Steve Vanderheiden
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780195334609
- eISBN:
- 9780199868759
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195334609.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Environmental Politics
This chapter begins with a short history of climate change as a policy issue, explaining the scientific basics of the phenomenon and culminating with an examination of current controversies over the ...
More
This chapter begins with a short history of climate change as a policy issue, explaining the scientific basics of the phenomenon and culminating with an examination of current controversies over the scientific evidence establishing the existence and consequences of anthropogenic climate change as well as recent efforts to defeat mandatory national greenhouse gas emission caps. In particular, it examines the international climate policy process that generated the Kyoto Protocol, the industry-led campaigns of climate skepticism designed to defeat ratification of that treaty in the United States, and the development of U.S. climate policy through the secretive Cheney Energy Task Force, which effectively set the Bush administration's climate policy for its two terms. Finally, it considers the bases for ongoing rifts over climate policy between the U.S. and Europe as well as between industrialized and developing nations.Less
This chapter begins with a short history of climate change as a policy issue, explaining the scientific basics of the phenomenon and culminating with an examination of current controversies over the scientific evidence establishing the existence and consequences of anthropogenic climate change as well as recent efforts to defeat mandatory national greenhouse gas emission caps. In particular, it examines the international climate policy process that generated the Kyoto Protocol, the industry-led campaigns of climate skepticism designed to defeat ratification of that treaty in the United States, and the development of U.S. climate policy through the secretive Cheney Energy Task Force, which effectively set the Bush administration's climate policy for its two terms. Finally, it considers the bases for ongoing rifts over climate policy between the U.S. and Europe as well as between industrialized and developing nations.
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Kristen Intemann
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- October 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190869229
- eISBN:
- 9780190869236
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190869229.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapters evaluates whether inductive risks judgments can serve as a reliable criterion to identify normatively inappropriate dissent (NID). Dissent that calls for rejecting certain consensus ...
More
This chapters evaluates whether inductive risks judgments can serve as a reliable criterion to identify normatively inappropriate dissent (NID). Dissent that calls for rejecting certain consensus views related to public policy can be risky. When consensus views are mistakenly rejected, it can have serious consequences for public health and well-being. These risks may not be worth taking when the risks disproportionately fall on the public, or when the dissent in question fails to conform to widely shared standards of good science. It concludes that this account also fails to offer a criterion to reliably identify NID. In part this is because of the difficulties presented by the criterion of shared standards in science. Also, the ambiguities present in judgments about inductive risks lead to serious problems in practice.Less
This chapters evaluates whether inductive risks judgments can serve as a reliable criterion to identify normatively inappropriate dissent (NID). Dissent that calls for rejecting certain consensus views related to public policy can be risky. When consensus views are mistakenly rejected, it can have serious consequences for public health and well-being. These risks may not be worth taking when the risks disproportionately fall on the public, or when the dissent in question fails to conform to widely shared standards of good science. It concludes that this account also fails to offer a criterion to reliably identify NID. In part this is because of the difficulties presented by the criterion of shared standards in science. Also, the ambiguities present in judgments about inductive risks lead to serious problems in practice.
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Kristen Intemann
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- October 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190869229
- eISBN:
- 9780190869236
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190869229.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Chapter 10 proposes a second recommendation to deal with the negative adverse effects that normatively inappropriate dissent (NID) can have: it calls for a recognition of the limits of scientific ...
More
Chapter 10 proposes a second recommendation to deal with the negative adverse effects that normatively inappropriate dissent (NID) can have: it calls for a recognition of the limits of scientific evidence when it comes to public policymaking and for an increased focus on potential differences in the values that underlie policy decisions. It contends that while confusion and doubt about the existing empirical evidence or about its strength can contribute to stalled policies, disagreements about values can also play a significant role. Such disagreements can involve what people take to be valuable, how to interpret shared values, how to weigh conflicting values, and what policies are better for promoting certain valuable goals.Less
Chapter 10 proposes a second recommendation to deal with the negative adverse effects that normatively inappropriate dissent (NID) can have: it calls for a recognition of the limits of scientific evidence when it comes to public policymaking and for an increased focus on potential differences in the values that underlie policy decisions. It contends that while confusion and doubt about the existing empirical evidence or about its strength can contribute to stalled policies, disagreements about values can also play a significant role. Such disagreements can involve what people take to be valuable, how to interpret shared values, how to weigh conflicting values, and what policies are better for promoting certain valuable goals.
