Three Faces of Environmental Politics Science, Ideology, and Office-Holding

Three Faces of Three Faces of Environmental Politics Environmental Politics

Science, Ideology, and Science, Ideology, and Office-HoldingOffice-Holding

I. Controversies in Environmental I. Controversies in Environmental PoliticsPolitics

Are Navy sonar tests worth the Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs?environmental costs?



Should SUVs be held to the same Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars?standards as cars?




Will more nuclear power help or Will more nuclear power help or harm the environment?harm the environment?





Can humans prevent climate Can humans prevent climate change?change?





Can humans prevent climate Can humans prevent climate change?change?

When should we punish people for When should we punish people for harming animals?harming animals?

The Core ProblemThe Core Problem

Real environmental controversies Real environmental controversies have scientific, moral, and political have scientific, moral, and political elementselements

But But wewe are… are…– Nonscientists who must learn to Nonscientists who must learn to

evaluate scienceevaluate science– Humans who must find a way to assign Humans who must find a way to assign

value to naturevalue to nature– Citizens who must evaluate the policies Citizens who must evaluate the policies

of office-holdersof office-holders How can we accomplish this?How can we accomplish this?

II. What is Science?II. What is Science?

This question is not trivial: it is a This question is not trivial: it is a major argument on many major argument on many environmental issuesenvironmental issues

My approach: Recount the history My approach: Recount the history and philosophy of science in order to and philosophy of science in order to discover “rules” fordiscover “rules” for– Separating science from pseudo-scienceSeparating science from pseudo-science– Comparing two scientific theories or Comparing two scientific theories or

explanationsexplanations

A. Ancient A. Ancient ScienceScience

1.1. Plato – World of ideas vs. World of Plato – World of ideas vs. World of sensessenses

a.a. World of Senses = Unreliable – Analogy of World of Senses = Unreliable – Analogy of shadows on a wall; everything we see is shadows on a wall; everything we see is imperfect and incomplete in some way.imperfect and incomplete in some way.

b.b. World of Ideas = Truth. Only logic can World of Ideas = Truth. Only logic can reveal the true nature of the world. Idea of reveal the true nature of the world. Idea of perfect “Forms” which are more real than perfect “Forms” which are more real than anything we see.anything we see.

2. Aristotelian Science2. Aristotelian Sciencea.a. Rejection of Platonic Rejection of Platonic epistemologyepistemology – –

Aristotle believes that nature is real and Aristotle believes that nature is real and must be studied, using a deductive must be studied, using a deductive methodmethod

b.b. Rejection of experiment – goal is to Rejection of experiment – goal is to understand what is “natural” and understand what is “natural” and changing nature is not “natural”changing nature is not “natural”

c.c. Method = Look for categories in nature Method = Look for categories in nature and deduce “essence” of things. and deduce “essence” of things.

Example 1: Aristotelian BiologyExample 1: Aristotelian Biology Aristotle observes that male Aristotle observes that male

sheep, goats and pigs have sheep, goats and pigs have more teeth than femalesmore teeth than females

Aristotle argues that men Aristotle argues that men have more vitality than have more vitality than women (hotter “essence”)women (hotter “essence”)

Aristotle therefore concludes Aristotle therefore concludes that men have more teeth that men have more teeth than women, “by reason of than women, “by reason of the abundance of heat and the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men blood which is more in men than in women”than in women”

Men and women have the Men and women have the same number of teeth (on same number of teeth (on average) – Aristotle never average) – Aristotle never bothered to checkbothered to check

Example 2: Aristotelian GravityExample 2: Aristotelian Gravity Earth is the center of the Earth is the center of the

universeuniverse Objects made from the earth Objects made from the earth

naturally attempt to return naturally attempt to return there (i.e. fall to the ground) there (i.e. fall to the ground)

The heavier an object is, the The heavier an object is, the more it desires to be in its more it desires to be in its natural statenatural state

Objects actually fall at the Objects actually fall at the same rate, regardless of same rate, regardless of massmass

d. Ptolemy: Facts d. Ptolemy: Facts models, not models, not the other way aroundthe other way around

Example: use Example: use math to estimate math to estimate positions of the positions of the planets, not to planets, not to describe their describe their “real” motion. “real” motion. Justification = Justification = many models many models describe identical describe identical data (apparent data (apparent motion of motion of planets)planets)

