{"word_count": 4321, "character_count": 35013}
[English version below]ArgumentaireLes soci&#233;t&#233;s contemporaines ont-elles r&#233;ellement la capacit&#233; &#224; faire face aux d&#233;fis du changement climatique, en particulier si l&#8217;on prend en compte leur fonctionnement politique&#160;? La lutte contre le r&#233;chauffement climatique renvoie &#224; diff&#233;rents types de rationalit&#233;s (scientifiques et techniques, mais aussi &#233;conomiques, juridiques, &#233;thiques, voire philosophiques) qui sont incompatibles avec des logiques &#233;lectorales de court terme. Ainsi, la politique nationale en mati&#232;re d&#8217;&#233;nergies renouvelables avance tr&#232;s rapidement en Chine, malgr&#233; un r&#233;gime qui reste autoritaire. Ceci interroge directement la capacit&#233; des r&#233;gimes politiques d&#233;mocratiques &#224; traiter des changements environnementaux plan&#233;taires (a contrario, l&#8217;Allemagne se montrerait plus performante que d&#8217;autres d&#233;mocraties).Jusqu&#8217;&#224; pr&#233;sent, tout s&#8217;est polaris&#233; sur la constitution d&#8217;un r&#233;gime international, reposant sur des accords contraignants, soit une technologie politique de n&#233;gociation multilat&#233;rale[1]. Mais ce type de technologie est-il encore adapt&#233;&#160;? Car la globalit&#233; du ph&#233;nom&#232;ne n&#8217;est pas sans poser probl&#232;me&#160;: elle se traduit aujourd&#8217;hui par une structure internationale fortement hybride, h&#233;t&#233;rog&#232;ne et fragment&#233;e[2]. &#192; cet &#233;gard, la diffusion de mod&#232;les d&#8217;action publique pour lutter contre le changement climatique pose la question de leur efficacit&#233; propre, mais aussi de leur compatibilit&#233; entre eux. De la convergence &#233;ventuelle des politiques publiques dans ce domaine peut na&#238;tre apr&#232;s-coup un accord contraignant. L&#8217;action publique peine cependant &#224; assumer la dimension multi-scalaire de la lutte contre le r&#233;chauffement climatique[3]. De fait, les politiques concern&#233;es impliquent de tr&#232;s nombreux acteurs et secteurs d&#8217;activit&#233;s, qui appellent &#224; articuler la prise en compte de cadres d&#8217;action globaux avec des cadres d&#8217;action nationaux, voire localis&#233;s, de formulation des probl&#232;mes et de leur r&#233;solution[4].Comment appr&#233;hender la d&#233;finition et la conduite de ces politiques et les transformations r&#233;elles et symboliques qu&#8217;elles suscitent&#160;? Telle est l&#8217;autre question de fond que se propose de traiter ce colloque. Dans la plupart des pays industrialis&#233;s, ainsi que dans certains pays en d&#233;veloppement, la prise en compte des enjeux li&#233;s au r&#233;chauffement climatique a conduit &#224; formuler de nouvelles priorit&#233;s politiques, encore plus transversales aux programmes sectoriels que ne l&#8217;&#233;tait jusque-l&#224; la r&#233;f&#233;rence classique &#224; l&#8217;environnement, allant des modes de consommation aux questions &#233;nerg&#233;tiques en passant par les probl&#232;mes sanitaires et sociaux. Dans ce contexte, la traduction politique des enjeux scientifiques et techniques qui lui sont li&#233;s s&#8217;av&#232;re de plus en plus incertaine[5]. Sur ce point, le raffinement des mod&#232;les climatiques conduit &#224; int&#233;grer un nombre croissant de donn&#233;es, ayant pour cons&#233;quence d&#8217;accro&#238;tre la complexit&#233; des politiques &#224; mettre en &#339;uvre et de la prise de d&#233;cision.Si le changement climatique ne s&#8217;aligne pas (ou plus) sur les orientations d&#8217;une opposition droite-gauche traditionnelle[6], quelles valeurs et &#171;&#160;visions du monde&#160;&#187; lui associer ? Cette question, ins&#233;parable des deux premi&#232;res, interroge directement la relation policy/politics &#224; l&#8217;&#339;uvre dans la lutte contre le r&#233;chauffement climatique. Apr&#232;s avoir rapidement gagn&#233; en extension, la probl&#233;matique du climat appara&#238;t ainsi confront&#233;e &#224; la n&#233;cessit&#233; de trouver une nouvelle consistance politique, qui appelle la constitution de nouveaux axes d&#8217;argumentation[7]. Loin de d&#233;crire un retour en arri&#232;re, cette tendance &#224; la &#171;&#160;repolitisation&#160;&#187; du probl&#232;me suppose, au