1932

Abstract

Climate change is one of the greatest ecological and social challenges of the twenty-first century. Sociologists have made important contributions to our knowledge of the human drivers of contemporary climate change, including better understanding of the effects of social structure and political economy on national greenhouse gas emissions, the interplay of power and politics in the corporate sector and in policy systems, and the factors that influence individual actions by citizens and consumers. Sociology is also poised to make important contributions to the study of climate justice across multiple lines of stratification, including race, class, gender, indigenous identity, sexuality and queerness, and disability, and to articulate the effects of climate change on our relationship to nonhuman species. To realize its potential to contribute to the societal discourse on climate change, sociology must become theoretically integrated, engage with other disciplines, and remain concerned with issues related to environmental and climate inequalities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614
2020-07-30
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/46/1/annurev-soc-121919-054614.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adepoju A 2019. Migrants and refugees in Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Politics W Thompson 1–26 London: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adua L, Clark B 2019. Even for the environment, context matters! States, households, and residential energy consumption. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:6064008
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreoni M, Londono E 2019. Despite world's outrage, farmers in Amazon remain defiant. New York Times Aug. 27:A4
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Attari SZ, DeKay ML, Davidson CI, De Bruin WB 2010. Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. PNAS 107:3716054–59
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballew MT, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal SA, Kotcher JE et al. 2019. Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61:34–18
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benegal SD 2018. The spillover of race and racial attitudes into public opinion about climate change. Environ. Politics 27:4733–56
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bidwell D 2016. Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nat. Energy 1:16051
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Black R, Arnell N, Dercon S 2011. Migration and global environmental change—review of drivers of migration. Glob. Environ. Change 21:Suppl. 1)
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boudet HS 2019. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4:6446–55
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowden G 2017. An environmental sociology for the Anthropocene. Can. Rev. Sociol./Rev. Can. Sociol. 54:148–68
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brinkman C 2015. SDG 13 and its relevance to disability Presentation for course in Critical Priorities in Disability and Development (CPDD), Programme in Disability, Climate Change, and Sustainability, Univ Cape Town, S. Afr: https://tinyurl.com/whvtjb3
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Briscoe MD, Givens JE, Hazboun S, Krannich RS 2019. At home, in public, and in between: gender differences in public, private and transportation pro-environmental behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environ. Sociol. 5:4374–92
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruch E, Feinberg F 2017. Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:207–27
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brulle RJ 2014. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim. Change 122:4681–94
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brulle RJ 2018. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Clim. Change 149:3289–303
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114:2169–88
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brulle RJ, Norgaard KM 2019. Avoiding cultural trauma: climate change and social inertia. Environ. Politics 28:51–23
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bullard RD, Wright B 2009. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast Boulder, CO: Westview
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burch WR, Machlis GE, Force JE 2017. The Structure and Dynamics of Human Ecosystems: Toward a Model for Understanding and Action New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Burke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E 2015. Climate and conflict. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7:577–617
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Butler C 2017. A fruitless endeavor: confronting the heteronormativity of environmentalism. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment S MacGregor 270–84 Abingdon, UK/New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Canan P, Anderson SO, Reichman N, Gareau B 2015. Introduction to the Special Issue on Ozone Layer Protection and Climate Change: the extraordinary experience of building the Montreal Protocol, lessons learned, and hopes for future climate change efforts. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5:2111–21
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carter B, Charles N 2018. The animal challenge to sociology. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 21:179–97
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chase-Dunn CK. 1998. Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen C, Xu X, Day JK 2017. Thermal comfort or money saving? Exploring intentions to conserve energy among low-income households in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26:61–71
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cherry ER 2019. For the Birds: Protecting Wildlife Through the Naturalist Gaze New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ciplet D, Roberts JT, Khan MR 2015. Power in a Warming World: The New Global Politics of Climate Change and the Remaking of Environmental Inequality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cordalis D, Suagee DB 2008. The effects of climate change on American Indian and Alaska native tribes. Nat. Resour. Environ. 22:345–49