B. The Enlightenment: B. The Enlightenment: Essentialism RejectedEssentialism Rejected

1.1. Rediscovery of ancient texts – Rediscovery of ancient texts – reveals ancients didn’t know all the reveals ancients didn’t know all the answers (example: Ptolemy’s orbits answers (example: Ptolemy’s orbits aren’t accurate)aren’t accurate)

2.2. Belief in progress – As economic Belief in progress – As economic growth and technology advanced, growth and technology advanced, people came to believe that we people came to believe that we would know more in the future (vs. would know more in the future (vs. wisdom of the ancients)wisdom of the ancients)

3. The Copernican Revolution3. The Copernican Revolution

a.a. Heliocentrism: Heliocentrism: Copernicus argued Copernicus argued that planets that planets revolved around revolved around the sun – simpler the sun – simpler system than system than Ptolemy, but not Ptolemy, but not (initially) better at (initially) better at predicting planets’ predicting planets’ positionspositions

b. Scientists compare models: b. Scientists compare models: Cumulative knowledgeCumulative knowledge

i.i. Observations undermine idea of “heavenly Observations undermine idea of “heavenly spheres” – Tycho Brahe observes comet spheres” – Tycho Brahe observes comet passing through planetary orbitspassing through planetary orbits

ii.ii. Galileo observes phases of Venus (predicted Galileo observes phases of Venus (predicted by Copernican model but not by Ptolemaic by Copernican model but not by Ptolemaic model) and moons of Jupiter (not everything model) and moons of Jupiter (not everything revolves around Earth)revolves around Earth)

iii.iii. Kepler discovers that geometry (ellipse) Kepler discovers that geometry (ellipse) describes planetary motion (theory: describes planetary motion (theory: sun/God animates the universe)sun/God animates the universe)

iv.iv. Newton theorizes that simple mathematical Newton theorizes that simple mathematical laws of gravity might explain Kepler’s laws of gravity might explain Kepler’s model of planetary motionmodel of planetary motion

C. Logical PositivismC. Logical Positivism

1.1. Positivism: 19Positivism: 19thth-Century idea that -Century idea that scientific knowledge is the only authentic scientific knowledge is the only authentic knowledge.knowledge.

2.2. Logical positivism (early 20Logical positivism (early 20thth century): century): Only statements proven true through Only statements proven true through logic (deduction) or observation logic (deduction) or observation (induction) are to be accepted. Fact vs. (induction) are to be accepted. Fact vs. value distinction.value distinction.

3.3. Process: Process: a.a. Induction: Prove statements true through Induction: Prove statements true through

observation, then…observation, then…b.b. Deduction: combine these statements to Deduction: combine these statements to

make new predictionsmake new predictions

4. Problems of Logical Positivism4. Problems of Logical Positivism

a.a. The Inductive Fallacy – How many The Inductive Fallacy – How many observations does it take to observations does it take to “confirm” a theory?“confirm” a theory?

Inductive FallacyInductive Fallacy

Fed at 9 AM everydayfor the past few months

Will always get fed at 9 AM

Christmas at 9 AM

Inductive Fallacy (continued)Inductive Fallacy (continued)

How many How many functions functions (explanations) will (explanations) will perfectly explain perfectly explain the data?the data?

An infinite number, An infinite number, making making dramatically dramatically different different predictionspredictions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6

Score

4. Problems of Logical Positivism4. Problems of Logical Positivism

a.a. The Inductive Fallacy – How many The Inductive Fallacy – How many observations does it take to observations does it take to “confirm” a theory?“confirm” a theory?

b.b. The Demarcation Problem – The Demarcation Problem – Empirical observation and attempts Empirical observation and attempts at confirmation don’t separate at confirmation don’t separate science and pseudo-science science and pseudo-science

Who uses empirical methods?Who uses empirical methods? Astrologers: Mass of horoscopes, Astrologers: Mass of horoscopes,

biographies, star chartsbiographies, star charts


biographies, star chartsbiographies, star charts Phrenologists: Thousands of skull Phrenologists: Thousands of skull

measurementsmeasurements


biographies, star chartsbiographies, star charts Phrenologists: Thousands of skull Phrenologists: Thousands of skull

measurementsmeasurements ““Scientific” racists: One recent Scientific” racists: One recent

author tabulates 620 separate author tabulates 620 separate studies of average IQ from 100 studies of average IQ from 100 different countries with a total different countries with a total sample size of 813,778 to confirm sample size of 813,778 to confirm hypotheses of racial differenceshypotheses of racial differences

