Search

Abstract: In the past several decades, decision makers in the United States have increasingly called upon publicly funded science to provide “usable” information for policy making, whether in the case of acid rain, famine prevention or climate change policy. As demands for usability become more prevalent for publicly accountable scientific programs, there is a need to better understand opportunities and constraints to science use in order to inform policy design and implementation. Motivated by recent critique of the decision support function of the US Global Change Research Program, this paper seeks to address this issue by specifically examining the production and use of climate science. It reviews empirical evidence from the rich scholarship focused on climate science use, particularly seasonal climate forecasts, to identify factors that constrain or foster usability. It finds, first, that climate science usability is a function both of the context of potential use and of the process of scientific knowledge production itself. Second, nearly every case of successful use of climate knowledge involved some kind of iteration between knowledge producers and users. The paper argues that, rather than an automatic outcome of the call for the production of usable science, iterativity is the result of the action of specific actors and organizations who ‘own’ the task of building the conditions and mechanisms fostering its creation. Several different types of institutional arrangements can accomplish this task, depending on the needs and resources available. While not all of the factors that enhance usability of science for decision making are within the realm of the scientific enterprise itself, many do offer opportunities for improvement. Science policy mechanisms such as the level of flexibility afforded to research projects and the metrics used to evaluate the outcomes of research investment can be critical to providing the necessary foundation for iterativity and production of usable science to occur. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The influence of business schools on business practitioners is considerable. An important proportion of corporate leaders hold a degree in business administration or an MBA, if not both. In the context of climate change, this influence matters: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a selection of global 500 companies approximate that of the USA and the EU15 combined. Not only do corporations have a significant climate footprint, but the impact of climate change on the business landscape is already noticeable. Yet, meeting the managerial challenges that climate change brings requires knowledge only moderately addressed in business education and scholarship today. Climate change tends to be discussed in electives – hence reaching only a fraction of students – and tends to be treated alongside a myriad of other corporate social responsibility issues. Moreover, from 1992 to 2008, only seven articles with titles containing climate change or global warming were published in the top-30 peer-reviewed management journals (this paper, see also ). In this paper, by mapping the diffusion of climate change within press media and academic peer-reviewed publications, I argue that understanding the existing lag in business scholarship engagement requires a fundamental understanding of processes that either hinder or lead to the diffusion of new ideas. To do so, I present a simple yet novel approach for the quantification of climate change or global warming (CCorGW) coverage relative to population size. My results on the diffusion of the climate change idea over time show: (a) an overall increase in proportional coverage in all databases (b) tipping points around the late 1980s and circa 2005 and (c) delays in adoption between press categories. I explicate the occurrence of these tipping points as well as the existence of delays by theoretically unifying my analyses with results from previous studies under the umbrella of the diffusion of innovation paradigm. I suggest that the following key factors have contributed in slowing the diffusion within business scholarship: (a) corporate values, beliefs and operational modes (b) social structures and incentives prevailing within academia and finally (b) academia''s valued research communication channels. I conclude by elaborating key recommendations to facilitate the diffusion of this idea to business scholars and other influential audiences. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions. This paper offers an initial test of the competing expectations, making use of the tendency for science to be self-correcting, over time. Rather than relying in any way on the IPCC process, the paper draws evidence about emerging science from four newspapers that have been found in past work to be biased against reporting IPCC findings, consistently reporting instead that scientific findings are “in dispute.” The analysis considers two time periods — one during the time when the papers were found to be overstating challenges to then-prevailing scientific consensus, and the other focusing on 2008, after the IPCC and former Vice-President Gore shared the Nobel Prize for their work on climate disruption, and before opinion polls showed the U.S. public to be growing more skeptical toward climate science once again. During both periods, new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss “both sides” of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate “other side” is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The coast is a highly populated environment that is under increasing risk because of sea level rise (SLR) and climate change. Social science predicts that social and political systems will habitually privilege certain communities and disadvantage others under conditions of risk and disaster. This paper tests that supposition on a particular disaster policy in the United States. Voluntary buyouts are a policy tool in the US that has the potential to help communities adapt to SLR. While buyouts have been resisted in the past, there is some indication that they are becoming more politically popular. Despite increased popularity, communities in Alaska who need to relocate because of repetitive flooding and sea level rise do not meet the basic requirements of the buyout program in a way that makes this policy applicable to their situation. We find that notions of the market, property, and individualism are ideological assumptions inherent to the buyout policies, which ultimately serve to disadvantage tribal communities as they attempt to relocate as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This analysis suggests that adaptation policies to climate change themselves, can limit the inventory of possibilities that some communities have to choose from, and re-entrench inequity in the face of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The international climate change negotiations leading to and including the Copenhagen and Cancun Conferences of the Parties in 2009 and 2010 have shown a very different balance of power from those of the 1997 Kyoto round. This “New World dis(Order)” is characterized by insecurity of the United States in the face of economic and political decline vis-à-vis China; fragmentation of the Group of 77 developing nations negotiating bloc; and weakening of the European Union, which was cut out entirely from the group negotiating the Copenhagen Accord. In addition to old alignments of developing countries based on solidarity, negotiating blocs have fractured along lines of responsibility for climate change, capability to address it, and national vulnerability to climate risks. This paper assesses whether, over the past two decades, negotiations have come closer to meeting basic criteria of international climate justice, and chronicles how environmental negotiations have come to reflect a different and shifting balance of power. Drawing insights from Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver''s analyses of US hegemonic decline and the rise of China, the article argues that the roots of the worst stubbornness by the US in recent climate talks lie in growing insecurity about its ability to provide jobs for its workers in a future where all sorts of work is moving to China and India. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Energy efficiency provides substantial carbon dioxide emissions reduction. • Renewable energy sources substantially influences carbon dioxide emissions. • Substantively, renewable energy is slightly more effective than energy efficiency. • Affluence tampers the effectiveness of energy efficiency and renewable energy. This study examines the comparative effectiveness of two important proposed solutions to climate change—energy efficiency improvement and the development and use of renewable energy sources. We focus specifically on their impacts on carbon dioxide emissions by conducting fixed effects regression analysis of panel data pertaining to U.S. states. The analysis reveals a negative relationship between both remedies and carbon dioxide emissions. Although the effects of these potential solutions are statistically equivalent, renewable energy production has a slight edge. Reflecting upon these findings and the larger environmental problem, we caution against exclusive reliance on efficiency improvement and renewable energy to the neglect of other important actions, such as lifestyle modifications. A broad range of social changes, which incorporate the remedies investigated in this paper, are needed to limit long-term global temperature increases to the desired level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One critical aspect of the Kyoto Protocol is its flexibility in compliance. Countries or groups of countries are free to choose their ownimplementation strategies. Should the United States ratify the Protocol, it will most likely use emissions trading in some form to implement this accord. Two variations on a US domestic carbon trading system are presented here. One is an auction system controlling carbon at the point of energy production and distribution. The second is a hybrid system allocating permits to large combustors and controlling smaller sources through standards. Within this paper we describe and compare the main attributes of each system. Separate sections also discuss various methods for allocating permits and incorporating standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]