Across the United States, cities, towns, and counties are enacting policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many local governments are motivated by concerns about the impacts of climate change in their communities as well as an understanding that energy and climate solutions can benefit local economies and residents. Their actions reflect a strong history of local leadership in climate protection in the United States. While local governments face a number of limitations in addressing climate change, they can be a key part of the solution. Like states and regions, local governments can demonstrate leadership by implementing strategies to confront climate change and laying the groundwork for broader action at the national and international levels.
This brief is part of a series called Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Orwell, in 1984, wrote, "a ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its own successors. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchal structure remains always the same".1 Due to industrialisation, even if the countries constituting the groupings change, it does not change the structural power of the Non-Annex 1 countries as the latter, under the framework constructed in the Kyoto Protocol, have secured a position of structural power.
Why the Right needs to get invested in the search for climate change solutions. Looks at how the right has been absent from solutions related to climate change. Proposes opportunities to address issue from a conservative ideological frame and still address global warming and climate change.
An interview between host Terry Gross and journalist Jeff Goodell about the interess behind climate change. Goodell spoke of the efforts of coal and fossil fuel industries to slow the Obama administration's efforts to implement a "cap and trade" program. What is particularly interesting is that Goodell speaks about the strong support the administration has from Wall Street and the large financial firms. The Carbon Market is poised to be the largest futures and derivatives market and investment houses will exact huge profits from processing these market transactions. This is clearly a major interest in promoting carbon emissions and the direness of the climate change debate.
Relating natural disasters to climate change, and a prescription for responding (which doesn't hinge on accepting climate change, if the Case knowledge claim is correct). This prescription includes national- and state-level assessments and planning, additional funding, and energy infrastructure improvements.
My sense of Yamana is that it works mostly as a clearinghouse of exchange of innovative approaches. The second unSummit coming up in a few weeks has no schedule of papers, but facilitates discussions that evolve over the 2 days. I think one would have to experience this to understand how it works. I had planned to do so this time, but decided I was too far behind on following up on previous connections.
Here are Yamana's guidelines:
"We feel the current culture of science creates an invisible cost in loss of productivity, slower rates of discovery, and 'wasting assets,' including human capital.
We are committed to having enough conversations with the people that can make a difference, including (and perhaps especially) within our own scientific communities.
We will transform what is possible both for people who are currently working in the field of science and for those that are interested in studying to become scientists.
We will impact the experience of learning science, the experience of teaching science and the experience of doing science.
We include conversations across the whole gamut of what affects desired outcomes, from salaries, to healthcare, to personal leave, to the work environment, to the conversations being had about science, to how science is funded, commercialized, and shared.
By acting as a clearinghouse for issues and concerns, as well as a catalyst for potential solutions, we are connecting the passionate voices in science with one another to create a shared vision for the future."
I've been thinking about this alot lately. How do you make cultural change? How do you shift conventional wisdom? How do you create new practices and ways of doing, especially if the dominant "narrative" and system of "incentives" don't support change? Do you shift one relationship at a time? Or is larger change possible? What are the spaces for going against the grain?
Seeing this news item this morning reminded me that, whenever a topic is raised in a course, one then starts to "see" news about it. I put "see" in scare quotes because most likely the topic was in the news before, but now one notices it.
On the substance of the news item, it does show that sometimes business picks up on the science even when it remains contested by politics. For example, nuclear power plants are not being built in most part because corporations with millions of dollars cannot see themselves making a profit and bearing the risk.
Peter - Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see what they disclose and to consider what thought process they used for preparing these reports.
Committee of examine whether publicly funded agricultural research has influenced the structure of U.S. agriculture and if so, how. They also looked at the role of public-sector agricultural research on changes in the size and numbers of farms. Chapter 5 is of particular interest as it investigates the role of extension policy. There is a free executive summary and the book can be read online from this site.
''Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World'' is a powerful and original statement on why well-intended attempts to alleviate pressing social ills too often derail, and how effective, efficient and broadly acceptable solutions to social problems can be found. It takes its cue from the idea that our endlessly changing and complex social worlds consist of ceaseless interactions between four ways of organizing, justifying and perceiving social relations. Each time one of these perspectives is excluded from collective decision-making, governance failure inevitably results. Successful solutions are therefore creative combinations of four opposing ways of organizing and thinking.
For more than 30 years the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Philadelphia Green program has used horticulture to build community and improve the quality of life in Philadelphia's neighborhoods and downtown public spaces. In that time there have been significant signs of rebirth in the city, and the work of Philadelphia Green has played an important role in the environmental, social, economic, and aesthetic changes taking place.
It would be interesting to know how programs like this and other environmental stewardship and conservations efforts link to increased awareness, support and engagement in policy efforts.
The Center for Digital Storytelling engages people to share personal stories, bearing witness as related to their lives leading to action and positive change.
Narratives and frames are powerful things. It would seem that any endeavor would benefit from knowing what is a compelling "story" to engage the public. Youth development organizations use this tool quite a lot in their work.
I remember you had been talking about using story boards in one of the other cases. I am wondering if there is a way to use both of those ideas for Case 4.
The goals for the 5th Living Knowledge conference are:
"What innovation is needed to guide research towards public concerns? How can civil society fully participate in the co-creation of knowledge? The 5th Living Knowledge Conference will focus on getting more insight into processes, and develop specific policy recommendations that resonate with public concerns and articulated research needs."
On the site we see "PERARES (Public Engagement with Research And Research Engagement with Society) project aims to strengthen the interaction between researchers and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and citizens in Europe."
We also see a description of science shops: "small entities that carry out scientific research in a wide range of disciplines - usually free of charge and - on behalf of citizens and local civil society."
All these things would be worth looking further into to understand what guidelines people use or recommend for engaging others in scientific & technological change. In brief, they seem very sympatico to the idea of Case 4 of the course (http://ppol749.wikispaces.umb.edu/PBLEngagementCase).
So this seems to be the other theme emerging, how you work with individuals / the public / citizens in shaping scientific research and the dialogue around it.
I haven't had time to read this fully, but it would seem finding ways to help groups of individuals work to come to decisions regarding science and technology change in a way that can expose and understand a complex situation.
This bit seems relevant:
"Disputes between experts provoke major difficulties for decision-making and policy implementation in the case of such public confrontations, which, more often than not, are vociferous, protracted, rancorous and unresolved. Traditionally, the neutral, disinterested and objective expert has been promoted -- not least by scientists themselves -- as the rational and authoritative arbiter of public disputes over scientific or technical issues."
Published in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995), pp. 506-526, plus references, with minor changes due to sub-editing. Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards 1.