C. FalsificationismC. Falsificationism

1.1. Karl Popper: Stop trying to confirm Karl Popper: Stop trying to confirm theories and try falsifying them insteadtheories and try falsifying them instead

2.2. Method: Make Method: Make novelnovel predictions with predictions with theory that prove the theory false if they theory that prove the theory false if they fail to occur (critical experiments)fail to occur (critical experiments)

3.3. Result: Scientific theories are never Result: Scientific theories are never proven true. Science consists of proven true. Science consists of conjectures (theories which haven’t conjectures (theories which haven’t failed yet) and refutations (those which failed yet) and refutations (those which have failed)have failed)

4. The Demarcation Problem4. The Demarcation Problem

a.a. Allows us to reject astrology, etc as Allows us to reject astrology, etc as pseudo-science: Astrologers rarely make pseudo-science: Astrologers rarely make testable predictions, and don’t give up testable predictions, and don’t give up astrology when they failastrology when they fail

b.b. Popper argues that Marxism and Popper argues that Marxism and Freudianism are both pseudo-science Freudianism are both pseudo-science (example of “false consciousness” in (example of “false consciousness” in Marxism) – enough ifs, ands, and buts Marxism) – enough ifs, ands, and buts allow them to “explain” anything after allow them to “explain” anything after the fact, but predict nothing novelthe fact, but predict nothing novel

5. Problems of Falsificationism5. Problems of Falsificationism

a.a. The The ceteris paribusceteris paribus Clause – Theories are Clause – Theories are tested “all else being equal” but it never tested “all else being equal” but it never is.is.

b.b. Virtually all useful scientific theories had Virtually all useful scientific theories had “anomalies” when first stated “anomalies” when first stated (Copernicus, plate tectonics, etc) – strict (Copernicus, plate tectonics, etc) – strict falsificationism is a recipe for ignorancefalsificationism is a recipe for ignorance

c.c. Popper’s solution: require a replacement Popper’s solution: require a replacement theory that explains everything the old theory that explains everything the old one did, plus something else, before one did, plus something else, before abandoning old theory (may mean we abandoning old theory (may mean we retain pseudoscience…)retain pseudoscience…)

D. Social Models of ScienceD. Social Models of Science1.1. Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shifts”Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shifts”

a.a. Idea: Science is a Idea: Science is a social activitysocial activity that proceeds that proceeds under a “paradigm” of unquestioned under a “paradigm” of unquestioned assumptions about the world and a set of assumptions about the world and a set of problems considered to be critical (value problems considered to be critical (value decision)decision)

b.b. Every interesting theory has anomalies – things Every interesting theory has anomalies – things that seem inconsistent with the theory.that seem inconsistent with the theory.

c.c. ““Normal science” is puzzle-solving; unexplained Normal science” is puzzle-solving; unexplained anomalies are simply assumed to be unsolved anomalies are simply assumed to be unsolved puzzles – scientists usually suppress novel puzzles – scientists usually suppress novel explanations if they can retain their paradigms explanations if they can retain their paradigms (Tycho Brahe believed in an earth-centered (Tycho Brahe believed in an earth-centered universe, plate tectonics was rejected for universe, plate tectonics was rejected for decades, etc)decades, etc)

d. Scientific Revolutionsd. Scientific Revolutions

When enough anomalies start piling up When enough anomalies start piling up (especially ones that get in the way of (especially ones that get in the way of practical uses of science), new practical uses of science), new explanations begin to receive a hearingexplanations begin to receive a hearing

At some point, the new explanation At some point, the new explanation becomes the “expected” explanation – a becomes the “expected” explanation – a new paradigmnew paradigm

Note that this is a social process – we Note that this is a social process – we cannot be sure the new paradigm is any cannot be sure the new paradigm is any “better” or more accurate than the old “better” or more accurate than the old one. It’s just…different.one. It’s just…different.

