Skip to main content

COP15 and modernizing China

Much seem to be at stake at the ongoing UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15), but as week one of two neares its end, little progress has been made. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that what's at stake is not only political and economical interests. Also, the status of science is debated: What are trustworthy data? To what extent can scientific evidence overrule political procedures?

As Latour might say, scientific facts are a result of the stabilization of contested knowledge. The belief in pure science is a mistake of the modernists and this has never been reality in Europe. China, he is known to argue, are on the other hand trying more than anyone to modernize these days.

This was evident during their side event presentation on the fourth day of the COP15. Presenting a panel of the preeminent Chinese scholars on climate change, the first power point slide stressed: "no politics, no diplomats, pure academic perspective".

Most will probably consider this a good intention. And it is probably a product of both modernization and fear of authorities. But moving into the presentation, the Chinese academics did not even try to look purely scientific, which gave them a shine of honesty and straightforwardness that the IPCC would die for these days.

Concluding, the Chinese scientists stressed that the only just solution was a "common, but non-differentiated" CO2 emission budget. This directly confronts the UNFCCC goal of "common but differentiated" responsibilities and is thus far from unpolitical. The Chinese "emissions budget" presented suggested that the developed world has far less "emission rights" remaining, due to historical emissions. The controversy thus seems to be whether or not historical emissions should be included when calculating how much CO2 each person on the planet can be allowed to emit in order to keep global warming inside a given limit.

The "scientific" justification logic of the Chinese academics is of course not universally applicable, but as long as the Chinese assume that, they might be very hard to negotiate with. As they say:

"Developing countries are defending their rights, but some major developed countries are merely defending their interests"

Insofar as the notion of universal rights is a modern perspective, are we perhaps here seeing a clash between a modern(izing) China and a nonmodern Western world (with the Third World as hostages)?

It will be most interesting to follow the developments during the high-level segment of the "climate" negotiations next week.

(As an assistant to the press area in COP15, I am priviledged to be able to follow the negotiations closely)


Popular posts from this blog

Official statistics: 51% of 16-74 year old Danes use Facebook

In making a case for why my MSc dissertation here at the Oxford Internet Institute should be concerned with something as hyped and mundane as Facebook, I've been looking for numbers on the Danish social media landscape.

On the English-language web, the commercial SocialBakers Facebook statistics suggest that 49% of the Danish population are on Facebook.

This rather non-transparent number can now be compared with a recent report by Statistics Denmark, suggesting that 51% of 16-74 year old Danes have a Facebook account. The second-largest online social network service in Denmark, LinkedIn, is trailing far behind at 8%. Most surprisingly perhaps, a mere 3% of the surveyed age cohort use Twitter.

As such, there are compelling quantitative reasons for choosing Facebook over e.g. Twitter for a case study of how social media reflect life in Denmark. Another recent survey produced for a Danish daily confirms this: A tiny elite of the 319 most active Twitter users in Denmark write half of …

Two (used) comments on Gillespie's new chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms"

I'm in Paris this semester, as a visiting doctoral student at the Center for the Sociology of Innovation (CSI) at Ecole des Mines and at the médialab at Sciences Po. 
Apart from finding myself in the middle of two very lively research communities, I've also been so lucky that a series of cross-institutional seminars on Digital Methods are taking place in Paris this spring.
The last seminar was on "Transformative interaction: web effects on social dynamics", for which I volunteered to prepare a brief comment on one of the selected readings, namely Tarleton Gillespie's chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms", forthcoming in an edited volume on "Media Technologies" to be published by MIT Press. (The full chapter has been uploaded by Gillespie here).
Since I prepared the comments in writing, and since they did in fact spark some discussion, I've decided that it might be appropriate to recycle them as a blog post. Here goes:

Introducing: The Twitter-thing!

Context: The Twitter-thing is the (awkward?) translation into English of 'Twittertinget' - a project I worked on last year with two Danish colleagues, Irina Papazu (CBS) and Tobias Bornakke (Uni. of Copenhagen) in collaboration with the Danish newspaper Politiken. The Twitter-thing is a tool that draws on TCAT in order to build a network visualisation of how Danish MPs use hashtags on Twitter. Here follows my abstract for the upcoming Data Publics conference in Lancaster, where I'll be exhibiting the Twitter-thing.

Parliaments could seem to be highly issue-agnostic places. All sorts of problems move in and out of these large and expensive devices (Dányi 2015), while the membership stays more or less the same in-between elections. But as issues are taken up and left behind by parliaments, they also make cuts in the parliament in the sense that specific sets of parliamentarians become attached to specific issues. The aim of the Twitter-thing tool is to trace these cuts and v…