contraire, la concr&#233;tisation d&#8217;objectifs rest&#233;s jusque-l&#224; en grande partie abstraits, ou ce que l&#8217;on pourrait &#233;galement convenir de nommer une &#171;&#160;mont&#233;e en singularit&#233;&#160;&#187;[8]. D&#233;crivant l&#8217;une des dimensions du travail de cr&#233;ation artistique, l&#8217;expression renvoie alors aussi &#224; un &#171;&#160;art de gouverner&#160;&#187;, qui implique l&#8217;&#233;laboration et la mise en &#339;uvre de &#171;&#160;nouvelles&#160;&#187; politiques publiques ou leur recyclage.Axes de r&#233;flexion&#192; partir de ces &#233;l&#233;ments de r&#233;flexion, trois axes de recherche, &#224; la fois transversaux et compl&#233;mentaires, sont envisag&#233;s pour ce colloque :Expertise et politiqueLe r&#233;gime climatique proc&#232;de d&#8217;une longue s&#233;rie d&#8217;interactions entre science et politique. &#192; ce titre, la coop&#233;ration internationale sur le changement climatique est d&#8217;abord une coop&#233;ration scientifique et technique, o&#249; l&#8217;expertise joue un r&#244;le central[9]. Aujourd&#8217;hui, mod&#232;les et sc&#233;narios conditionnent tr&#232;s fortement la perception du changement climatique, en termes de pr&#233;dictions num&#233;riques, mais aussi de savoirs quantitatifs[10]. Les programmes publics se fondent sur ces donn&#233;es, mais ils doivent &#233;galement les traduire dans une langue intelligible par tous, adapt&#233;e aux situations nationales, locales et notamment urbaines. Cette n&#233;cessit&#233; et la complexit&#233; croissante li&#233;e &#224; ces activit&#233;s placent savants et politiques face &#224; de nouveaux d&#233;fis[11].&#192; ce titre, la prise en compte des dimensions r&#233;gionales de la menace du changement climatique appelle &#224; &#233;laborer des projections de plus en plus fines. Les derniers mod&#232;les utilis&#233;s par le GIEC, en s&#8217;effor&#231;ant de prendre en compte les ruptures d&#8217;&#233;quilibre et d&#8217;explorer la possibilit&#233; de non-lin&#233;arit&#233;s fortes &#224; l&#8217;int&#233;rieur des &#233;chelles climatiques, vont dans ce sens[12]. Mais ces gains de pr&#233;cisions rencontrent &#233;galement des obstacles : car les mod&#232;les climatiques sont, d&#8217;une mani&#232;re g&#233;n&#233;rale, mieux adapt&#233;s aux &#233;chelles synoptiques d&#8217;ensemble. La prise en compte de l&#8217;&#233;chelle locale encourage, de ce fait, les approches pluridisciplinaires et la mobilisation d&#8217;autres sciences, notamment humaines et sociales (anthropologie, g&#233;ographie, psychologie, sociologie, science politique&#8230;).D&#8217;autres acteurs, priv&#233;s ou non-&#233;tatiques (cabinets de conseil, firmes multinationales, ONG, think tanks, etc.), moins souvent &#233;tudi&#233;s[13], jouent &#233;galement un r&#244;le croissant dans la production d&#8217;expertises et de contre-expertises li&#233;es au probl&#232;me du r&#233;chauffement climatique. Quelle(s) influence(s) ces savoirs, encastr&#233;s dans d&#8217;autres r&#233;alit&#233;s sociales et &#233;conomiques, exercent-ils en retour sur l&#8217;orientation des programmes politiques et de la prise de d&#233;cision publique ? Au-del&#224; de l&#8217;&#233;volution des techniques d&#8217;&#233;valuation de la menace du changement climatique, la cartographie des acteurs producteurs de connaissances pratiques dans ce domaine constitue un autre aspect de la r&#233;flexion auquel ce colloque entend contribuer.Jeux d&#8217;&#233;chelles et action publiqueLe traitement public de la menace du changement climatique conduit &#224; formuler l&#8217;hypoth&#232;se plus g&#233;n&#233;rale d&#8217;une extension des activit&#233;s sociales, &#233;conomiques et juridiques qui caract&#233;risent l&#8217;&#201;tat moderne, &#224; travers une grande diversit&#233; de discours, de normes, de pratiques et de technologies[14]. La port&#233;e politique de ces &#233;volutions appara&#238;t d&#8217;autant plus importante si l&#8217;on consid&#232;re que les techniques utilis&#233;es (r&#233;gulations juridiques, &#233;conomiques, mod&#232;les et sc&#233;narios, plans climat, labels incitatifs, kits de communication&#8230;) et les nombreux centres de pouvoir impliqu&#233;s (bureaucraties nationales et internationales, laboratoires de recherche, think tanks, bureaux