2. Lakatos: Research Programs2. Lakatos: Research Programs

a.a. Goal: Retain idea of falsification Goal: Retain idea of falsification while acknowledging that scientists while acknowledging that scientists do not actually reject theories when do not actually reject theories when anomalies are foundanomalies are found

b.b. Objections to Kuhn:Objections to Kuhn:i.i. Kuhn offers no way of comparing paradigms Kuhn offers no way of comparing paradigms

– but science often looks like it has – but science often looks like it has “progressed” over the past centuries“progressed” over the past centuries

ii.ii. Most fields have multiple “paradigms” at the Most fields have multiple “paradigms” at the same timesame time

c. The Methodology of Scientific c. The Methodology of Scientific Research ProgramsResearch Programs

i.i. Research programs rely on multiple theories to Research programs rely on multiple theories to identify problems and solve puzzlesidentify problems and solve puzzles

ii.ii. Each scientific research program has a “hard Each scientific research program has a “hard core” of unquestioned assumptions and a core” of unquestioned assumptions and a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses (i.e. “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses (i.e. attempts to “save” the program from attempts to “save” the program from falsification)falsification)

iii.iii. Evaluation: Look for “progressive” research Evaluation: Look for “progressive” research programs (making new predictions and programs (making new predictions and discoveries) and reject “degenerative” ones discoveries) and reject “degenerative” ones (simply adding to the protective belt without (simply adding to the protective belt without offering new knowledge)offering new knowledge)

Example: NeptuneExample: Neptune Astronomers discovered that the Astronomers discovered that the

orbit of Uranus didn’t match orbit of Uranus didn’t match Newton’s predictionsNewton’s predictions

They did NOT give up Newtonian They did NOT give up Newtonian physicsphysics

They DID add a new item to the They DID add a new item to the protective belt: something else protective belt: something else must be “perturbing” the orbit of must be “perturbing” the orbit of UranusUranus

This turned out to be Neptune: This turned out to be Neptune: Progressive change to research Progressive change to research programprogram

What if…no Neptune? Could What if…no Neptune? Could hypothesize that some hypothesize that some unobservable force acts only on unobservable force acts only on Uranus Uranus no new predictions = no new predictions = degenerative shiftdegenerative shift

d. The Demarcation Problemd. The Demarcation Problem

This was the assigned reading by This was the assigned reading by LakatosLakatos

How do we know pseudoscience?How do we know pseudoscience?– It critiques science without offering an It critiques science without offering an

alternative set of predictionsalternative set of predictions– It continually invents new hypotheses It continually invents new hypotheses

that explain its previous failures but do that explain its previous failures but do NOT make new, falsifiable predictionsNOT make new, falsifiable predictions

E. Conclusion: Standards for E. Conclusion: Standards for Evaluating ScienceEvaluating Science

1.1. Every model must be tested against Every model must be tested against another modelanother model

a.a. Simplest model = random chance Simplest model = random chance (systematic studies of astrology (systematic studies of astrology usually show it fails this test)usually show it fails this test)

b.b. It takes a model to beat a model – It takes a model to beat a model – Where an existing theory outperforms Where an existing theory outperforms chance, critics are obligated to suggest chance, critics are obligated to suggest a better explanation for the factsa better explanation for the facts

2. What makes one explanation 2. What makes one explanation better than another?better than another?

a.a. Progressive vs. degenerative research Progressive vs. degenerative research programs – A theory or set of theories programs – A theory or set of theories that keeps making novel, falsifiable that keeps making novel, falsifiable predictions beats one that keeps adding predictions beats one that keeps adding new assumptions just to explain what we new assumptions just to explain what we already know or generates untestable already know or generates untestable hypotheseshypotheses

b.b. Utility – Since we cannot be sure theories Utility – Since we cannot be sure theories are True or False (are True or False (ceteris paribusceteris paribus problem) they need to be useful. problem) they need to be useful. Preference for Preference for parsimoniousparsimonious theories theories using using observable variablesobservable variables..

III. IdeologyIII. Ideology

A.A. Ideology defined: A connected set Ideology defined: A connected set of beliefs about what the world of beliefs about what the world shouldshould look like look like

1.1. Preferences between Preferences between states of the states of the worldworld

2.2. Rationality: Connected and transitive Rationality: Connected and transitive preferencespreferences

B. Science vs. Ideology?B. Science vs. Ideology?

1.1. Science cannot “disprove” ideology Science cannot “disprove” ideology – because they address different – because they address different questions!questions!

