Environmentalism and science are often conflated with one another. The climate space has become crowded with concerned citizens, scientists, celebrities, and politicians, making it both a movement of scientific interest and of pop culture. This duality has led to questions over the role science should play in policymaking and how agnostic scientists ought to remain in the face of climate change. While Steel (2015) provides a summary of the various models for scientific engagement, Ojha et al (2016) highlight the failure of science to consider sociological and cultural concerns. On the other hand, Kusch (2019) argues that not only should science be involved in policymaking, but that it is unavoidably biased and necessarily political. However, Gluckman (2015) contends the limitations of science are precisely why its roll in policy should be limited. Finally, mass-media outlets like the BBC, TED, and Yes! provide insight into how environmentalism manifests in popular culture, from celebrities like Greta Thunberg and Al Gore, to popular movements in Latin America and Ghana. These movements underpin political pressure and can motivate states to form international treaties and IGOs around shared environmental concerns. While McCormick (1999) is fairly critical of such treaties, Susskind (2008) and Koppel & Sprinz (2009) are more optimistic. In short, environmentalism is an artifact of popular culture and scientific intrigue, making it both a highly contested and competitive space.
Analysis
As environmentalism has grown in public salience, science has taken an increasingly prominent role in both public and private sector debate. However, the nature of this role has been largely contested. For example, Steel (2015) writes that the spectrum of involvement includes approaches like normal science, which seeks to advise but not instruct, to logical positivism, which advocates for scientists writing policy on relevant matters (p. xxv). Others, like Ojha et al (2015), question whether technocratic decision making is equipped to address sociological and cultural concerns. Good policy, they argue, cannot be effective without involving the communities most impacted by climate change (p. 418). For instance, they note the Nepalese government’s lack of engagement with the local community on climate policy, even though those communities were disproportionately impacted by glacial runoff and other factors. Nonetheless, Ojha et al conclude that science is a component of the policymaking process, and should be considered equally alongside sociological, political, and economic expertise.
Other dimensions of scientific involvement are still further removed from one-another. Steel (2015) writes that the post-modernists view science as a construct and part of a larger power pyramid. In this framework, the role of science is minimized and not seen as possessing more inherent truth than feeling and personal experience (p. xix). The post-normal view, on the other hand, advocates that the role of science should be institutionalized and integrated into legislative committees, the courts, and policymaking arenas (pp. xxv-xxvi). In a TED Talk, Kusch (2019) goes a step further, arguing that not only should scientists be politically engaged, but that such engagement is necessary (8.00). Finally, others like Gluckman (2018) echo the post-modern sentiment, expressing a desire to remove evidence-based policymaking from our vocabularies (p. 91). Gluckman argues that policymaking often takes place at the boundary of scientific understanding, that science is not the only form of evidence, and that tradition and folklore carry special cultural significance (p. 92). In that, Gluckman expresses the concerns raised by Ojha et al (2015) and suggests that policymakers ought to consider the sociological impact, not simply the ecological outcome, of climate policies.
As the preceding discussion demonstrated, the environmental policy arena contains multiple actors, from scientists and sociologists to legislatures and local communities. Among the largest of these constituencies are the public, among whom celebrities, politicians, and grassroots organizations are part. In fact, scientists can cross into the public domain. For example, Rachel Carson’s widely acclaimed book Silent Spring is credited with launching the modern environmentalist movement, and changing the national attitude toward climate (Stoll, n.d.). However, the impact of individuals and the fickle nature of climate in the public mind, leave open how much influence one person can have. On the one hand, environmental celebrities, like Greta Thunberg, criticize but offer little in the way of solutions (BBC, 2024). On the other hand, politician turned private citizen, Al Gore (2020), is able to speak intelligently on climate issues in a way that connects with the average citizen. The ability to raise awareness, therefore, is at least partly contingent upon the ability to inform and connect.
As mentioned, Rachel Carson’s book is broadly credited with spawning a global movement (Stoll, n.d.). Pragmatic views such as those expressed by Al Gore can similarly introduce environmentalism to the layperson. Nonetheless, even if such issue proliferation gives rise to popular movements like those in Ghana or Latin America (Pousadela, 2020), their impact is uncertain. For instance, deforestation, water, and air pollution are still concerns throughout much of the world. Stoll (n.d.) writes that while every one of the chemicals listed in Carson’s book has been banned or restricted, chemical contamination continues to be a public concern. Similarly, Pousadela (2020) writes that while popular environmental movements have sparked government awareness, their actual impact on policy remains unclear. It’s important therefore, that environmental stewards exist as ambassadors of the climate issue, but simply raising awareness doesn’t constitute structural change.
While activism can pressure policymakers to act, international treaties are another means of bringing about change. Much like raising awareness, however, international agreements and IGOs can be criticized for lacking effectiveness. McCormick (1999), for example, writes that such treaties are often weak, lack enforcement mechanisms, and compete with national priorities (p. 92). Moreover, the lack of a global governing body means states can neither be coerced nor held accountable for not following international law (p. 97). Susskind (2008) echoed this realist view, adding that politician’s commitment to international agreements is often superficial and subordinate to the election cycle. Nonetheless, legally binding agreements can form the basis for both economic prosperity and environmental responsibility.