d&#8217;&#233;tudes, associations de d&#233;fense de l&#8217;environnement&#8230;) visent &#224; orienter les relations entre la soci&#233;t&#233; politique (via l&#8217;ex&#233;cutif administratif) et la soci&#233;t&#233; civile (via ses sujets administr&#233;s), mais aussi les sujets eux-m&#234;mes[15].Dans cette perspective, le concept de jeu d&#8217;&#233;chelle, en pr&#234;tant attention &#224; la &#171;&#160;structure feuillet&#233;e du social&#160;&#187;[16],&#160;invite &#224; recentrer l&#8217;analyse sur les m&#233;canismes de traduction et d&#8217;hybridation qui sont au coeur de ces transformations : de l&#8217;&#233;chelle individuelle &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle collective, de l&#8217;&#233;chelle scientifique &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle politique, de l&#8217;&#233;chelle locale &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle globale, et r&#233;ciproquement. En quoi l&#8217;attention pr&#234;t&#233;e &#224; ces dynamiques permet-elle de mieux appr&#233;hender et saisir les enjeux sp&#233;cifiques li&#233;s au traitement public de la menace du changement climatique et &#233;clairent-ils la compr&#233;hension de certains ph&#233;nom&#232;nes de &#171; boucles &#233;tranges &#187; ou &#171; hi&#233;rarchies enchev&#234;tr&#233;es &#187;&#160;[17]&#160;que l&#8217;on peut y associer ? Consid&#233;rant le changement climatique comme un cas exemplaire pour aborder ces questions, ce colloque se propose &#233;galement de r&#233;fl&#233;chir aux outils et concepts dont disposent actuellement les sciences sociales, afin de mieux appr&#233;hender la complexit&#233; croissante des changements environnementaux plan&#233;taires.Comparaison internationale et convergence des politiques publiquesFace &#224; des menaces globales et aux incitations internationales en mati&#232;re de &#171;&#160;d&#233;veloppement durable&#160;&#187;, la plupart des pays industrialis&#233;s s&#8217;interrogent sur la capacit&#233; de leur organisation politique et administrative &#224; mettre en place des r&#233;ponses adapt&#233;es. Le caract&#232;re transnational de la menace du changement climatique invite ici &#224; remettre au premier plan de l&#8217;analyse l&#8217;hypoth&#232;se d&#8217;une convergence des politiques publiques.Dans cette perspective, la comparaison internationale constitue une m&#233;thode privil&#233;gi&#233;e. &#192; condition toutefois de r&#233;ellement confronter les cas &#233;tudi&#233;s, et non pas seulement de les juxtaposer, mais aussi de pr&#233;ciser &#224; quel(s) niveau(x) a lieu la convergence (objectif, contenu, instrument, mode d&#8217;adoption, ressortissant, effet ou acteur dominant) et &#224; travers quel(s) processus elle op&#232;re (harmonisation transnationale, convergence &#171;&#160;en douceur&#160;&#187;, mim&#233;tisme ou d&#233;pendance)[18]. Si certaines recherches mettent en avant le r&#244;le de l&#8217;Union europ&#233;enne et des pays industrialis&#233;s dans ces processus[19], peu de travaux insistent, en revanche, sur l&#8217;action (ou l&#8217;absence d&#8217;action) observable dans certains pays en d&#233;veloppement, mais aussi des pays &#233;mergents &#224; forte croissance, face &#224; la menace du changement climatique[20]. L&#224; encore, la comparaison peut constituer un pr&#233;cieux outil d&#8217;analyse, afin de mieux appr&#233;hender la fa&#231;on dont certains acteurs se saisissent de cette question, la discutent, se l&#8217;approprient ou la rejettent, dans des contextes sociopolitiques et des territoires r&#233;put&#233;s non seulement distincts, mais aussi distants les uns des autres.Sans n&#233;gliger l&#8217;apport d&#8217;&#233;tudes monographiques, que nous apprend le regard compar&#233; sur le traitement public de la menace du changement climatique&#160;? L&#8217;hypoth&#232;se d&#8217;une convergence des politiques publiques dans ce domaine suppose &#233;galement de s&#8217;interroger sur leur &#171;&#160;divergence&#160;&#187;, en prenant acte des formes d&#8217;extraversion et d&#8217;appropriation de certains mod&#232;les ou instruments pr&#244;n&#233;s par les pouvoirs publics. En mettant en sym&#233;trie pays industrialis&#233;s et pays en d&#233;veloppement, ce colloque se veut enfin l&#8217;occasion d&#8217;&#233;largir la r&#233;flexion sur l&#8217;action