2.2. Prediction vs. Prescription – “Taxes Prediction vs. Prescription – “Taxes stifle growth” vs. “Taxes should be stifle growth” vs. “Taxes should be cut.”cut.”

a.a. Ideology adds the “should”Ideology adds the “should”b.b. Ideology may Ideology may causecause people to make people to make

empirical statements (i.e. taxes and empirical statements (i.e. taxes and growth) but the statement is not a growth) but the statement is not a necessary part of the ideologynecessary part of the ideology

3. Styles of argument3. Styles of argument

a.a. Science: Hypothesis-testing and theory-Science: Hypothesis-testing and theory-comparison using datacomparison using data

b.b. Ideology: The “lawyer” style – Starting Ideology: The “lawyer” style – Starting with a conclusion and building a case with a conclusion and building a case from confirming evidencefrom confirming evidence

c.c. Implication: Scientists can also be Implication: Scientists can also be ideologues – “CO2 increases average ideologues – “CO2 increases average temperatures” vs. “Global warming must temperatures” vs. “Global warming must be stopped”be stopped”

C. Activism: How ideologues workC. Activism: How ideologues work

1.1. What do Americans think about the What do Americans think about the environment?environment?

a. The importance of a. The importance of saliencesalience: relative : relative weight of different issuesweight of different issues



a.a. The importance of The importance of saliencesalience: relative : relative weight of different issuesweight of different issues

b.b. General sympathy for environmental General sympathy for environmental movement (activists)movement (activists)



a.a. The importance of The importance of saliencesalience: relative : relative weight of different issuesweight of different issues

b.b. General sympathy for environmental General sympathy for environmental movement (activists)movement (activists)

c.c. Perception of environment as distant Perception of environment as distant problemproblem

2. Tactics of environmental activists2. Tactics of environmental activists

a.a. Raising the salience of the Raising the salience of the environmentenvironment

i.i. Time pressure: Argue a “brink” in the Time pressure: Argue a “brink” in the near futurenear future

ii.ii. Irrevocable damage: Argue that Irrevocable damage: Argue that environmental damage is different environmental damage is different from economic damage, i.e. cannot be from economic damage, i.e. cannot be repairedrepaired

iii.iii. Magnify impacts: Argue that Magnify impacts: Argue that environmental damage is worse than environmental damage is worse than other problems, i.e. risks human other problems, i.e. risks human extinction or other catastropheextinction or other catastrophe

b. Framing the issuesb. Framing the issues

i.i. ““Anti-Environmentalism” – Since Anti-Environmentalism” – Since public supports environmentalism, public supports environmentalism, activists portray opponents as anti-activists portray opponents as anti-environmentenvironment

ii.ii. The political use of science – The political use of science – Portray opponents as ignorant of Portray opponents as ignorant of environmental scienceenvironmental science

3. Is there an anti-environment 3. Is there an anti-environment ideology?ideology?

a.a. Who hates Earth? Not a serious interest Who hates Earth? Not a serious interest groupgroup

b.b. Key = some people have objectives they Key = some people have objectives they value MORE than environmental value MORE than environmental protectionprotection

c.c. What are those objectives? What are those objectives? Not a unified Not a unified ideologyideology: National security, economic : National security, economic growth, profits, property rights, etc.growth, profits, property rights, etc.

d.d. Most common adversary of Most common adversary of environmental movement = businessesenvironmental movement = businesses

4. Tactics of business interests 4. Tactics of business interests

a.a. General strategiesGeneral strategiesi.i. Key = be seen as pro-environmentKey = be seen as pro-environment

ii.ii. Emphasize issues of higher salience (gas Emphasize issues of higher salience (gas prices, jobs)prices, jobs)

b.b. ““Greenwashing”Greenwashing”i.i. Diversionary greenwashing – advertise Diversionary greenwashing – advertise

small-scale support for environment small-scale support for environment while inflicting large-scale damagewhile inflicting large-scale damage

This GE ad targets environmental sympathies.

What is the message of the ad?

FordFord

Not mentioned in Not mentioned in the ad: is they the ad: is they only produce only produce 20,000 of these 20,000 of these cars a year, while cars a year, while continuing to continuing to produce almost produce almost 80,000 F-series 80,000 F-series trucks per month!trucks per month!

