|
|
| Soubory | Komentář | Kdo přidal | |
 |
Sylabus_NCC_26.pdf | Syllabus | Mgr. Eliška Pohnerová |
|
||
|
The course Navigating Climate Change is an elective course for students interested in contemporary climate change issues and, therefore, assumes an initial knowledge of the circumstances of climate change and a consensus that it is of anthropogenic origin. The course explores how climate change, as a global societal issue, is reflected in the everyday life of the individual and how it confronts them with decisions often beyond their reach. These range from funding fossil fuels just by depositing money in a ‘wrong’ bank, disseminating fake news just by reading the ‘wrong’ media, or, on the contrary, supporting wildlife funds just by unknowingly liking the ‘right’ chocolate. Such cases are debated in the broader context of international and global politics and using the theoretical tools of the discipline of international relations.
The course is unusual in its emphasis on engagement with the solutions and process of climate change, for which it prepares students through a semester-long project. It seeks to link science and activism, i.e. to extend theories to agency. It presents problems while giving space to students to find solutions they feel are the most fit. Poslední úprava: Pohnerová Eliška, Mgr. (10.09.2025)
|
|
||
|
- Students understand the political and societal tensions propelled by climate change. - Students grasp climate change-related concepts and facts. - Students are able to apply the discussed tensions and concepts in their everyday lives. - Students are able to analyse the complex climate change-related realities and recommend/choose ways of action. - Students comprehend and evaluate the different theoretical approaches to climate change-related matters and have the ability to recognise their benefits as well as drawbacks. Poslední úprava: Pohnerová Eliška, Mgr. (10.09.2025)
|
|
||
|
The grading of the course is composed of three components. Seminar participation (33 points): There are twelve seminars during the semester, with a maximum of two possible absences. Each (except the introduction) will be evaluated by up to 3 points (1 p. for being present and 2 p. for activity; the first class is an open class and thus is not evaluated). In the first part of the semester, every seminar leads to a homework assignment, which is not submitted individually but, in fact, becomes part of the Personal Climate Action Plan described at the end of this document or in a separate guideline in Moodle. Personal Climate Action Plan (40 points): The most important part of the evaluation is the Personal Climate Action Plan – an individual student project composed of partial tasks assigned during each seminar in the first 9 weeks. While assigned gradually, the execution of the tasks remains the student’s responsibility, whether in the given week or later in the semester. The individual tasks are not submitted until the 10th week of the semester, when they are submitted in one formatted document as a unified action plan, building on the assigned and other academic literature (30 points). The remaining 10 points are reserved for the action plan’s presentation at one of the seminars dedicated to that purpose at the end of the semester (weeks 10-12). Factual test (27 points): There is also a factual test consisting of 10 questions (each for 1, 2 or 3 points) that takes place either already during the 12th seminar or later within the exam period (depending on the number of students participating in the course in the given year). The test motivates students not to omit memorisation of facts, which is necessary for any type of academic argumentation. Poslední úprava: Pohnerová Eliška, Mgr. (10.09.2025)
|
|
||
|
Aklin, M., & Mildenberger, M. (2020). Prisoners of the wrong Dilemma: Why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 20(4), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00578 Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., & Wheaton, M. (2022). Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges. AMBIO, 52(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6 Biswas, S., Echevarria, A., Irshad, N., Rivera-Matos, Y., Richter, J., Chhetri, N., Parmentier, M. J., & Miller, C. A. (2022). Ending the Energy-Poverty Nexus: an ethical imperative for just transitions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00383-4 Bradshaw, E. A. (2015). Blockadia rising: Rowdy Greens, Direct Action and the Keystone XL pipeline. Critical Criminology, 23(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0 Chiengkul, P. (2018). The Degrowth Movement: Alternative economic practices and relevance to developing countries. Alternatives Global Local Political, 43(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375418811763 Cowls, J., Tsamados, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023). The AI gambit: leveraging artificial intelligence to combat climate change—opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. AI & Society, 38(1), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x De Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Da Luz Soares, G. R. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 Drengson, A., Devall, B., & Schroll, M. (2011). Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy). International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30(1–2). https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2011.30.1-2.101 Fish, C. S., & Kreitzberg, K. Q. (2023). Mapping in an echo Chamber: How cartographic silence frames conservative media’s climate change denial. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 113(10), 2480–2496. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2023.2227672 Fox, N. J. (2022). Green capitalism, climate change and the technological fix: A more-than-human assessment. The Sociological Review, 71(5), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221121232 Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The Respectable Politics of Climate Change: The Epistemic Communities and NGOs. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 77(2), 329-345. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3025544 Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2015). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002 Hourdequin, M. (2011). Climate change and individual responsibility: a reply to Johnson. Environmental Values, 20(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111x12997574391643 Kaplan, R., & Levy, D. (2021). Chapter 21. The Promise and Peril of Financialised Climate Governance. In Open Book Publishers (pp. 277–288). https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0265.21 Lonkila, A., & Kaljonen, M. (2021). Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research themes. Agriculture and Human Values, 38(3), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10184-9 Marquardt, J. (2017). Conceptualizing power in multi-level climate governance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.176 Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Schlosberg, D. (2020). Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2020.1703276 Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027697 Rana, W. (2015). Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Neoliberal Thoughts. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2). http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_2_February_2015/33.pdf Salonen, A. O., Laininen, E., Hämäläinen, J., & Sterling, S. (2023). A Theory of Planetary Social Pedagogy. Educational Theory, 73(4), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12588 Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638 Surprise, K. (2019). Stratospheric imperialism: Liberalism, (eco)modernization, and ideologies of solar geoengineering research. Environment and Planning E Nature and Space, 3(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619844771 Thaler, M. (2023). Eco-Miserabilism and Radical Hope: On the Utopian vision of Post-Apocalyptic environmentalism. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542300031x Winterich, K. P., Reczek, R. W., & Makov, T. (2023). How lack of knowledge on emissions and psychological biases deter consumers from taking effective action to mitigate climate change. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(5), 1475–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00981-z Wu, J., Snell, G., & Samji, H. (2020). Climate anxiety in young people: a call to action. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(10), e435–e436. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30223-0 Recommended / Supporting literature Clark, N. and Szerszynski, B. (2020) Planetary Social Thought: The Anthropocene Challenge to the Social Sciences. Polity. Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Mann, M. E. (2021). The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. New York, NY: PublicAffairs Sharpe, S. (2023). Five Times Faster: Rethinking the Science, Economics, and Diplomacy of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Poslední úprava: Pohnerová Eliška, Mgr. (10.09.2025)
|
|
||
|
The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is permitted in this course only in supporting phases (e.g., research, language correction). It is not permitted to use AI to create the main text, conclusions, or arguments. Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT and similar tools) may only be used as a supplementary means of searching for information, not for creating required outputs. It is always necessary to state when and how AI was used. Copying AI-generated results in their literal or slightly modified form and presenting them as your own work is considered plagiarism. All uses of AI tools must be explicitly stated according to the guidelines set by FSV UK, and they must adhere to the broader ethical recommendations provided by Charles University. Students may decide not to use artificial intelligence tools or not to have their work processed by artificial intelligence, and such decisions will be fully respected by lecturers. Poslední úprava: Pohnerová Eliška, Mgr. (29.09.2025)
|