global studies set 2 exam 3

Dalby’s critique on Robert Kaplan

says Kaplan’s view is overly deterministic, politically biases, and rooted in western security perspectives

main claim: framing the environment as a security threat is not neutral, it shapes policy problematically

Kaplan’s argument

key claim: environmental degradation (deforestation, scarcity, overpopulation) → violence + state collapse

framework: environment = trigger of geopolitical instability, future = chaotic, anarchic

Dalby’s 5 critiques

1. environmental determinism: environment not the sole cause of conflict

2. simplification of the global south: reinforces western fears and narratives

3. security framing of the environment: leads to militarized responses

4. political use of fear: emphasizes chaos, violence, collapse

5. ignoring structural causes: conflict is political and economic, not just environmental

environmental security

• Idea that environmental issues threaten national/global security

geopolitical imagination

• How people (esp policy makers) imagine the world spatially

• Kaplan’s version: divides world into stable vs chaotic regions

• Dalby: these imaginations are constructed not objective

othering

• Representing non-western regions as: different, dangerous, inferior 

  • Kaplan does this w africa

  • Dalby critiques this as politically harmful

Dalby’s alternate perspective

• Environment should be seen as: a shared global issue not a threat from “others”

  • A problem that requires cooperation, equity, structural change 

  • Key shift from “environment causes conflict” → to “political and economic systems shape environmental outcomes”

Bond’s core argument

the biggest issue is how to respond to environmental crisis

-market based solutions dont work

-structural/systemic change words

planetary crisis

humanity is exceeding planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation

-we are in the anthropocene: humans reshape earth systems

ecological modernization

• belief : technology and markets can fix environment

  • Examples: carbon trading, green economy, pricing nature 

• Critique: it ignores power inequalities and capitalism’s role

  • Turns nature into a commodity

neoliberal environmentalism

focus on: markets, privatization, growth

problem: reduces environment to economic value and allows exploitation

sustainable development debate

weak version (dominant): growth + environment compatible, vague

strong version: limits to growth, focus on equity and environmental limits

critique of capitalism

root cause of crisis = endless accumulation

-externalizes environmental costs and prioritizes profit

crisis displacement

problems are shifted spatially and delayed, dumped on poorer regions

carbon markets critique

carbon trading = major “solution”

problems: creates right to pollute, benefits corporations, encourages speculation

“privatization of air”

false solutions

carbon capture, biofuels, geoengineering

-risky, expensive

global inequality

environmental harm shifted to global south

-ex: toxic waste dumping logic

Hamilton’s climate change argument

main idea: climate change is the ultimate global issue

-emissions anywhere affect people everywhere

-challenges westphalian system

key institutions

IPCC: global scientific authority, produces reports guiding policy

UNFCCC: goal is to prevent dangerous climate chaneg

problems with international cooperation

• Countries prioritize national interest over global good 

• Weak enforcement mechanisms

• Deep divisions:

  • Rich vs poor countries

  • Economic vs environmental priorities 

• Climate change exposes limits of state-based system 

types of non-state actors

1. business actors: fossil fuel + energy industries, often resist regulation

2. environmental NGOs: push global cooperation and justice, amplify voices of vulnerable populations

contraction and convergence

equal emissions per person globally

-requires drastic reductions in rich countries

kyoto → paris shift

kyoto protocol: binding targets for developed countries, failed due to lack of participation

shift to pledge and review (paris agreement): countries set voluntary goals, more flexible

China’s role in climate change

now the largest emitter, both contributor to problem and key to solution

climate politics now mulitpolar, not western dominated

climate change and capitalism

climate crisis is tied to endless economic growth and fossil fuel dependence

-growth is prioritized over environment

cosmopolitanism

“we’re all in this together”

-global responsibility and solidarity

securitization

climate seen as: security threat, cause of conflict, migration, war

-reinforces nationalism instead of cooperation

earth system perspective

earth = interconnected system

-humans are now a geological force → anthropocene

thermal inequality

unequal distribution of heat-related risk across populations

Parsons core argument

climate change does not affect everyone equally

-Vulnerable workers experience disproportionate exposure to extreme heat due to economic and social conditions

precarity

unstable, insecure working and living conditions

cambodian brick sector

• Workers often live and work at brick kilns

• Many are tied to employers through debt

• Work involves intense physical labor in extreme heat

role of debt bondage

• Workers are financially trapped and cannot easily leave

• Limits mobility and increases vulnerability to heat exposure

heat as a form of inequality

• Wealthier individuals can avoid heat (air conditioning, relocation)