Mobil OilMobil Oil ““Helping the Earth Breathe Easier” Helping the Earth Breathe Easier”

campaigncampaign Focuses on financial support for Focuses on financial support for

environmental groupsenvironmental groups

ii. Obfuscatory Greenwashingii. Obfuscatory Greenwashing

Goal = sell environmentally-destructive Goal = sell environmentally-destructive activity as environmentally-friendlyactivity as environmentally-friendly

Example: “They call it pollution. We Example: “They call it pollution. We call it life.”call it life.”

iii. Defensive Greenwashingiii. Defensive Greenwashing Attempts to shift Attempts to shift

responsibility from responsibility from activities of business to activities of business to other businesses or other businesses or consumersconsumers

Example: Ad by Clean Sky Example: Ad by Clean Sky Coalition (group of natural Coalition (group of natural gas companies) gas companies)

Another example: Keep Another example: Keep America Beautiful was America Beautiful was founded by corporations founded by corporations threatened by mandatory threatened by mandatory recycling / waste reduction recycling / waste reduction proposals. Their most proposals. Their most famous ad: Crying Indianfamous ad: Crying Indian

c. Astroturfing: Front groupsc. Astroturfing: Front groups

i.i. Problem: People don’t believe it when Problem: People don’t believe it when corporations defend their business models corporations defend their business models as good for everyone (suspicion of self-as good for everyone (suspicion of self-interest)interest)

ii.ii. Solution: Create groups that appear to be Solution: Create groups that appear to be composed of scientists, environmentalists, composed of scientists, environmentalists, economists, workers, etc. Use them as economists, workers, etc. Use them as mouthpieces for the same arguments.mouthpieces for the same arguments.

iii.iii. Distinct from ordinary funding: Involves Distinct from ordinary funding: Involves complete control over group’s messagecomplete control over group’s message

ExamplesExamples Corporate-ownedCorporate-owned

– Clean Skies Coalition (pro-gas): Entirely Clean Skies Coalition (pro-gas): Entirely composed of natural gas companiescomposed of natural gas companies

– Air Quality Standards Coalition (against Air Quality Standards Coalition (against mandatory emissions controls): Chaired by mandatory emissions controls): Chaired by National Association of ManufacturersNational Association of Manufacturers

– Sea Lion Defense Fund (against fishing Sea Lion Defense Fund (against fishing quotas): Association of Alaskan fishing quotas): Association of Alaskan fishing companies companies

Extensions of PR/Lobbying FirmsExtensions of PR/Lobbying Firms– Alliance for Better Foods (pro-GMO foods/anti-Alliance for Better Foods (pro-GMO foods/anti-

labeling): Run by BSMG Worldwide on behalf of labeling): Run by BSMG Worldwide on behalf of clients such as Monsantoclients such as Monsanto

– National Endangered Species Act Reform National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition (seeks to weaken ESA): Shares a fax Coalition (seeks to weaken ESA): Shares a fax number with lobbying firm Van Ness Feldmannumber with lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman

IV. Office-Holding and PoliticsIV. Office-Holding and PoliticsA.A. Politics Defined: Who Gets What? – or Politics Defined: Who Gets What? – or

“The “The authoritativeauthoritative allocationallocation of of resourcesresources and and valuesvalues.”.”

1.1. Implication: Implication: Politics creates winners and losersPolitics creates winners and losers2.2. Key Terms: Key Terms:

a.a. Authority: Government has a Authority: Government has a monopolymonopoly on on the the legitimatelegitimate use of force, so it is the only one use of force, so it is the only one with the authority to allocate.with the authority to allocate.

b.b. Resource Allocation: Money, labor, and even Resource Allocation: Money, labor, and even commoditiescommodities

c.c. Allocation of Values: Deciding between Allocation of Values: Deciding between incompatibleincompatible moral or ethical principles moral or ethical principles

B. A model of politics: How are B. A model of politics: How are resources authoritatively allocated?resources authoritatively allocated?