publique en direction de territoires et de continents encore relativement peu &#233;tudi&#233;s (Afrique, Asie, Inde, Chine).Le changement climatique constitue un enjeu environnemental plan&#233;taire, qui s&#8217;est traduit au cours de ces vingt derni&#232;res ann&#233;es par une multiplication des dispositifs de r&#233;gulation &#233;tatiques. Ces dispositifs ont aujourd&#8217;hui des effets importants sur la d&#233;finition et la conduite des politiques publiques. Tout comme la &#171;&#160;peur de l&#8217;enfer&#160;&#187; avait pu, en son temps, faire davantage pour les religions que la &#171;&#160;promesse du paradis&#160;&#187;, la menace du changement climatique contribue d&#233;sormais sans doute davantage &#224; l&#8217;engagement dans des politiques de &#171;&#160;durabilit&#233;&#160;&#187; que le seul souci v&#233;ritable de protection de l&#8217;environnement &#8211; ce qui n&#8217;est pas sans contribuer &#224; complexifier le d&#233;bat &#233;thique[21].Face &#224; ces &#233;volutions, que peut dire et faire la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales&#160;? Si les travaux sur le sujet ne manquent pas, ceux-ci apparaissent encore peu r&#233;flexifs quant &#224; leur propre r&#244;le[22]. Appelant &#224; un dialogue pluridisciplinaire (entre politistes, juristes, sociologues, &#233;conomistes et g&#233;ographes), les axes de recherche propos&#233;s dans le cadre de ce colloque invitent &#224; &#233;clairer, sous un regard &#224; la fois distanci&#233; et comparatif, certains des enjeux majeurs li&#233;s au traitement public de la menace du changement climatique &#224; travers le monde.Modalit&#233;s de participationLes propositions de communications (en fran&#231;ais ou en anglais) seront &#224; envoyer par courrier &#233;lectronique &#224; expertclim2012@gmail.com, au plus tard, le 15 d&#233;cembre 2011.Elles devront s&#8217;int&#233;grer dans au moins l&#8217;un des trois axes de r&#233;flexion envisag&#233;s et ne pas exc&#233;der 500 mots&#160;&#8211; merci &#233;galement de pr&#233;ciser vos coordonn&#233;es et institution de rattachement.    La s&#233;lection des propositions se fera d&#233;but janvier 2012.    Les textes, d&#8217;environ 6&#160;000 mots (r&#233;dig&#233;s en fran&#231;ais ou en anglais), seront &#224; transmettre, au plus tard, le 8 mars 2012.    Pour de plus amples informations sur les modalit&#233;s de votre participation &#224; cet &#233;v&#233;nement, n&#8217;h&#233;sitez pas &#224; contacter les organisateurs &#224; l&#8217;adresse de messagerie ci-dessus.Comit&#233; scientifiqueAmy Dahan (Centre Alexandre Koyr&#233;/EHESS), Patrick Hassenteufel (CEE/Universit&#233; Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines), Jean-Claude Hinnewinkel (ADES/Universit&#233; Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux III), Philippe Le Prestre (Institut EDS/Universit&#233; Laval), Pieter Leroy (Radboud University Nijmegen), Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (CERIC/Universit&#233; Paul C&#233;zanne Aix-Marseille III), Jean-Christophe Pereau (GREThA/Universit&#233; Montesquieu Bordeaux IV), Pascal Ragouet (Centre &#201;mile Durkheim/Universit&#233; Bordeaux Segalen), Antoine Roger (Centre &#201;mile Durkheim/Sciences Po Bordeaux).NB&#160;: Il est envisag&#233; la publication d&#8217;une s&#233;lection de contributions issues de ce colloque dans un ouvrage collectif ou une revue scientifique internationale.&#160;Argument - English versionDo contemporary societies have really the ability to address issues of climate change, especially if one takes into account their political systems? The struggle against global warming refers to different types of rationality (science and technology, but also economic, legal, ethical or philosophical) that are incompatible with the logic of short term electoral politics. On the contrary, despite its authoritarian regime, China&#8217;s national policy on renewable energy is making rapid progress. This directly questions the capacity of democratic political systems to deal with global environmental change (see the German counter-example).To date, efforts have focused on the establishment of an international regime, based on binding agreements, that is to say, a political technology of multilateral negotiation[23]. But is this technology still appropriate? Indeed, the