Search

Despite widespread acceptance that their emissions accelerate climate change and its disastrous ecological effects, new fossil fuel extraction projects continue apace, further entrenching fossil fuel dependence, and thereby enacting particular climate futures. In this article, we examine how this is occurring in the case of a proposed onshore shale gas "fracking" industry in the remote Northern Territory of Australia, drawing on policy and legal documents and interviews with an enunciatory community of scientists, lawyers, activists, and policy makers to illustrate what we call "divisible governance." Divisible governance—enacted through technical maneuvers of temporal and jurisdictional risk fragmentation—not only facilitates the piecemeal entrenchment of unsustainable extraction but also sustains ignorance on the part of this enunciatory community and the wider public about the impacts of such extraction and the manner in which it is both facilitated and regulated. Such governance regimes, we suggest, create felicitous conditions for governments to defer, forestall, or eliminate their accountability while regulating their way further and further into catastrophic climate change. Countering divisible governance begins, we suggest, by mapping the connections that it fragments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Academic disciplines and traditions; engagement; intervention; epistemology; methodologies; methods; politics; power; governance EN Academic disciplines and traditions engagement intervention epistemology methodologies methods politics power governance 969 972 4 10/06/23 20230901 NES 230901 This issue of I Science, Technology, & Human Values i , published a year after the death of Bruno Latour, offers a collection of four articles reflecting on the unfolding legacy of a foundational thinker in our field. Academic disciplines and traditions, engagement, intervention, epistemology, methodologies, methods, politics, power, governance. [Extracted from the article]

Submission guidelines tell authors that the journal is "committed to science and technology studies scholarship" but also welcomes work "that extends the purview of STS into new areas."[1] Functioning well, the peer-review process forms a recursive loop where authors and reviewers iteratively revisit and renovate what science and technology studies (STS) was, is, and can be. As part of the infrastructuring of STS, I ST&HV i needs to work with both centrifugal and centripetal forces, publishing both field-defining and field-extending work. We have been in the role of editors of I Science, Technology, & Human Values i ( I ST&HV i ) for a little over six months now. [Extracted from the article]