C. Agenda-SettingC. Agenda-Setting

Proposing alternatives to the Proposing alternatives to the status status quoquo– Status Quo: The way things are (the Status Quo: The way things are (the

current system)current system) How do office-holders view demands How do office-holders view demands

made by citizens? Assume their made by citizens? Assume their perspective for a moment…perspective for a moment…

1. Individuals

1. Individuals

1. Individuals -- Powerless alone

2. Unorganized Groups

2. Unorganized Groups -- Must be considered, but cannot set agenda

3. Organized interest groups

3. Organized interest groups -- Set agenda and shape citizen response

4. Benefits of Organization4. Benefits of Organization

a. Credible Commitment -- Conditional support

b. Outreach -- Publicity, Money, Media Access

c. Persuasion -- Information to representatives

5. How to Initiate Change in the US5. How to Initiate Change in the USa. Representatives: The Elected

• Use Money, Votes, Publicity• Math for politicians:• Anything + Money = Anything Else

Environmental Group Campaign Environmental Group Campaign Cash, 1990-2006Cash, 1990-2006

Energy / Resources Campaign Energy / Resources Campaign Contributions, 1990-2006Contributions, 1990-2006

5. How to Initiate Change in the US5. How to Initiate Change in the USa. Representatives: The Elected

• Use Money, Votes, Publicity• Math for politicians:• Anything + Money = Anything Else

b. Bureaucrats: Experts and Career Officials• Use Information

c. Appointees: Judges, Cabinet, etc.• Indirect: Target Appointers• Direct: Information, Lobbying, or Lawsuits

d. ALL: Illegal bribes, Influence Peddling (e.g. revolving-door lobbying), etc.

B. Government ActionB. Government Action1. Legislation1. Legislation

a. Logrolling: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

From the early American practice of neighbors gathering to help clear land by rolling off and burning felled timber.

Example of LogrollingExample of Logrolling

Republicans add ethanol subsidies to Republicans add ethanol subsidies to 2002 Energy bill to attract votes of 2002 Energy bill to attract votes of Democrats from Iowa and the Democrats from Iowa and the DakotasDakotas

Several Democratic Senators Several Democratic Senators (including majority leader Daschle-(including majority leader Daschle-SD) vote for the bill, enabling its SD) vote for the bill, enabling its passagepassage

B. Government ActionB. Government Action1. Legislation1. Legislation

a. Logrolling: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

b. Partisanship

From the early American practice of neighbors gathering to help clear land by rolling off and burning felled timber.

2. Bureaucratic Change2. Bureaucratic Change

a.a. Regulation: Power delegated to Regulation: Power delegated to Executive agencies by CongressExecutive agencies by Congress

b.b. Enforcement of lawsEnforcement of laws• 1981: Anne Gorsuch appointed to 1981: Anne Gorsuch appointed to

head Environmental Protection head Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First act = close Agency (EPA). First act = close enforcement office (to avoid the enforcement office (to avoid the embarassment of overturning embarassment of overturning popular environmental standards)popular environmental standards)

3. Judicial Change3. Judicial Change

a. Judicial Review: Power of a. Judicial Review: Power of courts to review lawscourts to review laws

b. Interpretation: Court must b. Interpretation: Court must interpret words like interpret words like “navigable waters” and “navigable waters” and “pollutant”“pollutant”

c. Limit: c. Limit: ChevronChevron deference deference (if law is unclear, then (if law is unclear, then defer to Executive)defer to Executive)

C. Citizen ResponseC. Citizen Response1. The Media

a. Ideology: Generally economically “conservative” – both owners and reporters critical of deficits, taxes, wasteful spending, limits on trade and immigration, etc. – but socially liberal (and quite pro-environment)

b. Bias

a. Spin Bias: General tendency to sensationalize stories for immediate impact. Favors catastrophic environmental scenarios over stories about incremental damage.

b. Citation Bias: Fox (Right), Other Broadcast Networks (Left)

C. Citizen ResponseC. Citizen Response1. The Media

a. Ideology: Generally economically “conservative” – both owners and reporters critical of deficits, taxes, wasteful spending, limits on trade and immigration, etc. – but socially liberal (and quite pro-environment)

b. Bias

a. Spin Bias: General tendency to sensationalize stories for immediate impact. Favors catastrophic environmental scenarios over stories about incremental damage.

b. Citation Bias: Fox (Right), Other Broadcast Networks (Left)

c. Effect of Bias: Remarkably small, due to self-selection by voters

c. How the media covers science c. How the media covers science storiesstories

i.i. Science reporters know little about Science reporters know little about science – they are journalistsscience – they are journalists

ii.ii. ““Both sides of the story” – Reports on Both sides of the story” – Reports on candy and tooth decay must include candy and tooth decay must include sugar spokesperson… Does this create sugar spokesperson… Does this create false equivalence, or is it necessary for false equivalence, or is it necessary for fairness?fairness?