global nature of the phenomenon brings its own problems: it is now resulting in a strong hybrid, heterogeneous and fragmented international structure[24]. Dissemination of public action models in the fight against global warming poses the question of their own effectiveness, but also their compatibility. Convergence of public policy in this area may eventually result in a binding agreement. Public action, however, still remains uncomfortable with the multi-scalar dimensions of the struggle against climate change[25]. The formulation of a comprehensive policy framework requires, indeed, the involvement of many actors and sectors of activities, not only at the global scale, but also at the national and local scales[26].How should one understand the formulation and implementation of these policies and the real and symbolic transformations they generate? This is another basic question that this conference wants to address. In most industrialized countries, and in some developing countries, taking into account issues related to global warming has led to the formulation of new policy priorities, whose cross-cutting programmes go far beyond the usual reference to the environment, ranging from consumption patterns to energy questions, through social problems and public health. In this context, the political translation of scientific and technical issues related to global warming is becoming more uncertain[27]. In fact, refinement of climate models has led to the integration of more and more data, resulting in an increasing complexity of policy implementation and decision-making.Then again, if climate change debates can no longer be understood along a spectrum of a traditional left-right opposition[28], which values and &#8216;world views&#8217; could make sense of it? This question, difficult to separate from the previous ones, is more specifically related to the relations between policy/politics at work in the fight against global warming. Despite the extension of climate change issues, its public treatment still needs to gain political consistency, which calls for the creation of new lines of argument[29]. Far from describing a step backwards, the tendency to &#8216;re-politicize&#8217; the problem requires, however, the realization of goals that remained largely abstract so far &#8211; or what we might also call a &#8220;rise in singularity&#8221;[30]. Describing the dimensions at work in artistic creation, this expression then returns as a &#8216;statecraft&#8217;, which involves the development and implementation of &#8216;new&#8217; policies or the recycling of existing ones.Areas of ResearchOn this basis, three research areas, both cross-cutting and complementary, are targeted for this conference:Expertise and PoliticsThe climate regime is the result of a long series of interactions between science and politics. As such, international cooperation on climate change is primarily a scientific and technical cooperation, where expertise is central[31]. Today, models and scenarios have strong influence on perceptions of climate change, in terms of both numerical predictions and quantitative knowledge[32]. Public programs are based on these datasets, but they must also be translated into a language intelligible to all, appropriate to national circumstances, including local and urban scales. Today, this need and the increasing complexity associated with these activities confront politicians and scientists with new challenges[33].The need to take into account the regional dimensions of the climate change issue calls for the making of increasingly fine projections. The latest models used by the IPCC, that try to address instabilities and explore the possibility of strong non-linearities in climate scales, are a step in this direction[34]. Yet these gains in details also face obstacles: indeed, climate models are generally better suited to synoptic scales. Taking into account the local encourages, therefore, multidisciplinary approaches and the mobilization of other sciences &#8211; including humanities and social science (anthropology, geography, psychology, sociology, political science...).Other private or non-state actors (consulting firms, multinationals, think tanks, NGOs, etc.), though less often studied[35], also play an increasing role in the production of expertise and counter-expertise