Post-Hegemonic Climate Politics?

Paterson, Matthew

doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2008.00354.x

Cited by 53 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harris, 2000;McCright and Dunlap, 2000;2003;Lisowski, 2002;Fisher, 2004;Rabe, 2004;Victor, 2004;Arimura et al, 2007;Selin and VanDeveer, 2007;Jacques et al, 2008). One of the main themes in this research is explaining the American position in international climate change policymaking (see particularly Lisowski, 2002;Paterson, 2009). Other studies are more specifically interested in climate change politics inside the U.S., focused on understanding why there continues to be no federal policy on climate change and describing how this lack of policy is contributing to emerging subnational efforts (see particularly Jones, 1991;Lutzenhiser 2001;Christiansen, 2003;Arimura et al, 2007;Kramer Schreurs, 2007;Krane 2007;Rabe, 2007; see also the collection by Selin and VanDeveer, 2009).…”

Section: Understanding Polarization Of Climate Change Politics In Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate

Fisher

Waggle

Leifeld

2012

American Behavioral Scientist

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we understand political polarization within the U.S. climate change debate? This paper unpacks the different components of the debate to determine the source of the political divide that is so noted in the mainstream media and academic literatures. Through analysis of the content of Congressional Hearings on the issue of climate change, we are able to explain political polarization of the issue more fully. In particular, our results show that, contrary to representations in the mainstream media, there is increasing consensus over the science of the issue. Discussions of the type of policy instrument and the economic implications of regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however, continue to polarize opinion. This paper concludes by exploring how these findings help us understand more recent political events around climate change.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Polarization Of Climate Change Politics In Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate

Fisher

Waggle

Leifeld

2012

American Behavioral Scientist

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Christiansen, 2003;Fisher, 2004;Fletcher, 2009;Harris, 2000;Hovi and Skodvin, 2008;Jacques et al, 2008;Lisowski, 2002;Lutzenhiser, 2001;McCright and Dunlap, 2000;Rabe, 2004;2010;Rudel, 2001;Selin and VanDeveer, 2007;Victor, 2004; see also Gelbspan, 1997;Leggett, 1999;Ward, et al, 2008 for more popular accounts). On the one hand, there have been numerous studies that focus on climate change politics in the US to understand how national politics contribute to the American position in international negotiations and within the global climate change regime (for recent accounts, see particularly Bang et al, 2007;Paterson, 2009;Skodvin and Andresen, 2009). On the other hand, a growing number of scholars have looked at the policy-making process specifically within the United States.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics

Fisher

Leifeld

Iwaki³

2012

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:How do we understand national climate change politics in the United States? Using a methodological innovation in network analysis, this paper analyzes discussions about the issue within the US Congress. Through this analysis, the ideological relationships among speakers providing Congressional testimony on the issue of climate change are mapped. For the first time, issue stances of actors are systematically aggregated in order to measure coalitions and consensus among political actors in American climate politics in a relational way. Our findings show how consensus formed around the economic implications of regulating greenhouse gases and the policy instrument that should do the regulating. The paper is separated into three sections. First, we review the ways scholars have looked at climate change policymaking in the United States, paying particular attention to those who have looked at the issue within the US Congress. Next, we present analysis of statements made during Congressional hearings on climate change over a four year period. Our analysis demonstrates how a polarized ideological actor space in the 109 th Congress transforms into a more consensual actor landscape in the 110 th Congress, which is significantly less guided by partisan differences. This paper concludes by discussing how these findings help us understand shifting positions within American climate politics and the implications of these findings.Keywords: Climate change, Policy, Ideology, Congress, USA, Network This research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (BCS-0826892). The authors would like to thank the many students who helped code these data. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2010 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, the 2011 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Brookings Institution.2 Introduction How do we understand the lack of a national climate policy in the United States? Under both Democratic and Republican Party leadership, the US has been unsuccessful in passing legislation that regulates the emission of greenhouse gases. Since the Kyoto Protocol entered into legal force on 16 February 2005, a number of bills have been proposed in the US Congress that would establish a federal climate change policy, but none have successfully been passed through both houses of the Congress and entered into law. 1 Social scientists have attempted to understand this lack of a federal climate change policy in many ways, focusing on various aspects of the issue (e.g. Christiansen, 2003;Fisher, 2004;Fletcher, 2009;Harris, 2000;Hovi and Skodvin, 2008;Jacques et al., 2008;Lisowski, 2002;Lutzenhiser, 2001;McCright and Dunlap, 2000;Rabe, 2004;2010;Rudel, 2001;Selin and VanDeveer, 2007;Victor, 2004; see also Gelbspan, 1997;Leggett, 1999;Ward, et al., 2008 for more popular accounts). On the one hand, there have been numerous studies that focus on climate change politics in the US to understand how national...

show abstract

“…Importantly, not only was it incapable of ratification, but also the protocol had numerous concessions put into accommodate US preferences (Paterson 2009;Hovi et al 2012) with even the design of the compliance system being largely American in origin (Bang et al 2007). While the negotiations towards a 2015 agreement are now undergoing are a strong push towards architectures that accommodate the USA, this movement will likely lead to weak outcomes (Hare et al 2010;Paterson 2009) which, if legally binding, may still not be ratified by the Republican-dominated US Senate.…”

Section: Effectiveness: Critical Mass Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations

Kemp

2015

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is struggling in its attempts to address the threat of anthropogenic climate change and create an effective international climate agreement. A substantial part of the problem is consensus decision-making within the Convention. Majority voting is a potential alternative which is already being discussed within the UNFCCC. A comparative analysis of consensus and majority voting suggests that majority voting is superior in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness by allowing for quicker decision-making and semi-global approaches to a climate agreement (termed here as ''Critical Mass Governance''). This paper aims to investigate how majority voting could be implemented in the UNFCCC and to consider politically feasible and effective approaches to voting arrangements for the Convention. There is a legal opportunity to introduce voting through adoption of the draft Rules of Procedure, but this faces political opposition. A type of Layered Majority Voting with larger majorities for financial and substantial matters is considered to be the optimal approach in balancing political feasibility and effectiveness. For now, voting is not politically feasible for the UNFCCC, but could be introduced into future bodies or treaties under the Convention.

show abstract

Post-Hegemonic Climate Politics?

Cited by 53 publications

References 24 publications

Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate

Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate

Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics

Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About