Will technology save the day?
New centre book discusses how technology poses novel risks, but also provides new possibilities
- New book introduces the 'Anthropocene gap', society's current failure to address the most profound environmental challenges of our time
- Focusing on the challenges environmental change and emerging technologies pose on our political and institutional system
- It combines theory development and case studies of 'planetary boundaries', emerging infectious diseases, financial markets and geoengineering
We live on an increasingly human-dominated planet. Our impact on the Earth has become so huge that researchers now suggest that it merits its own geological epoch - the 'Anthropocene' - where humanity is influencing every aspect of the Earth on a scale akin to the great forces of nature. But with the Anthropocene comes the 'Anthropocene gap', society's current failure to address the most profound environmental challenges of our time.
This is also the subject of a new and groundbreaking book by centre researcher Victor Galaz. The book, entitled "Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics - The Anthropocene Gap", combines theory development and case studies of 'planetary boundaries', emerging infectious diseases, financial markets and geoengineering to further explore the meaning behind the 'Anthropocene Gap'.
"This is not a book about climate or biodiversity politics, environmental policy, or governance for sustainable development in general. Nor is it an analysis of "green" technologies such as solar power or how social media can support environmental awareness. This book is essentially about the challenges environmental change and emerging technologies pose on our political and institutional system," says Victor Galaz.
New times, new challenges
In his book, which is published by Edward Elgar, Galaz explores how technological change not only poses new environmental risks, but also new possibilities for collective action.
"I elaborate on the argument that our transition in to the Anthropocene presents fundamentally different environmental political challenges than those experienced before. For example, we need to develop institutions and governance mechanisms that are robust enough to deal with the increasingly complex environmental issues we are facing while also allowing for fail-safe experimentation and continuous learning,” Galaz explains.
Galaz, V. 2014. Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The Anthropocene Gap. Edgar Elgar Publishing.
Victor Galaz is an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in political science. His current research interests are in global environmental governance, planetary boundaries, emerging technologies and emerging political conflicts associated with the notion of the Anthropocene.
Research news | 2022-10-05
Centre strengthens its food system research with five new postdocs
Amid ongoing global food crises, the Stockholm Resilience Centre adds to its portfolio of food system research by hiring five new postdoctoral fellows
Research news | 2022-09-29
Recent graduates reflect on what it’s like to do a master’s at the centre
Straight from their final presentations, MSc graduates Bérénice Robaglia and Nora Giertz share insights into their master thesis projects, time at the centre and future plans.
Research news | 2022-09-28
To curb biodiversity loss, development cooperation needs a rethink
Working paper highlights the need for development cooperation to adopt complexity-aware theories of change
Research news | 2022-09-23
Civil society could be the gamechanger for climate policymaking
To make climate policies fair and effective we need to harness the power of civil society, argues centre researcher Thomas Hahn
Research news | 2022-09-19
Turning food by-products into fodder could feed a billion people
Using waste from food production to feed livestock and aquaculture could help feed more people with less
Research news | 2022-09-13
Mutual interests and benefits are no guarantee for increased collaboration
Awareness of interdependencies may not promote, but instead even inhibit, exchange and dialogue between different policy actors