scholarly journals Actors and issues in climate change policy: The maturation of a policy discourse in the national and international context

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Kammerer ◽  
Karin Ingold
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luckrezia Awuor

The relevance of a public health frame in supporting the climate change impact awareness and consensus on actions is well recognized but largely underutilized. Overall, supporting public health’s capacity in climate change has focused on projecting and highlighting public health impacts due to climate change, identifying public health policy responses, and emphasizing public health role. The integration of the public health perspective in the discussion and communication of climate change ideas has remained elusive.<div>Climate change is also a complex social problem whose construction of meaning and actions is rooted in institutionalized language, discourse, and human interactions. Thus, understanding of the construction of the relevance of public health in climate change discourse is central to understanding the impediments of the public health frame application. Unfortunately, this has been a neglected area of research, and the dissertation responded to that gap. </div><div>To delineate the impediments of the public health frame, the study used the case study of the context of climate change policy discourse in the Province of Ontario (Canada) to examine the construction of public health relevance, the extent of public health frame application, and the systematic influences in the discourse.</div><div>The analysis of policy documents and key informant interviews revealed that the public health frame remained isolated from the primary focus of Ontario’s climate change policy discourse. Instead, Ontario’s historically and socially constructed climate change as an economic and political issue solved through market strategies and technological innovations forwarded by political, bureaucratic, and technological elites. The focus substantiated the types of structures and processes of policies and decisions, the relevant actors and knowledge, and the values supporting the discursive, normative, and strategic practices. Ontario’s focus also limited the utilization of the public health frame and the supporting capacities through the misalignment between public health and the provincial strategic actions, the lack of recognition and integration of public health roles, mandate and structures, and limited public health capacity building initiatives.</div><div>Therefore, public health framing as an endpoint of climate change discourse requires legitimation of public health in the underlying institutional structures for, and governance of, climate change. </div>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luckrezia Awuor

The relevance of a public health frame in supporting the climate change impact awareness and consensus on actions is well recognized but largely underutilized. Overall, supporting public health’s capacity in climate change has focused on projecting and highlighting public health impacts due to climate change, identifying public health policy responses, and emphasizing public health role. The integration of the public health perspective in the discussion and communication of climate change ideas has remained elusive.<div>Climate change is also a complex social problem whose construction of meaning and actions is rooted in institutionalized language, discourse, and human interactions. Thus, understanding of the construction of the relevance of public health in climate change discourse is central to understanding the impediments of the public health frame application. Unfortunately, this has been a neglected area of research, and the dissertation responded to that gap. </div><div>To delineate the impediments of the public health frame, the study used the case study of the context of climate change policy discourse in the Province of Ontario (Canada) to examine the construction of public health relevance, the extent of public health frame application, and the systematic influences in the discourse.</div><div>The analysis of policy documents and key informant interviews revealed that the public health frame remained isolated from the primary focus of Ontario’s climate change policy discourse. Instead, Ontario’s historically and socially constructed climate change as an economic and political issue solved through market strategies and technological innovations forwarded by political, bureaucratic, and technological elites. The focus substantiated the types of structures and processes of policies and decisions, the relevant actors and knowledge, and the values supporting the discursive, normative, and strategic practices. Ontario’s focus also limited the utilization of the public health frame and the supporting capacities through the misalignment between public health and the provincial strategic actions, the lack of recognition and integration of public health roles, mandate and structures, and limited public health capacity building initiatives.</div><div>Therefore, public health framing as an endpoint of climate change discourse requires legitimation of public health in the underlying institutional structures for, and governance of, climate change. </div>


Author(s):  
Luckrezia Awuor ◽  
Richard Meldrum ◽  
Eric N. Liberda

Public health engagement in the communication, discussion, and development of climate change policies is essential for climate change policy decisions and discourse. This study examines how the existing governance approaches impact, enable, or constrain the inclusion, participation, and deliberation of public health stakeholders in the climate change policy discourse. Using the case study of the Canadian Province of Ontario, we conducted semi-structured, key informant interviews of public health (11) and non-public health (13) participants engaged in climate change policies in the province. The study results reveal that engagement and partnerships on climate change policies occurred within and across public health and non-public health organizations in Ontario. These engagements impacted public health’s roles, decisions, mandate, and capacities beyond the climate change discourse; enabled access to funds, expertise, and new stakeholders; built relationships for future engagements; supported knowledge sharing, generation, and creation; and advanced public health interests in political platforms and decision making. However, public health’s participation and deliberation were constrained by a fragmented sectoral approach, a lack of holistic inter-organizational structures and process, political and bureaucratic influences, irregular and unestablished communication channels for public health integration, and identities and culture focused on functions, mandates, biased ideologies, and a lack of clear commitment to engage public health. We conclude by providing practical approaches for integrating public health into climate change discourse and policymaking processes and advancing public health partnerships and collaborative opportunities.


2010 ◽  
pp. 115-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Agibalov ◽  
A. Kokorin

Copenhagen summit results could be called a failure. This is the failure of UN climate change policy management, but definitely the first step to a new order as well. The article reviews main characteristics of climate policy paradigm shifts. Russian interests in climate change policy and main threats are analyzed. Successful development and implementation of energy savings and energy efficiency policy are necessary and would sufficiently help solving the global climate change problem.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Godínez-Zamora ◽  
Luis Victor-Gallardo ◽  
Jam Angulo-Paniagua ◽  
Eunice Ramos ◽  
Mark Howells ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Gittell ◽  
Josh Stillwagon

<p>This paper explores the influence of US state-level policies meant to address climate change on clean technology industry development. The largest influence of climate change policies is identified as being on energy research employment. Only some policies seem to contribute positively to clean tech employment while other policies appear to discourage employment growth. The magnitudes of the short term effects, even when statistically significant, are modest. Negative impacts on employment are identified for several mandate-oriented, so called command and control, policies including vehicle greenhouse gas standards, energy efficiency resource standards, and renewable portfolio standards with the former two having increasing negative effects over time. The findings suggest that climate change policy advocates should be careful to not assume that there will be positive clean tech employment benefits from state-level energy and environmental policies. Instead, the benefits from these policies may derive primarily from other considerations beyond the scope of this paper, including health and environmental benefits and reduction of dependence on foreign energy sources.</p>


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky

After four years of not simply inaction but significant retrogression in U.S. climate change policy, the Biden administration has its work cut out. As a start, it needs to undo what Trump did. The Biden administration took a step in that direction on Day 1 by rejoining the Paris Agreement. But simply restoring the pre-Trump status quo ante is not enough. The United States also needs to push for more ambitious global action. In part, this will require strengthening parties’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement; but it will also require actions by what Sue Biniaz, the former State Department climate change lawyer, likes to call the Greater Metropolitan Paris Agreement—that is, the array of other international actors that help advance the Paris Agreement's goals, including global institutions such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Montreal Protocol, and the World Bank, as well as regional organizations and non-state actors. Although the Biden administration can pursue some of these international initiatives directly through executive action, new regulatory initiatives will face an uncertain fate in the Supreme Court. So how much the Biden Administration is able to achieve will likely depend significantly on how much a nearly evenly-divided Congress is willing to support.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Kammerer ◽  
Paul M. Wagner ◽  
Antti Gronow ◽  
Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila ◽  
Dana R. Fisher ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document