on global warming. What influence(s) does this knowledge, embedded in other social and economic realities, exert, in turn, on the direction of political programs and public decision-making? Beyond the development of techniques for evaluating the threat of climate change, this conference also aims at mapping the actors producing practical knowledge in this area.Interplay of Scales and Public ActionThe public treatment of the climate change issue leads to the formulation of a more general hypothesis on the extension of economic, legal and social activities characterizing a modern state, via a great diversity of discourses, norms, practices and technologies[36]. The political scope of the operations of translation to be considered appears all the more important if one bears in mind that the techniques mobilized (economical and legal regulations, models and scenarios, local plans, dashboards, incentive labels, communication kits...) and the many power-knowledge centres involved (national and international bureaucracies, research laboratories, public agencies, think tanks, consulting firms, environmental protection associations...) aim at orientating relations between political society (via modern administration) and civil society (via its citizens), as well as between individuals or the subjects themselves[37].In this regard, the concept of interplay of scale, by drawing attention to the &#8220;interleaved nature of social structure&#8221;[38], invites analysis to be re-centred on the mechanisms of translation and hybridization which lie at the very heart of these multiple relations: from individual to collective, from scientific to political, from local to global, and vice-versa. How does the attention paid to these dynamics allow us to better understand and grasp the specific issues related to public treatment of climate change and illuminate the understanding of certain phenomena of &#8220;strange loops&#8221; or &#8220;tangled hierarchies&#8221;[39] that we can associate to it? Recognizing climate change as an exemplary case to address these issues, this conference is intended to reflect on concepts and tools currently available to social scientists to better understand the increasing complexity of global environmental change.International Comparison and the Convergence of Public PoliciesFaced with global threats and international incentives for &#8216;sustainable development&#8217;, most countries are questioning the ability of their political and administrative organization to implement appropriate responses. The transnational nature of the climate change issue calls here to return to the forefront of the analysis the hypothesis of a convergence of public policies. From this perspective, international comparison is a necessity. On one condition, however: that the cases are not simply juxtaposed, but confronted to show at what level(s) convergence takes place (objective, content, tool, mode of adoption, beneficiary, effect or dominant actor) and through what process(es) it operates (transnational harmonization, &#8216;soft&#8217; convergence, mimetism or dependence)[40]. Whereas there are some studies that highlight the role of the European Union and other industrialized countries in these processes[41], little has been done on the action (or inaction) observed in some developing countries, but also in high-growth emerging states, to face the threat of climate change[42]. Again, comparison can be a valuable analytical tool to improve understanding of how those actors confront this issue, discuss, own or reject it, in socio-political contexts and territories deemed not only distinct, but also distant from one another.Without neglecting the contribution of case studies, what does comparison tell us about the public treatment of climate change? The hypothesis of a convergence of public policy in this area is also assumed to reflect on their 'difference', noting the forms of extraversion and appropriation of certain models or instruments promoted by the government. By confronting analysis on industrialized and developing countries, this conference is intended as an opportunity to broaden the debate on public policy towards hitherto understudied territories and continents (Africa, Asia, India, China).Climate change is a global environmental issue, which has resulted in