Suchergebnisse

Despite the popularity of social movement participation as a form of political action in the US, with impressive demonstrations of widespread support, such movements are often unable to effect desired policy changes. A resolution to this problem is sought by distinguishing between three approaches that movements can take: demanding policy changes, achieving participation in the policy process, & transforming social values. The second is argued to be the most effective, since public officials are more likely to accept offers of cooperative participation than demands for policy change, & transforming public values requires considerable time, if it is possible at all. The nuclear freeze movement is considered as a case in point to demonstrate the futility of demanding policy change, & the movement to control hazardous waste, to illustrate the efficacy of participation for influencing policy decisions. Adapted from the source document.

Drawing from the literature on public participation and stakeholder collaboratives, this article investigates the influence of power and wealth, as well as political and economic context on the output of stakeholders advisory committees convened to formulate state greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies. Using small sample regression techniques, we analyze the outputs of stakeholder groups in 18 states that have completed Climate Action Plans to reduce GHGs. We find that an increase of 1 percent in the number of energy industry representatives that participate in Climate Action Councils significantly predicts a 4 percent reduction of GHG mitigation targets for the energy sector. More surprisingly, the results also show that where the utilities represent a larger share of the state economy, the Climate Action Plans identify more aggressive GHG reduction goals for the energy sector. We also find that the political orientation of the executive of the state is not correlated with GHG mitigation requirements for the energy sector, suggesting that GHG mitigation is less partisan at the state level than in Washington, DC. We find no evidence that state wealth is associated with GHG mitigation requirements. Finally, we suggest additional research needed to clarify the role of stakeholder participation processes in the evolving arena of climate change policy.

For all its economic capacity, population size, and resource base, California remains only one among the 50 United States and, essentially, is a subnational actor attempting to play a role in the climate change policy arena on par with the nation-states of the world. This raises a series of questions about the substance and breadth of the state's new policy and what has motivated it. The state's policy declarations and initial flurry of activities are impressive. As with all so broad and sweeping initiatives, it remains to be seen the extent to which policy goals can and will be translated into operational rules and regulations, incentives and sanctions, and actual accomplishments across all the sectors of the state's economy over the course of not just months and years but the decades to come.

The paradox motivating this article is why California has acted globally by enacting a comprehensive mitigation policy to reduce the emissions of Greenhouse gases, a true public good since the benefits will be shared across the planet, but has not mustered the will to act locally through the adoption of an equally comprehensive adaptation policy for the state to protect its own public and private assets and interests. We attempt to explain the paradox by identifying what it is that differentiates climate change adaptation from mitigation, both substantively and politically. The paradox notwithstanding, we identify several imaginable adaptation policies and strategies that would be commensurate with individual and collective self-interested behavior.

It is a long-held belief among scholars and practitioners that the State of California is a notable subnational leader in environmental and climate change policy. This article focuses primarily on four essential contextual factors that explain why and how within the United States' federal system of government California has become such an important leader, performing far in excess of the national government and most other states. These essential factors are preferences, authority, capacity, and effectiveness. The article then moves to the multifaceted implementation strategy California policy makers have employed to realize their environmental goals. Finally, despite the history of strong leadership, the state continues to face a host of significant challenges in realizing its ambitious climate change goals for the coming decades.

America is entering a tumultuous period unrivaled in recent history. We are facing a disruption of our economy only rivaled by the Great Depression. We need to come to grips with our reliance on foreign oil that is at the heart of our national security problems. We are confronted with the challenge of global survival because of climate change. Finally, our economic growth over the past several decades has left many in America behind. These were the key issues in the recent presidential election, which was essentially an 18-month national visioning process that established societal goals of reducing CO2, decreasing dependence on imported oil, and increasing economic well-being for all Americans. The goals established through this extensive national debate and election started a transformation process that will enable America to overcome the enormous challenges we face and initiate an investment program that will continue for decades and through this century. The societal goals, articulated in broad scope, must now be translated by the President and Congress into explicit performance standards and policy directives, which will, in turn, be applied within each of the nation's megaregions to create a "Strategic Investment Framework" to meet the national vision and goals. Our global competitors are keenly focused on how to envision and build this new 21st-century society. We must do the same.

The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.