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Davidson DJ 2019. Emotion, reflexivity and social change in the era of extreme fossil fuels. Br. J. Sociol. 70:2442–62
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Davidson DJ, Gismondi M 2011. Challenging Legitimacy at the Precipice of Energy Calamity Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dietz T 2015. Environmental values. Oxford Handbook of Values T Brosch, D Sander 329–49 London: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dietz T 2017. Drivers of human stress on the environment in the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:189–213
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dietz T, Frank KA, Whitley CT, Kelly J, Kelly R 2015. Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US states. PNAS 112:278254–59
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:56521907–12Presents an overview of research on commons governance, including climate and global change.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dietz T, Rosa EA, York R 2009. Environmentally efficient well-being: rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16:1113–22
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dietz T, Whitley CT 2018a. Inequality, decisions, and altruism. Sociol. Dev. 4:3282–303
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dietz T, Whitley CT 2018b. Environmentalism, norms, and identity. PNAS 115:4912334–36
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Downey L 2015. Inequality, Democracy, and the Environment New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Druckman JN, McGrath MC 2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9:2111–19
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dwyer J, Bidwell D 2019. Chains of trust: energy justice, public engagement, and the first offshore windfarm in the United States. Energy Res Soc. Sci. 47:166–176
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Egan PJ, Mullin M 2017. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 20:209–27Presents a thorough review of public opinion on climate change.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Environmental Action 1970. Earth Day—The Beginning New York: Bantam
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Farrell J 2016. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. PNAS 113:192–97
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Feldman L, Hart PS 2018. Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal 38:3585–602
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Firestone J, Hirt C, Bidwell D, Gardner M, Dwyer J 2020. Faring well in offshore wind power siting? Trust, engagement and process fairness in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62:101393
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Fisher DR 2004. National Governance and the Global Climate Change Regime Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fisher DR, Jorgenson AK 2019. Ending the stalemate: toward a theory of anthro-shift. Sociol. Theory 37:4342–62
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fisher DR, Leifeld P 2019. The polycentricity of climate policy blockage. Clim. Change 155:4469–87
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fisher DR, Robertson A 2015. Civil society engagement in climate governance: between collaboration and conflict. Research Handbook on Climate Governance K Bäckstrand, A Lövbrand 297–308 Northampton, MA: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Fitzgerald AJ 2018. Animal Advocacy and Environmentalism: Understanding and Bridging the Divide Medford, MA: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fitzgerald JB, Schor JB, Jorgenson AK 2018. Working hours and carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, 2007–2013. Soc. Forces 96:41851–74
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Frank KA 2011. Social network models for natural resource use and extraction. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance Ö Bodin, C Prell 180–205 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Freudenburg WR, Rosa EA 1984. Public Reaction to Nuclear Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview/Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Friis C, Nielsen 2019. Telecoupling: Exploring Land-Use Change in a Globalised World Cham, Switz.: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Galli Robertson AM, Collins MB 2019. Super emitters in the United States coal-fired electric utility industry: comparing disproportionate emissions across facilities and parent companies. Environ. Sociol. 5:170–81
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gaskin CJ, Taylor D, Kinnear S, Mann J, Hillman W, Moran M 2017. Factors associated with the climate change vulnerability and the adaptive capacity of people with disability: a systematic review. Weather Clim. Soc. 9:4801–14
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gautam MR, Chief K, Smith WJ Jr 2013. Climate change in arid lands and Native American socioeconomic vulnerability: the case of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States JK Maldonodo, B Colombi, R Pandya 77–91 Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Geels FW 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 33:6/7897–920
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gilligan JM, Vandenbergh MP 2020. Private climate governance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60:101400
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Glazebrook T, Opoku E 2018. Defending the defenders: environmental protectors, climate change and human rights. Ethics Environ 23:283–109
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goldberg MH, van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E 2019. Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environ. Behav 23: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/vg74q