a proliferation of state control devices in the last twenty years. These devices now have a significant impact on the formulation and conduct of public policy. Just as, in its time, the &#8216;fear of hell&#8217; did more for religion than the &#8216;promise of paradise&#8217;, today the threat of climate change probably contributes more to political involvement in &#8216;sustainability&#8217; than a genuine concern for environmental protection &#8211; which consequently further complicates the ethical debate[43].In the face of these developments, what role for social science research? Even as works on the topic abound, it still appears somewhat reflective about its own role[44]. Calling for an interdisciplinary dialogue (among political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, economists and geographers), the research areas proposed for this conference invite researchers, through critical and comparative lenses, to grapple with major issues related to the public treatment of climate change around the world.Modalities of ParticipationProposals for papers (in English or French) should be sent by e-mail to expertclim2012@gmail.com, no later than December 15, 2011. They should fit into, at least, one of the three lines of thought considered, and not exceed 500 words. Please include your contact details and institutional affiliation.    The selection of proposals will be announced in early January 2012.    Final texts &#8211; of about 6 000 words (written in French or English) &#8211; should be submitted no later than March 8, 2012.    If you want more information or if you wish to discuss other ways of contributing to this event, feel free to contact the organizers at the e-mail address above.Scientific CommitteeAmy Dahan (Centre Alexandre Koyr&#233;/EHESS), Patrick Hassenteufel (CEE/Universit&#233; Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines), Jean-Claude Hinnewinkel (ADES/Universit&#233; Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux III), Philippe Le Prestre (Institut EDS/Universit&#233; Laval), Pieter Leroy (Radboud University Nijmegen), Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (CERIC/Universit&#233; Paul C&#233;zanne Aix-Marseille III), Jean-Christophe Pereau (GREThA/Universit&#233; Montesquieu Bordeaux IV), Pascal Ragouet (Centre &#201;mile Durkheim/Universit&#233; Bordeaux Segalen), Antoine Roger (Centre &#201;mile Durkheim/Sciences Po Bordeaux).NB: There will be a publication of a selection of papers from this conference either as an edited volume or in an international academic journal.Notes[1] Joseph Aldy, Robert Stavins (eds.), Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.[2] Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.[3] Sheila Jasanoff, Marybeth Long Martello (eds.), Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2004.[4] Harriet Bulkeley, &#8220;Reconfiguring Environmental Governance: Towards a Politics of Scale and Networks&#8221;, Political Geography, vol. 24, n&#176;8, 2005, p. 875-902.[5] Ulrich Beck, &#8220;Climate for Change, or How to Create Green Modernity&#8221;, Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 27, n&#176;2-3, 2010, p. 254-266.[6] Anthony Giddens, The Politics of Climate Change, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2009.[7] Bronislaw Szerszynski, John Urry (eds.), &#8220;Changing Climates&#8221;, Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 27, n&#176;2-3, 2010.[8] Selon l&#8217;expression de Nathalie Heinich (cf. La sociologie de l&#8217;art, Paris, La D&#233;couverte, 2004, p. 73).[9] Rafael Encinas de Munagorri (dir.), Expertise et gouvernance du changement climatique, Paris, LGDJ, 2009.[10] Amy Dahan Dalmedico (dir.), Les mod&#232;les du futur. Changement climatique et sc&#233;narios &#233;conomiques&#160;: enjeux scientifiques et politiques, Paris, La D&#233;couverte, 2007.[11] Peter Driessen, Pieter Leroy, Wim van Vierssen (eds.), From Climate Change to Social Change: Perspectives on Science-Policy Interactions, Utrecht, International Books, 2009.[12] Herv&#233; Le Treut, Nouveau climat sur la terre&#160;: comprendre, pr&#233;dire, agir, Paris, Flammarion, 2009.[13] Peter Newell, Climate for Change: Non-state Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.[14] Mary Pettenger (ed.),The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses, Londres, Ashgate, 2007.