That said, the two regimes can seem at odds. For example, Bhagwati (1993) notes the inherent tension between economics and environmental politics. One abstains from government regulation, the other invites it (p. 42). In fact, concerns about over-regulation could be supported by Levy (1996) who argued that non-binding agreements are more effective than their legally binding counterparts. While LBAs foster animosity, LNBAs encourage collaboration and willful participation on climate issues (p. 76). Furthermore, Levy’s arguments suggest good environmental policy and economics are not mutually exclusive. In one example, the European Commission, whose primary focus is economics, worked to enforce cross-border emissions restrictions as a means of ensuring both economic synergy and environmental responsibility (p. 108). Similarly, Bhagwati (1993) writes that economic growth does not necessarily correlate to greater environmental harm. For example, Bhagwati cites studies indicating SO2 emissions fall as incomes rise (p. 43). Moreover, policies can impact environmental outcomes. For instance, restrictions on auto imports led the Japanese to export larger, less fuel-efficient SUVs (p. 43). Even if assumptions about GHG emissions and growth are contested, it’s clear that policy, economics, and the environment are intertwined.
To this extent, Bhagwati (1993) argues that private boycotts and lobbying are effective alternatives to environmental regulation (p. 47). While these strategies may be part of the solution, the rise in global emissions suggests that international law still has a role to play. Contrary to the arguments made by Levy (1996), Koppel & Sprinz (2009) contend that legally-binding treaties are the best means of enforcing such laws. More importantly, they write, these agreements must contain mechanisms to enforce terms and peacefully resolve disputes (p. 1863). Among the more compelling solutions offered, Susskind (2008) proposes writing agreements that allow for the sharing of green technology across borders. This technical proliferation could be paired with what Koppel & Sprinz (2009) write is a need for clear and precise laws that are both understandable and enforceable (p. 1866). In short, economic growth and regulation are not mutually exclusive. It’s also clear that economic policies can provide both environmental risks and upside. As Bhagwati (1993) writes, the increased tax revue that comes from economic growth can form the basis for future environmental programs. Nonetheless, whether legally binding or voluntary, some form of international cooperation is required.
Outlook
Without a doubt, the criticism levelled at activists like Greta Thunberg, international organizations like the UN, and the myriad of treaties governing global resources is valid. Raising awareness, as Thunberg or other activists do, is the lowest point of entry to involvement in the global climate discussion. It’s much more difficult to imagine an innovative policy approach or to design more efficient solar cells. To this extent, the marginal utility of the UN or other IGOs in doing more than holding meetings is questionable. As Susskind (2008) pointed out, world leaders are worried about the next election cycle and scoring points with their constituents. In this, the realist model of the world clearly holds serve. The best international bodies can do is suggest a course of action. This places the climate agenda firmly in the hands of the private sector, and this is perhaps where efforts to raise awareness have a role to play.
While the status of China and the United States as the world’s leading emitters casts serious doubt on Bhagwati’s (1993) argument that growth lowers emissions, there’s a compelling argument that environmental change lies in the hands of private citizens. For one thing, green growth can reduce our carbon footprint while also benefiting the economy. Furthermore, carbon markets provide both public and private incentive to operate in a more sustainable way. Hein (2018) writes that fewer than half of the countries committed to reducing deforestation had the financial instruments to achieve their goals (p. 8). Carbon markets are one such instrument and represent an opportunity for regulators and private business to work together. Finally, it goes without saying that innovation happens in the private sector, not via UN conferences or activist marches. At some point, the engineering challenges of climate change must be solved by the technical minds focused on those problems. Sharing technology across borders as recommended by Susskind (2008) is one approach, incentives offered in the Inflation Reduction Act are another. Therefore, regardless of the mechanism, the goals of governments ought to be how best to enable the people solving the problems of climate change to do their greatest work.
References
BBC. (2024). Greta Thunberg: Who is the climate activist and what has she achieved. BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49918719
Bhagwati, J.N. (1993). The case for free trade. Scientific American, 269(5), 42-49.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/issue/sa/1993/11-01/
Gluckman, P. (2018). The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making: The politics and
practice of science advice. Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 151(1), 91-101. https://royalsoc.org.au/images/pdf/journal/151-1-Gluckman.pdf
Gore, A. (2020, June 23). The new urgency of climate change [Video]. TED.
https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_new_urgency_of_climate_change#t-1987370
Hein, J., Guarin, A., Frommé, E., & Pauw, P. (2018). Deforestation and the Paris climate
agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. Forest Policy and Economics, 90, 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.005
Holst, C. & Christensen, J. (2016). The role of expertise in policymaking. Open Access
Government. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/role-expertise-policy-making/28592/
Koppel, M. & Sprinz, D.F. (2019). Do binding beat nonbinding agreements? Regulating
international water quality. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(8), 1860-1888. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002718822127
Levy, M.A. (1996). European acid rain: The power of tote-board diplomacy. Keohane, R.O. &
Levy M.A. (Eds.). Institutions for Environmental Aid: Pitfalls and Promises. (pp. 37-94). MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262611206/institutions-for-environmental-aid/
McCormick, J. (2010). The role of environmental NGOs in international regimes. Axelrod, R.S.
& Vandeveer, S. (Eds.), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy (pp. 92-110). CQ Press. https://www.academia.edu/857760/The_role_of_environmental_NGOs_in_international_regimes
Pousadela, I. (2020). Stories from the youth climate movement in the global south. Yes!
https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2020/07/17/youth-climate-leaders-global-south
Ojha, H. R., Ghimire, S., Pain, A., Nightingale, A., Khatri, D. B., & Dhungana, H. (2016). Policy
without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal. Climate Policy, 16(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.1003775
Steel, B.S. (Ed.). (2015). Science and politics: An A-to-Z guide to issues and controversies. Sage
Publishing. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/science-and-politics/book239100
Stoll, M. (n.d.). Legacy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Environment & Society Portal.
Susskind, L. (2008). Strengthening the global environmental treaty system. Issues in Science and
Technology, 25(1). https://issues.org/susskind/
TEDx Talks. (2019, December 6). Scientific expertise in the age of post-truth – Martin Kusch –
TEDxVienna [Video]. YouTube. https://youtube.com/watch?v=AHa4QLmu8Dg