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Görgens T, Ziervogel G 2019. From “no one left behind” to putting the last first: centering the voices of disabled people in resilience work. The Palgrave Handbook of Disability and Citizenship in the Global South B Watermeyer, J Mackenzie, L Swartz 85–102 Cham, Switz.: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Grant D, Jorgenson AK, Longhofer W 2020. Super Polluters: Tackling the World's Largest Sites of Climate-Disrupting Emissions New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Greenberg J, Knight G, Westersund E 2011. Spinning climate change: corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. Int. Commun. Gaz. 73:1/265–82
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Greenebaum J, Dexter B 2018. Vegan men and hybrid masculinity. J. Gend. Stud. 27:6637–48
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Gromet DM, Kunreuther H, Larrick RP 2013. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. PNAS 110:239314–19
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Gunderson R 2014. Habermas in environmental thought: anthropocentric Kantian or forefather of ecological democracy?. Sociol. Inq. 84:4626–53
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gunderson R 2018. Global environmental governance should be participatory: five problems of scale. Int. Sociol. 33:6715–37
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Haluza-Delay R 2012. Giving consent in the petrostate: hegemony and Alberta oil sands. J. Act. Sci. Technol. Educ. 4:11–6
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hamilton LC 2016. Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate. SAGE Open 6:41–11
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Harlan SL, Pellow DN, Roberts JT, Bell SE, Holt WG, Nagel J 2015. Climate justice and inequality. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives R Dunlap, RJ Brulle 127–63 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Harrison J 2015. Sustainable Development Goal 8 Presentation for course in Critical Priorities in Disability and Development (CPDD), Programme in Disability, Climate Change, and Sustainability, Univ Cape Town, S. Afr: https://tinyurl.com/whvtjb3
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Henry AD, Vollan B 2014. Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:583–610
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hess DJ 2019. Cooler coalitions for a warmer planet: a review of political strategies for accelerating energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57:101246
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Fielding KS 2018. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate skepticism across nations. Nat. Clim. Change 8:7614–20
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hunter LM, Luna JK, Norton RM 2015. Environmental dimensions of migration. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41:377–97
    [Google Scholar]
  77. IPBES (Intergov. Sci. Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2019. Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Ger.: IPBES Secr.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C Geneva: IPCC
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Irvine L 2009. Filling the Ark Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Jantarasami L, Novak R, Delgado R, Marino E, McNeeley S et al. 2018. Tribes and indigenous peoples. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: 4th National Climate Assessment 2 DR Reidmiller, CW Avery, DR Easterling, KE Kunkel, KLM Lewis, et al. 572–603 Washington, DC: US Glob. Change Res. Program
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Jay A, Reidmiller DR, Avery CW, Barrie D, DeAngelo B et al. 2018. Overview. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: 4th National Climate Assessment 2 DR Reidmiller, CW Avery, DR Easterling, KE Kunkel, KLM Lewis, et al. 33–71 Washington, DC: US Glob. Change Res. Program
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Jenkins K, McCauley D, Heffron R, Stephan H, Rehner R 2016. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11:174–182
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Jordan A, Huitema D 2014. Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environ. Politics 23:5715–34
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Jorgenson AK 2014. Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 4:186–89
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Jorgenson AK, Clark B 2012. Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1960–2005. Am. J. Sociol. 118:11–44
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Jorgenson AK, Fiske S, Hubacek K, Li J, McGovern T et al. 2019. Social science perspectives on drivers of and responses to global climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10:1e554Presents a comprehensive, interdisciplinary review of the social science of climate change.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Kalof L 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Kennedy EH, Cohen MJ, Krogman N 2015. Putting Sustainability into Practice: Applications and Advances in Research on Sustainable Consumption Northampton, MA: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Klinenberg EM, Araos M, Koslov L 2020. Sociology and the climate emergency. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 46:557–77
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Koch A, Brierley C, Maslin MM, Lewis SL 2019. Earth system impacts of the European arrival and great dying in the Americas after 1492. Quat. Sci. Rev. 207:13–36
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Le Roux M 2015. Agenda for sustainable development: Can it benefit the disabled community? Presentation for course in Critical Priorities in Disability and Development (CPDD), Programme in Disability, Climate Change, and Sustainability, Univ Cape Town, S. Afr: https://tinyurl.com/whvtjb3
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Le Roy Ladurie E 1971. Times of Feast, Times of Famine New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
    [Google Scholar]