[15] Matthew Paterson, Johannes Stripple, &#8220;Governing Individuals&#8217; Carbon Emissions: Environment and Planning&#8221;, Society and Space, vol. 28, n&#176;2, 2010, p. 341-362.[16] Jacques Revel (dir.), Jeux d&#8217;&#233;chelles. Micro-analyse &#224; l&#8217;exp&#233;rience, Paris, Gallimard/Le Seuil, 1996, p. 13.[17] Douglas Hofstadter, G&#246;del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Basic Books, 1979.[18] Patrick Hassenteufel, &#171;&#160;De la comparaison internationale &#224; la comparaison transnationale. Les d&#233;placements de la construction d&#8217;objets comparatifs en mati&#232;re de politiques publiques&#160;&#187;, Revue fran&#231;aise de science politique, vol. 55, n&#176;1, 2005, p. 113-132.[19] Rudiger Wurzel, James Connelly (eds.), The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics, Londres, Routledge, 2011.[20] Timmons Roberts, Bradley Parks, A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2007.[21] Stefan Skrimshire (ed.), Future Ethics: Climate Change and Apocalyptic Imagination, Londres, Continuum Press, 2010.[22] Steven Yearley, &#8220;Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto: What Roles for Social Science in Understanding Climate Change?&#8221;, Current Sociology, vol. 57, n&#176;3, 2009, p. 389-405.[23] Joseph Aldy, Robert Stavins, eds., 2007, Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.[24] Mike Hulme, 2009, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.[25] Sheila Jasanoff, Marybeth Long Martello, eds., 2004, Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, Cambridge, MIT Press.[26] Harriet Bulkeley, 2005, &#8220;Reconfiguring Environmental Governance: Towards a Politics of Scale and Networks&#8221;, Political Geography, 24 (8), p. 875-902.[27] Ulrich Beck, 2010, &#8220;Climate for Change, or How to Create Green Modernity&#8221;, Theory, Culture and Society, 27 (2-3), p. 254-266.[28] Anthony Giddens, 2009, The Politics of Climate Change, Cambridge, Polity Press.[29] Bronislaw Szerszynski, John Urry, eds., 2010, &#8220;Changing Climates&#8221;, Theory, Culture and Society, 27 (2-3).[30] In the words of Nathalie Heinich (cf. 2004, La sociologie de l&#8217;art, Paris, La D&#233;couverte, p. 73).[31] Rafael Encinas de Munagorri, dir., 2009, Expertise et gouvernance du changement climatique, Paris, LGDJ.[32] Amy Dahan Dalmedico, dir., 2007, Les mod&#232;les du futur. Changement climatique et sc&#233;narios &#233;conomiques&#160;: enjeux scientifiques et politiques., Paris, La D&#233;couverte[33] Peter Driessen, Pieter Leroy, Wim van Vierssen, eds., 2009, From Climate Change to Social Change: Perspectives on Science-Policy Interactions, Utrecht, International Books.[34] Herv&#233; Le Treut, 2009, Nouveau climat sur la terre&#160;: comprendre, pr&#233;dire, agir, Paris, Flammarion.[35] Peter Newell, 2000, Climate for Change: Non-state Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.[36] Mary Pettenger, ed., 2007, The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses, London, Ashgate.[37] Matthew Paterson, Johannes Stripple, 2010, &#8220;Governing Individuals&#8217; Carbon Emissions: Environment and Planning&#8221;, Society and Space, 28 (2), p. 341-362.[38] Jacques Revel, dir., 1996, Jeux d&#8217;&#233;chelles. Micro-analyse &#224; l&#8217;exp&#233;rience, Paris, Gallimard/Le Seuil, p. 13.[39] Douglas Hofstadter, 1979, G&#246;del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Basic Books.[40] Patrick Hassenteufel, 2005, &#171;&#160;De la comparaison internationale &#224; la comparaison transnationale. Les d&#233;placements de la construction d&#8217;objets comparatifs en mati&#232;re de politiques publiques&#160;&#187;, Revue fran&#231;aise de science politique, 55 (1), p. 113-132.[41] Rudiger Wurzel, James Connelly, eds., 2011, The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics, London, Routledge.[42] Timmons Roberts, Bradley Parks, 2007, A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy, Cambridge, MIT Press.[43] Stefan Skrimshire, ed., 2010, Future Ethics: Climate Change and Apocalyptic Imagination, London, Continuum Press.[44] Steven Yearley, 2009, &#8220;Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto: What Roles for Social Science in Understanding Climate Change?&#8221;, Current Sociology, 57 (3), p. 389-405.