Reading Exercise – Wilkens & Datchoua-Tirvaudey
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Georgia State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3400
Subject
Geography
Date
Jun 9, 2024
Type
Pages
2
Uploaded by BaronWorldGuanaco40
Critical Reading Exercise – Wilkens & Datchoua-Tirvaudey
As with all weekly reading exercises, always answer all the questions in your own words, write
at least 6-10 sentences per answer, provide page numbers to show where the information came
from (1-2 per answer), and if you absolutely must use a direct quote, you must put it in quotation
marks (and of course provide the page number). Quotes still need to be explained and don’t
count towards your overall number of sentences. See the rubric attached to the dropbox to see
how your answers are being scored.
When uploading your answers to the dropbox, make sure you only use MS Word (not pages),
PDF, or RTF documents (and always make sure the document you uploaded is the one you
wanted to submit.
For this week’s exercise, answer the following questions (add space where needed but keep the
questions in place and don’t change the font color):
1.
Explain, in your own words the three reasons for why a focus on the meaning of
“climate justice” is “particularly revealing” (126).
One way a focus on climate justice is revealing is due to the main contributors of the disastrous
environmental effects, as well as the ones in charge of reversing these effects (p.126). States that
contribute the least amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must follow the processes of
the larger contributors (p.126). Another way would be the practice of researching and
interpreting climate change data following an archaic neocolonial method (p.127). This method
recycles preexisting and established notions without truly finding valuable solutions (p.127).
Lastly, the largest greenhouse gas contributors need to intentionally collaborate with the
countries producing the least amount of emissions, rather than simply reiterating already known
concepts (p.128). Since climate change is a collective action issue, it requires equal participation
from the entire planet (p.127).
2.
How did the authors arrive at their understanding of the “meaning-in-use of climate
justice” (p. 128) and how does their process reflect their aim to engage in decolonial
research?
The authors arrived at their understanding of climate justice through the studying and analysis of
already published proposals and data (p.128). The authors found that neocolonial academic
practices had been heavily recycled throughout most of the research (p.128). They continued
with this statement by mentioning that this recycling of academic material with archaic notions
of climate justice only harmed the environment (p.129). The authors urged that new research be
focused on decolonizing research and analysis methods (p.129). They expanded this notion by
stating that policymakers should emphasize the importance of new research in order to attack all
the issues at hand (p.129). Only by shifting these neocolonial academic notions do the authors
see a chance at resolving the issue of climate change (p.129).
3.
Why is “taking account of
diverse ways of knowing
(..) a crucial move in developing a
decolonial approach” (p. 131)?
The authors emphasize the importance of practicing different methods to ascertain practical
solutions and remedies for climate change (p.131). In the past the authors have noticed a
one-way stream of handling and processing research, meaning that the same ideas get retold in
different ways (p.131). The authors make clear that not only does this delay resolving climate
change, but it also hinders the development of actual solutions (p.131). The authors urge
researchers to attack the issue at hand with multiple research and practicality styles (p.131). If
researchers use this method multiple use method of researching, they might actually come to
different conclusions and achieve results as well (p.131). The authors make note that it is only
until this method is adopted will climate change start to shift (p.132).
4.
Which one of the six preliminary steps outlined by the authors, do you consider
most meaningful/impactful in co-produc[ing] mutually beneficial research” (p. 139)?
I believe the most beneficial step would be the practice of diversely knowing as a method of
achieving research (p.131). By including native populations and marginalized states in the
research, researchers could gather perspectives otherwise missed (p.139). The authors
emphasized that there seemed to be one mainstream method of collecting research (p.129). This
method was heavily set in neocolonialism and perpetuated an archaic narrative (p.129). To shift
out of this method, gaining new perspectives and eyes can help create profound and meaningful
solutions. Regurgitating the same information consistently helps no one.
5.
Would you change/add anything about/to the remaining three steps? How do you
envision this kind of collaboration would unfold?
In my opinion, there is nothing that can be said that hasn’t already been said. In order to actively
shift and reverse climate change, citizens need to start holding their countries accountable.
Researching and panels are both helpful, but in the end they are simply words without actions.
The largest countries, particularly the United States, fund more climate change research than any
other country. However no practical changes have been made to actually reverse the effects. It is
only until citizens take a stand and emphasize the importance of actually healing the planet will
these research methods and solutions actually come to fruition.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help