  93. LeQuesne T 2019. Petro-hegemony and the matrix of resistance: What can Standing Rock's Water Protectors teach us about organizing for climate justice in the United States?. Environ. Sociol. 5:2188–206
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Levy DL, Kolk A 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change: conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Bus. Politics 4:3275–300
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Levy DL, Rothenberg S 2002. Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy: technological and political responses to climate change in the global automobile industry. Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives A Hoffman, M Ventresca pp. 173–93 Redwood City, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lidskog R, Waterton C 2016. Anthropocene—a cautious welcome from environmental sociology?. Environ. Sociol. 2:4395–406
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Liu J, Dou Y, Batistella M, Challies E, Connor T et al. 2018. Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 33:58–69
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Maldonado JK, Shearer C, Bronen R, Peterson K, Lazrus H 2013. The impact of climate change on tribal communities in the US: displacement, relocation, and human rights. Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States JK Maldonado, B Colombi, R Randya 93–106 Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Marquart-Pyatt ST, McCright AM, Dietz T, Dunlap RE 2014. Politics eclipses climate extremes for climate change perceptions. Glob. Environ. Change 29:246–57
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mazur A 2016. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012?. Public Underst. Sci. 25:2207–22
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Mazur A, Rosa E 1974. Energy and life-style. Science 186:4164607–10
    [Google Scholar]
  102. McAdam D 2017. Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 20:189–208
    [Google Scholar]
  103. McAdam D, Boudet HS 2012. Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. McCright AM, Dunlap RE 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Soc. Probl. 47:4499–522
    [Google Scholar]
  105. McCright AM, Dunlap RE 2003. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement's impact on US climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50:3348–73
    [Google Scholar]
  106. McCright AM, Dunlap RE 2010. Anti-reflexivity. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:2/3100–33
    [Google Scholar]
  107. McCright AM, Marquart-Pyatt ST, Shwom RL, Brechin SR, Allen S 2016. Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21:180–89
    [Google Scholar]
  108. McCright AM, Xiao C 2014. Gender and environmental concern: insights from recent work and for future research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27:101109–13
    [Google Scholar]
  109. McLaughlin P 2011. Climate change, adaptation, and vulnerability: reconceptualizing societal-environment interaction within a socially constructed adaptive landscape. Organ. Environ. 24:3269–91
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Menchik DA 2017. Tethered venues: discerning distant influences on a field site. Sociol. Methods Res. 48:4850–76
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Mendez M 2020. Climate Change from the Streets: How Conflict and Collaboration Strengthen the Environmental Justice Movement New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Mol AP, Spaargaren G, Sonnenfeld DA 2013. Ecological modernization theory: taking stock, moving forward. Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change S Lockie, DA Sonnenfeld, DR Fisher 31–46 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Morris ZA, Hayward RA, Otero Y 2018. The political determinants of disaster risk: assessing the unfolding aftermath of Hurricane Maria for people with disabilities in Puerto Rico. Environ. Justice 11:289–94
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Mortimer-Sandilands C, Erickson B 2010. Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Moss RH, Schneider SH 2000. Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Guidance Papers on the Cross-Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC R Pachauri, T Taniguchi, K Tanaka 33–51 Geneva: World Meteorol. Organ.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Nicolosi E, Corbett JB 2018. Engagement with climate change and the environment: a review of the role of relationships to place. Local Environ 23:177–99
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Nisbet MC 2018. Strategic philanthropy in the post‐cap‐and‐trade years: reviewing US climate and energy foundation funding. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9:41–17
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Norgaard KM 2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Norgaard KM 2012. Climate denial and the construction of innocence: reproducing transnational environmental privilege in the face of climate change. Race Gend. Class 19:1/280–103
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Norgaard KM 2019. Salmon and Acorns Feed Our People: Colonialism, Nature, and Social Action New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Norton-Smith K, Lynn K, Chief K, Cozzetto K, Donatuto J et al. 2016. Climate change and indigenous peoples: a synthesis of current impacts and experiences Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-944, US Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Pac. Northwest Res. Stn. Portland, OR:
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Ojala M 2016. Young people and global climate change: emotions, coping, and engagement in everyday life. Geographies of Global Issues: Change and Threat AN Klocker, T Skelton 1–19 Singapore: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Ostrom E 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20:4550–57Represents a major statement by a key theorist.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Parker G 2013. Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Payne CR, Shwom R, Heaton S 2015. Public participation and norm formation for risky technology: adaptive governance of solar-radiation management. Clim. Law 5:2–4210–51
