Thinking Copenhagen: the cognitive dimension of climate change policy making In Brazil and the United States

Abstract

This article explores the cognitive dimension of climate change policy making in Brazil and the United States as both countries prepare for the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or COP15 in Copenhagen. The comparative policy analysis is framed by Putnam (1988) and informed by Bazerman (2009), but adapted to explore the cognitive expressions of policymaking through investigation of public opinion, newspaper coverage, and policymaker statements. The analysis reveals key differences in the ways that Brazilian and U.S. citizens, journalists, and policymakers understand global warming and climate change and think through the policy alternatives for addressing this global challenge through national policy and international negotiations. Brazil's cognitive dimension provides its negotiators with a wide range of strategic positions, allowing this country to play the role of dealmaker. The U.S. administration arrives at Copenhagen with a narrow win-set, limited by the discordant and divisive cognitive expressions that surround policymaking. These differences limit bilateral cooperation and complicate the COP15 negotiations.

Genesis of the CDM: the original policymaking goals of the 1997 Brazilian proposal and their evolution in the Kyoto protocol negotiations into the CDM

“…Internationally, these included the procedural dynamics imposed by the Bali Action Plan in the run-up to Copenhagen (Bodansky 2010;Viola 2009). Domestically, Brazil's high level of public engagement on the climate change issue rendered a host of complex climate policy options politically acceptable (Langevin 2009;Leis and Viola 2008;PewResearchCenter 2009;Viola 2009). In addition to the Copenhagen Accord, these factors enabled new Brazilian domestic legislation targeting climate change and deforestation, including legislatively mandated voluntary GHG emission reductions (based on 2010 GHG emissions) of between 36.1 and 38.9% by 2020, pending a decree allocating the emission reductions among sectors.…”

O Setor energético e as Relações Brasil-Estados Unidos

“…À medida que o senador Grassley advoga a favor de uma contínua proteção dos produtores de etanol, como a ADM, essa companhia transnacional mantém-se ocupada planejando futuros investimentos na produção brasileira de biocombustíveis e parcialmente financiada por esses subsídios indiretos! Aparentemente, a amarga ironia consequente dessa política escapa da compreensão do senador Grassley na medida em que ele continua sua cega cruzada em favor do milho (LANGEVIN, 2009) Ironicamente, os produtores americanos de etanol que há muito se beneficiam da estridente advocacia…”