• Poor workers must endure dangerous conditions

embodied experience of heat

• Heat is not just environmental but physically experienced in the body

• Workers face exhaustion, dehydration, and long-term health effects

public health

•  the science and practice of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through organized efforts

key goals of public health

• Prevent disease and injury

• Promote healthy behaviors

• Protect communities from health threats

prevention levels of health

• Primary prevention: stop disease before it starts (e.g., vaccines)

• Secondary prevention: detect disease early (e.g., screenings)

• Tertiary prevention: manage disease to reduce harm

social determinants of health

income, education, access to healthcare

public health vs medicine`

• Medicine: treats individuals after they get sick

• Public health: prevents illness at the population level

communication in public health

• Clear messaging is essential

• Must be accessible and understandable to diverse populations

• Builds trust and encourages behavior change

Argument of Yates-Doerr

• Public health often treats social determinants as stable, measurable factors

• In reality, these determinants are fluid, context-dependent, and shaped by meaning as well as material conditions

material-semiotic indeterminacy

• “Material” = physical conditions (food, environment, income)

• “Semiotic” = meanings, interpretations, cultural understandings

• “Indeterminacy” = these factors are not fixed or predictable

critique of standard public health approaches

• Oversimplify complex lived experiences

• Assume universal solutions can be applied across contexts

• Treat categories (like “nutrition” or “health”) as stable and objective

pandemic

• a global outbreak of infectious disease affecting large populations across multiple regions

characteristics of pandemics

• Wide geographic spread

• High number of cases

• Significant social and economic disruption

stages of a pandemic

• Emergence: new pathogen appears

• Spread: transmission increases across populations

• Peak: highest level of infection

• Decline: cases decrease due to immunity or intervention

pandemic transmission factors

• Mode of transmission (airborne, contact, vector-borne)

• Population density

• Global travel and mobility

public health responses to pandemics

• Surveillance and monitoring

• Quarantine and isolation

• Vaccination campaigns

• Public communication

role of globalization in pandemics

• Increases speed of disease spread

• Connects distant populations

• Makes containment more difficult

social and economic impacts on pandemics

• Strain on healthcare systems

• Economic disruption

• Inequality in impact across populations

challenges in pandemic response

• Misinformation

• Political and economic trade-offs

• Public compliance with health measures

“irrational” behavior in global health

• Actions that do not align with biomedical guidelines (e.g., improper antibiotic use)

• Behavior assumed to result from lack of knowledge or misunderstanding

• ex: Antibiotic misuse is labeled “irrational” when it deviates from prescribed medical norms

critique from Willis et al: the politics of irrationality

• This creates a false binary (rational vs. irrational) that oversimplifies behavior

• The label is not neutral—it is political

  • It reflects power (who defines “rationality”)

  • It privileges biomedical expertise over local practices

Willis et al: politics of irrationality

• Ignoring structural constraints misrepresents decision-making

• Rationality must be understood as context-dependent, not universal

• “Irrationality” is not just descriptive—it is a tool of governance and power

development initiatives: livestock example

• Development programs often promote Livestock farming / poultry production as solutions to poverty and food insecurity

• BUT: These systems often depend on antibiotics to function

  • Increased antibiotic use → contributes to antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

alternate approach to irrationality

• Understand behavior as: Embedded in networks, markets, and social relations

• Shift focus to: Structural conditions (poverty, policy, infrastructure)

  • Not just individual choices

Kampala chicken farm

• Immediate problem: respiratory illness threatening economic survival

  • Antibiotic use as rapid, practical response

malnutrition

• Is widespread and uneven, approx 735 people globally faced hunger

  • Africa has highest prevalence of undernourishment

• Not just a lack of food, structural inequality

• Linked to poverty, access, infrastructure, and markets

• Food can become available but not accessible/affordable

chickens as a development “solution”

• Promote protein consumption

• Support income generation and livelihoods

• Framed as scalable, low-cost intervention

behavioral change interventions

Policy strategies that aim to modify individual actions (eg through education, training, or awareness campaigns)

politics of labeling

• “Irrationality” obscures inequality and structural conditions 

• → reinforces colonial hierarchies and legitimizes intervention