Submit your responses to the discussion team’s questions below. Please review the attached rubric and adhere to the following protocol:
Responses to each question should be a minimum of one short paragraph and a maximum of three paragraphs.
Address the questions as much as possible (don’t let the discussion stray).
Try to use quotes from the readings that support your responses. Include page numbers when you do so.
1. In line with the theory of constructivism, Mitchell and Carpenter argue in favor of a norms-based approach to climate governance. In contrast, realists would argue that due to the anarchic international system, states must pursue an interest-based approach to safeguard their power and security. Historically, dominant powers have addressed various issue areas from a realist perspective. With regards to global climate governance today, should and can actors change their approach as the authors recommend? (Jasmine)
2. Michell and Carpenter refer to the transnational coalition of corporations, cities, provinces, and universities to make corresponding emission commitments as reinforcing a framing of climate action as the right thing to do, despite the economic and political costs rather than because of economic and political benefits (423). In your opinion, are economic and political benefits separate from ethical considerations? Can such a line between norms-based and interest-based approaches be drawn? (Rose)
3. Mitchell and Carpenter write that ethical arguments have not been absent from climate politics but they rarely have served as the dominant frame for climate action. (416). What kinds of ethical arguments have already been made, and why/why aren’t they successful? (Declan)