Responses to Comments by Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen on the Paper:“Global Climate Change: European Policy Makers' Views of How Science Enters the Political Process”

This chapter compares regulations that address the risks of air pollution—one of the most critical dimensions of environmental regulation. It specifically examines the policies in the United States and Europe and their decisions toward the health and environmental risks of mobile (vehicular) source pollutants, ozone-depleting chemicals, and global climate change. The politics of global climate change reveals a very divergent pattern. In this case, the preferences of American policy makers were more polarized than in Europe. American public policies toward the risks of global climate change have been significantly affected by partisan differences, which increased substantially during the 1990s. By contrast, European policies toward global climate change have been much less affected by differences in the political preferences of center-left and center-right policy makers.

Download Full-text

Global Climate Change: European Policy Makers' Views of How Science Enters the Political Process

Energy & Environment ◽

10.1177/0958305x9500600201 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 87-105 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Willett Kempten ◽

Paul P. Craig ◽

Craig R. Kuennen

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

United States ◽

Global Climate Change ◽

Energy Use ◽

Global Climate ◽

Political Process ◽

The United States ◽

Scientific Uncertainty ◽

Policy Action ◽

Policy Makers

This paper examines the process of establishing scientific consensus in the global climate change debate, as reported in interviews with policy makers, administrators and advisors in four European countries. We focus on three areas: 1) the European political community's deliberate organization of scientists to advise them on global climate change science policy; 2) European rationales for taking policy action in the presence of high scientific uncertainty, and 3) European interpretations of United States policy in terms of United States culture and public opinion. We find that consensus on global climate change is seemingly being reached - or at least publicly stated - more readily in Europe than in the United States. This appears to result from several deliberately-created European consensus building processes by representatives from the scientific community and government. In contrast, in the United States both the science of global climate change and the implications for public policy have been much more contested and debated. Extreme ends of the range of scientific opinion appear to be given more weight in the United States than in Europe, in part because of the contrasting fora available. Finally, our European interviewees attributed United States timidity on climate change remediation to American culture and voter unwillingness to forgo energy use.

Download Full-text

Knowledge management and global climate change regime negotiations

foresight ◽

10.1108/fs-11-2013-0066 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 53-62 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mohamad Zakaria

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Knowledge Management ◽

Global Climate Change ◽

Global Climate ◽

Deep Understanding ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Content Type ◽

Climate Change Negotiations ◽

Critical Issues ◽

Practical Implications

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the important factors that negotiators and policy-makers need to take into account while putting their strategies to negotiate global climate change regimes. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on qualitative research using the deductive approach. Integrating the theoretical and empirical material in the analysis is used to enhance the readers’ value and interest in the paper. Findings – Without deep understanding of why some international negotiations related to climate change have previously failed, it is difficult to successfully negotiate them in the future. Flexibility and openness during negotiations and to consider the views and concerns of all global actors in finding optimum solutions and cooperation are among the many essential factors that bring the world leaders into a compromise agreement and a global climate change regime. Knowledge management including taking into account the discussed factors may help the negotiators and public to be more prepared to understand the obstacles that may complicate negotiating the international climate change regimes. Research limitations/implications – This paper is not intended for those who have years of experience in climate change negotiations nor for those seeking deep theoretical knowledge about this topic. Practical implications – This paper has practical implications as it combines the theories of international relations with practical evidences from previous Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Social implications – This paper is an essential read to students and young scientists, as well as to young policy-makers within the environmental politics. Originality/value – The paper deals with a very important and current issue and little has been published on the process of preparation for negotiating climate change negotiation. It covers some critical issues and determining factors in such negotiations.

Download Full-text

Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018

Energies ◽

10.3390/en13184839 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (18) ◽

pp. 4839 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Coilín ÓhAiseadha ◽

Gerré Quinn ◽

Ronan Connolly ◽

Michael Connolly ◽

Willie Soon

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Energy Consumption ◽

Climate Policy ◽

Global Climate Change ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

Global Climate ◽

Ghg Emissions ◽

Energy Sources ◽

Policy Makers ◽

World Energy

Concern for climate change is one of the drivers of new, transitional energy policies oriented towards economic growth and energy security, along with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and preservation of biodiversity. Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder. With this in mind, we consider the potential engineering challenges and environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the main energy sources (old and new). We find that the literature raises many concerns about the engineering feasibility as well as environmental impacts of wind and solar. However, none of the current or proposed energy sources is a “panacea”. Rather, each technology has pros and cons, and policy-makers should be aware of the cons as well as the pros when making energy policy decisions. We urge policy-makers to identify which priorities are most important to them, and which priorities they are prepared to compromise on.

Download Full-text

A driver in every car: when the auto industry says jump, do governments say “how high?”

Journal of Business Strategy ◽

10.1108/jbs-06-2016-0055 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (4) ◽

pp. 3-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pierre André Buigues

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Global Climate Change ◽

Automobile Industry ◽

Global Climate ◽

Political Orientation ◽

The Political ◽

Public Intervention ◽

Content Type ◽

Infant Industry ◽

The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the economic and political conditions that could explain why the governments in developed economies have intervened in the automobile industry. The author identifies the main reasons and the shortcomings of these public interventions. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents different forms of public intervention in the automobile industry of various countries over the past few decades: infant industry, research and development (R&D), global climate change and global systemic crisis. Findings The automobile sector is viewed by governments as a key sector and is subsidised for different reasons at different periods. The paper shows that governments give different reasons for public intervention in the automobile industry (infant industry, global climate change, R&D externalities, the global financial crisis, etc.). Whatever the theory, in practice, public interventions have a strong impact on the industry and its evolution. Practical implications The paper highlights the importance for car manufacturers of monitoring the political initiatives of public authorities, which can affect the technological evolution of the automobile industry. Social implications For households, the purchase of a car is quite important, and the political orientation of public subsidies in favour of one option over another, such as electric vehicles or an autonomous car, affects their choice. Originality/value The paper examines an issue which has not previously been addressed by journals, yet which is crucial, i.e. the impact of government decisions on the evolution of an industry. The approach can also be applied to other sectors.

Download Full-text

Creating a Climate of Convenience: Australia's Response to Global Climate Change (1996–2007)

Energy & Environment ◽

10.1260/095830508783563091 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 3-20 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Hayley Stevenson

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Global Climate Change ◽

Specific Problem ◽

Global Climate ◽

Political Agenda ◽

The Political ◽

Issue Framing ◽

State Actors ◽

Normative Implications

This article discusses how issue framing and nondecision-making shaped Australia's response to global climate change between 1996 and 2007. The complex and multi-dimensional nature of global climate change enabled state and non-state actors to selectively highlight certain aspects of the issue, thereby framing it as a specific problem with corresponding solutions. The case of Australia provides an interesting example of how such conscious framing, together with underlying institutional biases, may suppress important aspects of global climate change and ensure they are kept off the political agenda. This article unravels four narratives that are evident in the former Australian Government's framing of global climate change during this period. The nondecisions which are embedded within these narratives have important normative implications which will be explored.

Download Full-text