Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report

In this article, we problematize conventional views regarding culture presented in the assessment report entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. This report is a contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Claudia Matus, Pascale Bussenius, Pablo Herraz, Valentina Riberi, Manuel Prieto
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	IPCC critical discourse analysis normative ideas of culture separation inequalities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/97aabfc577c344f0bbcadb465a09e2cd
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:97aabfc577c344f0bbcadb465a09e2cd
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:97aabfc577c344f0bbcadb465a09e2cd2021-11-11T19:35:46ZNature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report10.3390/su1321119032071-1050https://doaj.org/article/97aabfc577c344f0bbcadb465a09e2cd2021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11903https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050In this article, we problematize conventional views regarding culture presented in the assessment report entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. This report is a contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We posit that when culture is seen as a stable category and imagined as a space composed of humans—and, more precisely, only certain humans—an epistemological, ontological, and ethical order is reproduced in which (a) nature is framed as a passive and apolitical “out there”, (b) knowledge based on this division is misleading and partial (e.g., social scientists study culture and natural scientists study nature), and (c) dominant humanist assumptions become common-sense explanations for inequalities. We conduct a critical discourse analysis of the IPCC report to better understand which assumptions produce the conceptualization of culture as a stable category. In our conclusion, we offer an example of a semiotic-meaning intervention of a section of the report to demonstrate the vitality of the concepts presented in this document. Subsequently, we discuss the consequences of omitting the vital traffic between the biological, social, and cultural realms from discussions on climate change to reexamine the production and reproduction of inequalities.Claudia MatusPascale BusseniusPablo HerrazValentina RiberiManuel PrietoMDPI AGarticleIPCCcritical discourse analysisnormative ideas of cultureseparationinequalitiesEnvironmental effects of industries and plantsTD194-195Renewable energy sourcesTJ807-830Environmental sciencesGE1-350ENSustainability, Vol 13, Iss 11903, p 11903 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	IPCC critical discourse analysis normative ideas of culture separation inequalities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350
spellingShingle	IPCC critical discourse analysis normative ideas of culture separation inequalities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350 Claudia Matus Pascale Bussenius Pablo Herraz Valentina Riberi Manuel Prieto Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
description	In this article, we problematize conventional views regarding culture presented in the assessment report entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. This report is a contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We posit that when culture is seen as a stable category and imagined as a space composed of humans—and, more precisely, only certain humans—an epistemological, ontological, and ethical order is reproduced in which (a) nature is framed as a passive and apolitical “out there”, (b) knowledge based on this division is misleading and partial (e.g., social scientists study culture and natural scientists study nature), and (c) dominant humanist assumptions become common-sense explanations for inequalities. We conduct a critical discourse analysis of the IPCC report to better understand which assumptions produce the conceptualization of culture as a stable category. In our conclusion, we offer an example of a semiotic-meaning intervention of a section of the report to demonstrate the vitality of the concepts presented in this document. Subsequently, we discuss the consequences of omitting the vital traffic between the biological, social, and cultural realms from discussions on climate change to reexamine the production and reproduction of inequalities.
format	article
author	Claudia Matus Pascale Bussenius Pablo Herraz Valentina Riberi Manuel Prieto
author_facet	Claudia Matus Pascale Bussenius Pablo Herraz Valentina Riberi Manuel Prieto
author_sort	Claudia Matus
title	Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
title_short	Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
title_full	Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
title_fullStr	Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
title_full_unstemmed	Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report
title_sort	nature is for trees, culture is for humans: a critical reading of the ipcc report
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/97aabfc577c344f0bbcadb465a09e2cd
work_keys_str_mv	AT claudiamatus natureisfortreescultureisforhumansacriticalreadingoftheipccreport AT pascalebussenius natureisfortreescultureisforhumansacriticalreadingoftheipccreport AT pabloherraz natureisfortreescultureisforhumansacriticalreadingoftheipccreport AT valentinariberi natureisfortreescultureisforhumansacriticalreadingoftheipccreport AT manuelprieto natureisfortreescultureisforhumansacriticalreadingoftheipccreport
_version_	1718431481967149056

Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report

Ejemplares similares