Hi all,
Using a case study of New York's climate politics evolution after Hurricane Sandy, and building on essential work by many members of our section, the paper critiques some of the more superficial, optimistic takes that if we just link extreme weather to climate change, it will automatically yield good climate politics. And it sketches a theoretical framework that illuminates how actors' climate politics evolve after a disaster. I'd love to get feedback from anyone interested.
I think the paper may have some relevance during this horrible period of climate disasters. On the one hand, I've been so thrilled to see so many activists, scholars, and journalists call our Gov. Newsom's pro-fossil fuel drilling record in the midst of these fires. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of discourse limited to "this is climate change!" The other day there was a
story in the NYT about a "reckoning" with climate change in California that didn't mention GHG emissions or fossil fuels. I'm not sure where that gets us. Even if local adaptation is equitable, there can't be climate justice from a global perspective if affluent parts of the US pursue climate policies that don't slash emissions.
all best
Daniel
--
Daniel Aldana Cohen (he, his, him)
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania