The 2015 Paris Agreement highlighted the aim of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels（the so-called “2-degree” climate change target）. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change（IPCC）have argued that, calculating backward from this target, drastic changes in society are required within a short time period. To achieve such a transformation, international conferences on climate change have increasingly placed technological options, that may be effective but are also potentially harmful, on the agenda such as climate engineering and genetic engineering for adaptation to climate change. This paper focuses on the role of experts as promoters of such social and technological changes.

With reference to actor-network theory, especially Bruno Latour’s argument（Latour 2005）, this paper discusses the role of experts in promoting social change by the networking of diverse actors operating in different fields. We distinguish two types of approach to the issue of climate change : the global-model and local-environment perspectives. In the former approach, experts gather at international conferences such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, IPCC, etc., and discuss current and future projections of climate change, international frameworks of countermeasures, and technological options for achieving climate targets. In the latter approach, experts discuss measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to deal with the impact of climate change in local contexts. These latter initiatives also draw on people’s daily experiences and the accumulation of traditional and local ecological knowledge.

In this paper, the relationship between these two perspectives is discussed. First, the paper points out the large gap in Japan between proponents of the global-model perspective and those adopting the local-environment perspective, and it contends that this is one of the main reasons why the debate on climate change has not progressed much in Japan. The paper then reviews previous studies that have analyzed the relationship between the global-model and local-environment perspectives, focusing on the role of experts linking the two approaches. Some studies start from in-depth interviews and participatory observation of the global-model world and then examine the type of relationship the experts of the field have with the corre-sponding local-environment approach. Other studies do the reverse, considering experts who apply the local-environment approach and examining thier connection with people pursuing the global-model approach. Based on these reviews, the paper lays out the possible climate change research agenda from the point of view of environmental sociology. Finally, the paper discusses the practical implications of such sociological analyses and the role of environmental sociologists as experts who can link these two perspectives.

Amidst growing awareness of the risks of climate change, climate engineering or geoengineering, artificial interventions in the climate system, is receiving increased attention. In the 2015 Paris Agreement, the international community set the goals of keeping global warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and of pursuing efforts to contain it below 1.5°C . Scenario research that has examined these long-term goals, however, demonstrates that carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere will be necessary, and that in the worst-case scenario, solar radiation modification, which reflects sunlight back to space, might have a role to play. In Europe and the United States, researchers, who take the dangers of climate change seriously, have begun to enter the field, and interdisciplinary research is being conducted not only on the direct effects of climate change, but also on its social ramifications. On the other hand, in Japan, the amount of climate engineering research in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities is far from sufficient. This paper hypothesizes that the reason for the minimal level of discussion on the proposed set of technical solutions（be it supportive or opposing）is partially due to the low level of risk perception of climate change in Japan. A sociological approach to study such differences between Japan and the West would be desirable.

The “novel ecosystem” that has appeared with climate change demands an exploration of new metabolic interactions between materiality, knowledge, and social practices. In addition, government, more than ever intricately interwoven with science and technology, is reorganizing the very details of our lives in an attempt to create certainty within uncertainty in the novel ecosystem. We are now living such socially experimental lives, facing a reality where we can no longer believe in the idea, cultivated throughout our history, of the nature of the relationship between mother earth and human-beings. How are such new socially experimental lives reorganizing the relationships and interactions among experts, expertise, and laypeople? And, what does such reorganization mean for us?

To explore these questions, this article illustrates the dynamism of losing and creating in these socially experimental lives, focusing on how salmon, that have experienced a rapid domestication in recent decades, have been divided into multiple existences ontologically; the wild, the artificially propagated, the farmed, and the cell-proliferated. In particular, the cell-proliferated salmon demonstrate that the site of such reorganization of salmon existences, simultaneously generates a contested and discursive site within which to explore a question which has no single easy answer either scientific, ethical, or social. Because of the above, in the market for this product, multiple actors, including consumers as laypeople, are expected to present themselves as those to be communicated and negotiated with as to the features expected of the latest commodity in order that it be well received in the market place. Referring to the theories of ‘economy of qualities’ and ‘hybrid forums’（Callon et al. 2002）, the article explores interactions between experts, expertise, and laypeople as consumers in this site, and ultimately, suggests that trust increases the functional role of the interactions as a medium to sustain networks of actors and support their ethical standards of judgement, rather than those of scientific expertise or governmental authority.

It is often pointed out that Japan’s response to climate change has been insufficient. This is not simply due to a shortfall of effort, technological development and “right knowledge” by the parties concerned, but rather to a lack of social acceptance of climate change issues locally. At a local level, knowledge about environmental issues can become fragmented resulting in the problems being alienated from people’s reality. Not only does this prevent social acceptance of environmental problems and action to solve them, but actually exacerbates them.

