Declarations: Root and Branch Unthinking

Author(s):  
Peter J. Taylor ◽  
Geoff O’Brien ◽  
Phil O’Keefe

This chapter takes the failure of current climate change policy as a given and seeks explanations and ways forward. Policy-making should be firmly grounded in the essential nature of anthropogenic climate change – a complex problem and an existential threat. It is found wanting in three fundamental aspects. International relations with its competitive preposition is found to be not fit for purpose as decision-making arena. The scientific input for decision-making underplays the ‘anthropo’ bit of climate change and therefore is found unfit for purpose. And social science contributions are found not fit for purpose because of their innate state-centric bias. To overcome the resulting impasse requires critical unthinking. The work of Jane Jacobs is chosen as guide to unthinking thereby foregrounding cities. An invitation is issued for others to provide alternate unthinking.

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Cambardella ◽  
Brian D. Fath ◽  
Andrea Werdenigg ◽  
Christian Gulas ◽  
Harald Katzmair

AbstractCultural theory (CT) provides a framework for understanding how social dimensions shape cultural bias and social relations of individuals, including values, view of the natural world, policy preferences, and risk perceptions. The five resulting cultural solidarities are each associated with a “myth of nature”—a concept of nature that aligns with the worldview of each solidarity. When applied to the problem of climate protection policy making, the relationships and beliefs outlined by CT can shed light on how members of the different cultural solidarities perceive their relationship to climate change and associated risk. This can be used to deduce what climate change management policies may be preferred or opposed by each group. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of how CT has been used in surveys of the social aspects of climate change policy making, to assess the construct validity of these studies, and to identify ways for climate change protection policies to leverage the views of each of the cultural solidarities to develop clumsy solutions: policies that incorporate strengths from each of the cultural solidarities’ perspectives. Surveys that include measures of at least fatalism, hierarchism, individualism, and egalitarianism and their associated myths of nature as well as measures of climate change risk perceptions and policy preferences have the highest translation and predictive validity. These studies will be useful in helping environmental managers find clumsy solutions and develop resilient policy according to C.S. Holling’s adaptive cycle.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Ayers

Climate change adaptation presents a paradox: climate change is a global risk, yet vulnerability is locally experienced. Effective adaptation therefore depends on understanding the local context of vulnerability, which requires deliberative and participatory approaches to adaptation policy-making. But, how can local inclusiveness be achieved in the context of global environmental risk, and what sorts of institutions are needed? This article examines one avenue for the participation of vulnerable groups in adaptation policy-making: National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs). Drawing on the case study of Bangladesh, this article shows that the “adaptation paradox” creates a tension between local and global definitions of climate change risk, affecting the legitimacy of participatory processes under the NAPA. I propose that early analysis and engagement of existing local institutional frameworks as a starting point for national adaptation planning is one possible entry point for meaningful local deliberation in global climate change policy-making processes.


Author(s):  
Michael Howlett ◽  
Stuti Rawat

Behavioral science consists of the systematic analysis of processes underlying human behavior through experimentation and observation, drawing on knowledge, research, and methods from a variety of fields such as economics, psychology, and sociology. Because policymaking involves efforts to modify or alter the behavior of policy-takers and centers on the processes of decision-making in government, it has always been concerned with behavioral psychology. Classic studies of decision-making in the field derived their frameworks and concepts from psychology, and the founder of policy sciences, Harold Lasswell, was himself trained as a behavioral political scientist. Hence, it should not be surprising that the use of behavioral science is a feature of many policy areas, including climate change policy. This is given extra emphasis, however, because climate change policymaking and the rise of climate change as a policy issue coincides with a resurgence in behaviorally inspired policy analysis and design brought about by the development of behavioral economics. Thus efforts to deal with climate change have come into being at a time when behavioral governance has been gaining traction worldwide under the influence of works by, among others, Kahneman and Tversky, Thaler, and Sunstein. Such behavioral governance studies have focused on the psychological and cognitive behavioral processes in individuals and collectives, in order to inform, design, and implement different modes of governing. They have been promoted by policy scholars, including many economists working in the area who prefer its insights to those put forward by classical or neoclassical economics. In the context of climate change policy, behavioral science plays two key roles—through its use of behaviorally premised policy instruments as new modes of public policy being used or proposed to be used, in conjunction with traditional climate change policy tools; and as a way of understanding some of the barriers to compliance and policy design encountered by governments in combating the “super wicked problem” of climate change. Five kinds of behavioral tools have been found to be most commonly used in relation to climate change policy: provision of information, use of social norms, goal setting, default rules, and framing. A large proportion of behavioral tools has been used in the energy sector, because of its importance in the context of climate change action and the fact that energy consumption is easy to monitor, thereby facilitating impact assessment.


Author(s):  
Peter Taylor ◽  
Geoff O'Brien ◽  
Phil O'Keefe

Current climate change policy is necessary but insufficient. This is because the basic modus operandi – presenting scientific evidence to states for them to take action - misrepresents the complex process of anthropogenic climate change. The ‘anthropo’ bit is neglected in a misconceived supply-side (carbon) interpretation. The key question is, why is there so much demand for this carbon in the first place? This book introduces a demand-side interpretation bringing cities to the fore as central players in both generating climate changes and for finding solutions. Jane Jacobs’ urban analysis is combined with William F. Ruddiman’s historical tracing of greenhouse gases to provide a new understanding and narrative of anthropogenic climate change. The conclusion is that we are locked into a path to terminal consumption, which is accelerating as a consequence of Chinese urban growth, historically unprecedented in its sheer scale. To counter this we need to harness the power of cities in new ways, to steer urban demand away from its current destructive path. This is nothing less than re-inventing the city: not mitigation (the resilient city, necessary but not sufficient), not adaptation (sustainable city, also necessary but not sufficient) but stewardship, a process of dynamic stability creating the posterity city in sync with nature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document