economics programme, with applications now being taken for September 2016
entry. On this programme, students will develop an understanding of how
economic activity gives rise to environmental and social problems, and be
introduced to the main tools to tackle them. The programme provides a
comprehensive education in ecological, environmental, and heterodox economics,
and students are encouraged to work with a partner organisation on a
real-world problem for their dissertation. The MSc is open to all students
with an interest in economic issues, and does not require a previous degree
in economics.
Apply at apply-masters@see.leeds.ac.uk
More information
TOP
|
|