iii.iii. No follow-up – Media loves new No follow-up – Media loves new “discoveries” but seldom reports on “discoveries” but seldom reports on whether they hold up to replicationwhether they hold up to replication

2. How Politicians Manipulate 2. How Politicians Manipulate ActivistsActivists

a.a. ““Lesser of two evils” – Convince issue Lesser of two evils” – Convince issue group to put party ID ahead of issue group to put party ID ahead of issue stance in individual racesstance in individual races

b.b. Janus-Face – Politicians say what activists Janus-Face – Politicians say what activists want to hearwant to hear

c.c. The Takeover – Political activists try to The Takeover – Political activists try to gain control of established organizations gain control of established organizations (Sierra Club immigration battle, NRA (Sierra Club immigration battle, NRA shifts from sporting to gun rights)shifts from sporting to gun rights)

d.d. Front Groups – Can convince activists to Front Groups – Can convince activists to oppose one’s opponentoppose one’s opponent

3. Elections: The Environmentalist 3. Elections: The Environmentalist Office-Holder’s DilemmaOffice-Holder’s Dilemma

a. Environmentalism is popular – but seldom affects vote choice, despite public support for Democratic policies on the issue. Why?a. Low salienceb. Small perceived differences between

candidates on matters of environmental policy – Probably due to low information

c. Environmentalism is weaker than partisan feeling – Republicans seldom switch votes due to the issue, and independents see liitle difference between parties.

b.b. Economic performance DOES affect vote Economic performance DOES affect vote choicechoice

• Economy:Economy:

Gore 2000

Bush 2004

4. Behavior4. Behaviora.a. Protest: “Battle of Seattle,” Eco-Protest: “Battle of Seattle,” Eco-

Terrorism (ELF)Terrorism (ELF)

b.b. Non-compliance: 55 MPH LimitNon-compliance: 55 MPH Limit

V. Evaluating Environmental V. Evaluating Environmental ControversiesControversies

A.A. Separate the questionsSeparate the questions1.1. Claims about observable variablesClaims about observable variables

a.a. Descriptive claims – Arguments about the true Descriptive claims – Arguments about the true value of a measurable variable, or about its value of a measurable variable, or about its direction or rate of changedirection or rate of change

b.b. Causal statements – Arguments that increases Causal statements – Arguments that increases in an in an independentindependent variable will increase or variable will increase or decrease a decrease a dependentdependent variable. variable.

2.2. Claims about unobservable variables (i.e. Claims about unobservable variables (i.e. the distant future or what might have the distant future or what might have been)been)

3.3. Claims about values (should/ought Claims about values (should/ought statements)statements)

B. The right methods for the right B. The right methods for the right questionsquestions

1.1. Descriptive or causal statements – use Descriptive or causal statements – use scientific reasoning (compare theories, scientific reasoning (compare theories, choosing for progressive research choosing for progressive research programs over degenerative ones)programs over degenerative ones)

a.a. Physical science – Use physical scientific Physical science – Use physical scientific theoriestheories

b.b. Social science – Use models of politics and/or Social science – Use models of politics and/or economicseconomics

2.2. Unobservable variables – Use the best Unobservable variables – Use the best available theory on observable variables available theory on observable variables to predict the unobservable onesto predict the unobservable ones

3. Philosophy and Religion3. Philosophy and Religion

a.a. Value claims require moral reasoningValue claims require moral reasoningb.b. Goals of moral philosophy (scholars Goals of moral philosophy (scholars

disagree about which ones are disagree about which ones are important)important)

i.i. Consistency – Treat morally similar situations Consistency – Treat morally similar situations similarly (the same rules apply to all)similarly (the same rules apply to all)

ii.ii. Comfort – Willingness to accept/follow the Comfort – Willingness to accept/follow the overall philosophyoverall philosophy

iii.iii. Utility – The system should be usable to Utility – The system should be usable to quickly render moral judgments using quickly render moral judgments using available dataavailable data

c.c. Value claims have political implications – Value claims have political implications – about who should get whatabout who should get what

Documents

Three Faces of Environmental Politics Science, Ideology, and Office-Holding