Mind the (Mobilization) Gap: Comparing Climate Activism in the United States and European Union

Abstract

The barriers to concerted political action on climate change mitigation are steep, especially in multilevel systems where power is diffused and authority contested. This article seeks to explain how mobilizationgalvanizing resources and people to participate actively-occurs in complex multilevel systems. It compares two different polities-the United States and the European Union-to tease out the key features of multilevel systems and how they affect climate activism and mobilization. To capture this dynamic, it proposes a three-staged model of mobilization: awareness building, alliance building, and network creation. The latter stage features "mobilization networks"-stakeholder networks able to transcend levels and institutional inertia and steer polities toward particular climate goals. The article demonstrates how each stage of mobilization is highly contingent on stakeholders' ability to exploit-or at least navigatemultilevel institutional barriers.

Shale We Drill? Discourse Dynamics in UK Fracking Debates

“…We start with a discourse analysis approach (Hajer, 1995;Hajer & Versteeg, 2005) which focuses on how problems are defined, argued and debated, and how through that 'argumentative process' meaning is created (see also Cotton et al, 2014;Dryzek, 1997, p. 8;Feindt & Oels, 2005;Glynos, Howarth, Norval, & Speed, 2009). In this article we pay particular attention to 'discursive framing'-how actors define, select and emphasize particular aspects of an issue according to an overarching shared narrative and set of assumptions (Bomberg, 2012;Metze, 2014;Miller, 2000, p. 211). Frames mix empirical information and emotive appeals; they are most often connected to core political values and are communicated simply and directly to the public.…”

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

“…The 2015 climate agreement in Paris is a reassuring sign that international cooperation on climate change may yet prove effective, but actions at national and subnational levels will remain crucial to realizing climate mitigation goals. Any international agreements must be carried out by national governments, and especially in the case of laggard states, subnational governments will continue to serve as venues for advancing climate goals (Bomberg, ; Harrison, ; Rabe & Borick, ). Bechtel and Urpelainen () claim that local climate policies serve as a way to pressure the international community to act on climate change, while others see subnational policies as an alternative to international agreements (Geist & Howlett, ; Krause, ) or national policies (Owens & Zimmerman, ).…”

Multi-level climate governance and the role of the subnational level

“…Gupta (2007) has examined challenges of multi-level climate governance in the domestic context, comparing case studies that focus on the division of responsibility for climate policy between central and lower levels in Italy (Massetti et al 2007), France (Mathy 2007), Netherlands ) and China (Teng & Gu 2007). Bomberg (2012), Harrison (2012), Rabe and Borick (2012) have researched how overlapping authorities in the federal climate governance structures of Canada, the USA and Australia have influenced domestic climate politics and efforts at GHG mitigation (Brown 2012).…”