This study sets forth an analysis of the sakura shrimp fishery at Suruga Bay, central Japan, and considers a solution for the alienation of climate change issues as they are encountered within the context of local environmental problems. As a result, the following three causes of the alienation were highlighted. First, the people involved in the sakura shrimp fishery have fragmented knowledge of the sea itself. Second, it is difficult for stakeholders to foresee the cost of time caused by carrying out countermeasures because climate change problems are outside of their experienced knowledge. Third, the unwillingness to accept responsibility for insufficient sakura shrimp resource management in the past by the stake-holders concerned. In order to solve this problem, it was suggested that comprehensive knowledge including, not only scientific knowledge, but also local, indigenous knowledge about the marine environment and the sakura shrimp fishery, should be reconstructed and shared, and a convincing process should be carried out explicitly and openly to the community.

In conclusion, this solution has been produced employing a conventional environmental sociological approach. It demonstrates that environmental sociologists can contribute to over-coming the alienation of climate change issues confronted at a local level.

Why did Japan’s climate change policy remain largely unaltered following the 2015 Paris Agreement? What are the political, social, and structural barriers to implementing Japan’s commitments to the Paris Agreement? Focusing on central government, industry, media, the general public and environmental sociologists in Japan, this paper discusses the passiveness displayed towards climate change issues and the relevant policies.

The implementation of the Paris Agreement started in 2020 and the preceding year, 2019, came to be a historic year for climate change prevention. Large climate crisis strikes were organized by young activists in many cities around the world. In September alone, a total of more than 7.6 million citizens in 185 countries joined the protests. In some cities, more than several hundred thousand people participated in the action. However, in Japan, the total number of protesters was around five thousand.

Japan’s central government is reluctant to promote aggressive climate change policy, and has actually been highlighting the role of coal-fired plants. Mainstream economic sectors such as Keidanren（The Federation of Economic Organizations）have adopted a negative attitude when it comes to introducing an aggressive carbon tax and carbon pricing system. Apart from a small number of journalists who are concerned about climate change issues, the general media is also reluctant to give publicity to this matter. Some international surveys reveal the high prevalence of Japanese citizens’ negative attitudes towards these issues. The majority of Japanese citizens feel that measures to combat climate change are largely a threat to their quality of life, whereas in most other countries, the majority feel the measures are an opportunity to improve their quality of life.

Who are the potential key players capable of making a breakthrough in such a dead-locked situation? The recent COMPON（Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks international research project）Japan survey conducted by the author and research colleagues finds that some local governments, including Tokyo, Kyoto, and Yokohama, have announced their commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and are therefore potential key players. They are criticizing the 2030 national government’s target of insufficient carbon reduction, and are concerned about the energy transition to promote renewable energy sources.

Most Japanese environmental sociologists have not engaged with climate change issues except for the issues of nuclear energy and renewable energy, whereas many Japanese environmental economists, researchers of environmental policy, and environmental sociologists abroad are very active in studying climate change issues. Why have Japanese environmental sociologists been so reluctant to tackle these problems?

Japanese environmental sociologists have used local area field studies to attain solid achievements in the areas of pollution-related social research, environmental destruction, citizen participation, and local communities. These studies have contributed to the uniqueness and advantages of Japanese environmental sociology. They have not, however, made much contribution to global scale problems or solutions or to developing macro perspectives. In the cases of climate crisis, the attribution of responsibility, and determining who the perpetrators and victims are, it is not so clear. Climate change issues have extended the areas in which Japanese environmental sociologists can usefully contribute and presented them with a challenge to which they should respond.

Several studies（Hirose 1995 ; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, etc.）have pointed out that although consumers’ attitudes towards sustainability have gradually become more positive, their behavior is not consistent with their attitudes. This circumstance is commonly referred to as the "attitude-behavior gap." As the name suggests, the gap concerns the attitudes and behavior of individuals.However, it is sometimes difficult to understand and account for inconsistencies in behavior, if we adopt a perspective focusing solely on individuals.

A more promising way to understand this phenomenon has appeared as a new trend in sustainable consumption studies in sociology based on "social practice theory." Shove et al. （2012）consider consumption to be a "social practice" linking three elements, materials, meanings, and competences, from the perspective of the interaction between individuals and social structures, rather than from the perspective of individuals engaging in rational decision-making processes.

The discussion of the research presented in this article, considers consumers who are inclined towards sustainable consumption, but who are not acting in accordance with their inclinations, in a state the article refers to as "lost in sustainability." The research employed a questionnaire survey and the results were analyzed based on social practice theory, in order to clarify the background and reasons why people become lost in sustainability, and to obtain suggestions for effective interventions leading to sustainable consumption in the future.

As a result, the practice of purchasing sustainable agricultural products in Japan can be shown to have multiple elements which lead people to become lost in sustainability. Three elements focused on in this research are :（1）how to provide information（from the viewpoint of materials）,（2）recognition of sustainability in agricultural products（from the viewpoint of meanings）,（3）consumers’ lack of knowledge（from the viewpoint of competences）.

The article demonstrates that the three elements are linked to each other, and lead people to become lost in sustainability through social practice. The article concludes that sustainable consumption would be better understood when viewed from the perspective of "lost in sustainability," rather than the "attitude-behavior gap."