This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Professor Kelemen Professor Kelemen Environmental Politics
Lecture 3 Putting the Environment on the Agenda Outline Outline How do environmental issues get on the political agenda? Short term (proximate) causes: agenda setting and issue attention cycles Long term (deeper/ultimate) causes: value change, shift in priorities What ‘caused’ WWI? What ‘caused’ WWI? Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle Preproblem stage Problem exists but attracts little attention. Triggering event sparks public demand for action Public support dampened as costs become evident Decline in media attention, ‘boredom’ with issue Issue remains in background and comes up again occasionally in response to crises Alarmed Discovery and euphoric enthusiasm Realizing the cost of significant progress Gradual decline of intense public interest Postproblem stage Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle Was Downs right?…Only sort of. Attention to enviro issues has ‘cycled’, but never diminished to extent Downs suggests Action (or inaction) by policymakers has not followed trends in public opinion closely Are there cycles? Are there cycles? 20 years ago… Time Magazine, January 2nd, 1989 … and today … Al Gore: 2006 film (and 2007 Oscar) 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Depressing? Depressing? Policies are adopted when ‘policy windows’ open Policy windows open with the 3 key ‘streams’ of policymaking come together John Kingdon on Policy Making John Kingdon on Policy Making Problem Stream – information/awareness of problems. Dramatic Events, Major studies/discoveries, Media coverage Policy Stream – policy ideas that float around think tanks, universities, policymaking networks. Quote: "solutions float around in and near government searching for problems to which to become attached or political events that increase their possibility of adoption" Politics Stream – elections, major shifts in ‘public mood’ Kingdon on Policymaking, cont. Kingdon on Policymaking, cont. When politics and problem stream open up a ‘policy window’, policy entrepreneurs may push through their ideas (‘coupling’ solutions w/ problems) In the absence of either 1)recognition of problem, 2) favorable political conditions, or 3) appealing policy idea backed by ‘policy entrepreneurs’… change will not happen. Policy windows can close quickly Public Agenda shifts quickly Public Agenda shifts quickly …and it is hard for environment to stay anywhere near top of agenda % of Americans who ranked the ‘pollution of air and water” as among the most important issues that concerned them peaked at 23% in 1991 Declined to 12% in 1994 In 1995, only 5% ranked the environment as among the nation’s first or second most pressing problem In Dec. 48, 2008 Gallup poll only 2% rank environment as nation’s most important problem. Sources: See Kelemen and Vogel paper (on syllabus). Early 1970s, Democrats in House and Senate support 20% more environmental measures Republicans. 1995 Senate Democrats supported 78% more environmental measures Republicans (89%vs.11%) House Democrats support 61% more enviro measures than Republicans (76% vs. 15%) Policy windows may close due to Policy windows may close due to growing partisan divide Source (Dunlap, Riley, Chenyang Xiao and Aaron McCright. 2001. Politics and Environment in America. Environmental Politics 10, 4: 2348.: 2830). Which reflects growing partisan divide in the Which reflects growing partisan divide in the electorate IDEAS: RACHEL CARSON – SILENT SPRING (1964) Triggering Events: Santa Barbara Oil Spill (1969) Cuyahoga River Fire Cuyahoga River Fire (near Cleveland Ohio) 1969 Policy Entrepreneurs: Earth Day (April 22, 1970) Dennis Hayes (Stanford Student) Gaylord Nelson (Wisconsin Senator) The early 1970s Policy Window The early 1970s Policy Window in the US Problem stream – awareness triggered by major events Policy Stream – ecologists, activists had been developing policy ideas Politics Stream – Partisan battle between Nixon administration and democratic congress to win environmental voters The Hole in the Ozone Layer, 1985-86 Climate Change: Hurricane Katrina (2005) as ‘wake-up call’? Al Gore: Al Gore: 2006 film (and 2007 Oscar) 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Climate Change: Other triggering events?
Melting Polar Ice Cap Retreating Glaciers January 22, 2009 Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica By KENNETH CHANG Antarctica melting? Antarctica melting? Antarctica is warming. That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet. Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models. In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations. “We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the Because the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to Because the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to determine how much of the warming results from natural climate swings and how much from the warming effects of carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels, Dr. Steig said. But Drew T. Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who is another author of the paper, said, “It’s extremely difficult to think of any physical way that you could have increasing greenhouse gases not lead to warming at the Antarctic continent.” Dr. Steig and Dr. Shindell presented the findings at a news conference on Wednesday. They found that from 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally. In West Antarctica, where the base of some large ice sheets lies below sea level, the warming was even more pronounced, at 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit, though temperatures in this area are still well below freezing and the warming will not have an immediate effect on sea level. In East Antarctica, where temperatures had been thought to be falling, the researchers found a slight warming over the 50year period. With the uncertainties, East Antarctica may have indeed been cooling, but the rise in temperatures in the west more than offset the cooling. The average temperature for Antarctica is about minus 58 degrees. “There is very convincing evidence in this work of warming over West Antarctica,” said Andrew Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved with the research. As with earlier studies, the scientists found that more recently, since the late As with earlier studies, the scientists found that more recently, since the late 1970s, temperatures had actually cooled in East Antarctica, a phenomenon that many atmospheric scientists attribute to emissions of chlo , a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed highaltitude ozone. Because those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse. The region of East Antarctica, which includes the South Pole, is at a much higher elevation and extends farther north than West Antarctica. While the scientists said the ozone hole most likely had a significant influence on Antarctic temperatures, other factors, including sea ice and greenhouse gases, may play a larger role. “Obviously the situation is complex, resulting from a combination of man made factors and natural variability,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton, who was not involved in the research. “But the idea of a longterm cooling is pretty clearly debunked.” Dr. Monaghan, who had not detected the rapid warming of West Antarctica in an earlier study, said the new study had “spurred me to take another look at ours — I’ve since gone back and included additional records.” That reanalysis, which used somewhat different techniques and assumptions, has not yet been published, but he presented his revised findings last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union. “The results I get are very similar to his,” Dr. Monaghan said. Andrew C. Revkin contributed reporting. Long term/ Ultimate Causes Long term/ Ultimate Causes Wealth Change in values Tenured economist at Harvard at 28 Chief economist of the World Bank Secretary of the Treasury for Clinton President of Harvard (forced out over comments seen as sexist) Head of White House Council of Economic advisers Human gaffe machine. Larry Summers’ infamous Larry Summers’ infamous environmental memo The Memo The Memo DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP 'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. 2) The costs of pollution are likely to be nonlinear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDERpolluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by nontradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and 3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a nontradable. The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. Change in priorities / values Change in priorities / values Affluence hypothesis ‘postmaterialism’ hypothesis (Inglehart) Notion of a ‘hierarchy of needs’ ‘World Values Survey’ Shift to post material values including, clean environment, alternative lifestyles, identities Environmental concern increased around the world since 1950s… but not evenly Value Change: Rich vs. Poor Value Change: Rich vs. Poor Greatest support for environmental protection in rich counties (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, US) Correlation between GNP per capita and index of ‘priority for the environment’ is .84 But lots of exceptions: Many measures of environmental concern are negatively correlated with GNP High support in poor countries faced with big environmental problems (Russia, Czech Republic) Great concern in poor countries for ‘local’ environmental issues - Franzen, “Environmental Attitudes” Measurement Issues Measurement Issues How should you measure concern with the environment?
Support for environmental protection? Questions that pose tradeoffs? Willingness to pay? Behavior? ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/27/2009 for the course POLI 790350 taught by Professor Kelleman during the Spring '09 term at Rutgers.
- Spring '09