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Peggs K 2012. Animals and Sociology New York: Palgrave
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Pellow DN 2016. Toward a critical environmental justice studies: Black Lives Matter as an environmental justice challenge. Du Bois Rev 13:2221–36
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Pellow DN, Brehm H 2013. An environmental sociology for the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:229–50Comprehensively reviews environmental sociology with a focus on justice.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Steg L, Böhm G, Fisher S 2019. Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 55:25–35
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Pulver S 2007. Making sense of corporate environmentalism: an environmental contestation approach to analyzing the causes and consequences of the climate change policy split in the oil industry. Organ. Environ. 20:144–83
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Pulver S 2011. Corporate responses. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society JS Dryzek, RB Norgaard, D Schlosberg 581–93 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Ray SJ, Sibara J 2017. Disability Studies and the Environmental Humanities: Toward an Eco-Crip Theory Omaha: Univ. Neb. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Rosa EA, Dietz T 1998. Climate change and society: speculation, construction and scientific investigation. Int. Sociol. 13:4421–55
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Rosa EA, Machlis GE, Keating KM 1988. Energy and society. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:149–72
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Roth M 2018. A resilient community is one that includes and protects everyone. Bull. At. Sci. 74:291–94
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Rudel TK, Roberts JT, Carmin J 2011. Political economy of the environment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37:221–38
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Sbicca J 2012. Eco-queer movement(s). Eur. J. Ecopsychol. 3:33–52
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Schifeling T, Hoffman AJ 2017. Bill McKibben's influence on US climate change discourse: shifting field-level debates through radical flank effects. Organ. Environ. 32:3213–33
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Schlosberg D, Collins LB 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5:3359–74
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Schor JB 2007. In defense of consumer critique: revisiting the consumption debates of the twentieth century. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 611:116–30
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Schor JB 2008. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure New York: Basic
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Schofer E, Hironaka A 2005. The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Soc. Forces 84:125–47
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Schroeter R, Scheel O, Renn O, Schweizer PJ 2016. Testing the value of public participation in Germany: theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13:116–25
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Schweizer PJ, Renn O, Kock W, Bovet J, Benighaus C et al. 2016. Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”. Util. Policy 43:B206–9
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Sellers S, Ebi KL, Hess J 2019. Climate change, human health, and social stability: addressing interlinkages. Environ. Health Perspect. 127:41–10
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Seymour N 2013. Strange Natures: Futurity, Empathy, and the Queer Ecological Imagination Urbana/Champaign: Univ. Ill. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Shove E. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life New York: Berg
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Shwom RL 2011. A middle range theorization of energy politics: the struggle for energy efficient appliances. Environ. Politics 20:5705–26
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Shwom RL, McCright AM, Brechin SR, Dunlap RE, Marquart-Pyatt ST, Hamilton LC 2015. Public opinion on climate change. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives R Dunlap, RJ Brulle 269–99 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Sikina J, Nicholson S 2019. Introduction to the Symposium on Geoengineering: Governing Solar Radiation Management. Environ. Politics 28:3385–96
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Sine WD, Lee BH 2009. Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US wind energy sector. Adm. Sci. Q. 54:1123–55
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Smith EK, Mayer A 2018. A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 49:140–53
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Spires AJ 2011. Organizational homophily in international grantmaking: US-based foundations and their grantees in China. J. Civil Soc. 7:3305–31
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Folke C et al. 2018. Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. PNAS 115:338252–59
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Steg L 2016. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:277–92Presents a thorough review of microlevel theory and empirical results.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Stern PC, Dietz T 2020. A broader social science research agenda on sustainability: Nongovernmental influences on climate footprints. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60:10141
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6:281–97
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Stern PC, Wolske KS 2017. Limiting climate change: What's most worth doing?. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:91–2Identifies the most important actions for limiting climate change.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Thomas K, Hardy RD, Lazrus H, Mendez M, Orlove B et al. 2019. Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: a social science review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10:21–18
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Thombs R 2018. The transnational tilt of the treadmill and the role of trade openness on carbon emissions: a comparative international study, 1965–2010. Sociol. Forum 33:2422–42
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Tierney K 2019. Disasters: A Sociological Approach New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Raimi KT, Vandenbergh MP 2014. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Change 29:127–38
    [Google Scholar]
  163. US Glob. Change Res. Program 2017. Climate Science Special Report: 4th National Climate Assessment 1 Washington, DC: US Glob. Change Res. Program
    [Google Scholar]
  164. US Natl. Res. Counc 1992. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
  165. US Natl. Res. Counc 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. US Natl. Res. Counc 2016. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Vachon TE, Brecher J 2016. Are union members more or less likely to be environmentalists? Some evidence from two national surveys. Labor Stud. J. 41:2185–203
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Van der Linden S 2015. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41:112–24
    [Google Scholar]
  169. van der Werff E, Steg L 2016. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22:107–14
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Van Praag L, Timmerman C 2019. Environmental migration and displacement: a new theoretical framework for the study of migration aspirations in response to environmental changes. Environ. Sociol. 5:41–10
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Vandenbergh MP, Gilligan JM 2017. Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressPresents a comprehensive review of action by individuals, corporations, and other organizations outside of government.
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Vickery J, Hunter LM 2016. Native Americans: where in environmental justice research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29:136–52
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Weiss EB 1989. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity Ardsley, NY: Transnational
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Weart SR 2008. The Discovery of Global Warming Boston, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Revis. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. White S, Pfister C, Mauelshagen F 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Climate History New York: Palgrave
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Whitley CT, Gunderson R, Charters M 2018a. Public receptiveness to policies promoting plant-based diets: framing effects and social psychological and structural influences. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 20:145–63
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Whitley CT, Kalof L 2014. Animal imagery in the discourse of climate change. Int. J. Sociol. 44:110–33
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Whitley CT, Rivers L III, Mattes S, Marquart-Pyatt ST, Ligmann-Zielinska A et al. 2018b. Climate-induced migration: using mental models to explore aggregate and individual decision-making. J. Risk Res. 21:81019–35
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Whitworth L 2019. Goodbye Gauley Mountain, hello eco-camp: queer environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Fem. Theory 20:173–92
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Winders W, Ransom EP 2019. Global Meat: The Social and Environmental Consequences of the Expanding Meat Industry Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Wolske K, Stern PC 2018. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change: opportunities through consumer behavior. Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts, and Responses S Clayton, C Manning 127–60 San Diego: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  182. Woods M 2003. Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in Mid Wales. Sociol. Rural. 43:3271–88
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Wright C, Nyberg D 2017. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manag. J. 60:51633–61
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Ylä-Anttila T, Gronow A, Stoddart MC, Broadbent J, Schneider V, Tindall DB 2018. Climate change policy networks: why and how to compare them across countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45:258–65
    [Google Scholar]
  185. York JG, Hargrave TJ, Pacheco DF 2016. Converging winds: logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Acad. Manag. J. 59:2579–610
    [Google Scholar]
  186. York R 2012. Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?. Nat. Clim. Change 2:6441–43
    [Google Scholar]
  187. York R 2017. Environmental consequences of moral disinhibition. Socius 3: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117719612
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  188. York R, Bell SE 2019. Energy transitions or additions? Why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 51:40–43
    [Google Scholar]
  189. York R, Longo SB. 2017. Animals in the world: a materialist approach to sociological animal studies. J. Sociol. 53:132–46
    [Google Scholar]
  190. York R, McGee JA. 2017. Does renewable energy development decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions?. Socius 3: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116689098
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  191. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T 2003. Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:2279–300
    [Google Scholar]
  192. Zanocco C, Boudet HS, Nilson R, Satein H, Whitley H, Flora J 2018. Place, proximity, and perceived harm: extreme weather events and views about climate change. Clim. Change 149:3/4349–65
    [Google Scholar]
  193. Zinn JO. 2016. Living in the Anthropocene: towards a risk-taking society. Environ. Sociol. 2:4385–94
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error