Search results

*Bayartsengel Damdinjav, Chuck Davis, Steven Jones, Zach Long, Claudia Risner, Sydney Sheppard, Christina Slentz Climate change is the global challenge of the twenty-first century, a threat that carries dire environmental, social, security, and economic implications for every region of the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the primary driver of climate change is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributed to human activities. Although climate change must be met with a comprehensive global response in order to effectively address the effects of harmful greenhouse gases (GHG), these efforts depend on the actions taking place within nations. The United States, the greatest per-capita emitter of GHG, and China, that produces the largest amount of GHG overall, bear a good deal of responsibility for the problem. The United States, in particular, with its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and its inability to craft a viable climate change agenda, has failed to offer the leadership needed to secure meaningful reductions in GHG. This essay seeks to establish perspective by profiling the political, social, and economic circumstances within six nations (three advanced industrial countries and three newly modernizing countries) and the European Union (EU) in order to better understand the dynamics involved in achieving a global solution to climate change.Case Studies1.- European UnionThe European Union has led the push for climate change regulationsto curb emissions 30% by 2030 and 80%-95% by 2050. To reach that goal, it has invested significant funds targetting 20% of the EU budget from 2014-2020 towards climate related measures. The EU believes that climate change policies will not only preserve the planet for generations to come but will also create greater long-term health and economic benefits. This position can be attributed to the lack of politicization of climate change in the EU allowing politicians to advocate forward thinking policies without the constant fear of political or electoral retribution. Furthermore, the close proximity of EU member states and their relatively small size creates an "all in this together" mentality allowing them to harness their resources to compete with larger world powers.2.- United KingdomWidely acknowledged as one of the foremost countries addressing climate change, the United Kingdom moved definitively to establish a science-based framework for approaching this global phenomenon even prior to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. This de-politicizing effort is revealed in the staunch support of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, whose instrumental leadership set this critical tone and aided in the formation of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, and Tony Blair, who seized his 2005 G-8 presidential term as an opportunity to promote the reduction of GHG through mitigation technologies, sustainable energy, and adaptation strategies. The UK has fostered domestic integration of climate and energy policies to reduce ill effects at home as well as international cooperation in the form of a post-Kyoto strategy and the ongoing European Union's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to blend climate change collaborative goals of equity distribution and cost effectiveness.3.- CanadaCanada's efforts to address climate change can be best described as leaping forward, stepping back and, finally, standing in place. An original early proponent for mitigation since 1975, under the Chrétien administration in the 1990s, the country committed to relatively aggressive reductions - - a 30% decrease over projected 2010 emissions - - as part of the Kyoto Protocol. However, a clear implementation plan proved elusive until 2005, at which time "Project Green" successfully established meaningful initiatives. Although temporarily rolled back the following year under the more business-friendly Harper administration, a brief surge in climate change public awareness subsequently forced the return of some mitigation initiatives. Currently, climate change policy stagnation is largely explained by prioritizing economic growth over environmental concernsparticularly in the wake of the 2008 Credit Crisis.It is further complicated by Canada's neighbor to the south - - the administration of President Barack Obama who supports addressing GHG emissions and a clean energy future.4.- AustraliaAustralia's international position on climate change reflects its domestic policy agenda. For the first 10-years of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997-2007, Australia was a climate change laggard based on both its refusal to ratify the agreement and its largely symbolic GHG reduction policies. In 2007, Australia ratified the Protocol and implemented stringent abatement policies but is now reversing course. What caused the shifts Down Under? Two domestic factors, electoral interests and political leadership, are most influential. Compared to economic growth, voters' prioritization of environmental issues rose until 2007 and then declined. The political leadership within the Coalition government (1996-2007, reelected in 2013) favors business and the fossil fuel industry, and is skeptical of climate change. This stands in contrast to the Labor Party (2007-2013) that favors GHG emissions reductions. So, although Australia has committed internationally to a 5% reduction of 2000 level emissions by 2020, it still lacks a consistent domestic policy to achieve this goal. Russia Russia experienced massive industrial decline in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Despite the fact that there has been a significant reduction of GHG emissions, Russia still ranks third on the list of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. Problems caused by climate change in recent decades include public health risks, increased recurrence, intensity and duration of droughts in some regions, extreme precipitation patterns, floods, and over-moisturized soil and permafrost degradation in the northern regions. However, the climate change issue does not constitute a priority for Russian authorities. Several internal factors, such as a well-rooted skepticism within the Russian scientific community towards anthropogenic global warming, low environmental awareness among Russian citizens, and the priority given to the country's economic restoration, suggests that Russian climate policy is to a great extent being driven by the pursuit of benefits in areas other than that of environmental policy.ChinaOne of the best ways to summarize China's approach to climate change is via a domestic politics model. Decisionmakers involved in China's climate change policy belong to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and there is little or no foreign influence over them. Among these decision makers, the most influential have managed to frame the issue as one of sovereignty and economic development. These hardliners see climate change as an issue that threatens China's sovereignty and its right to develop economically. As such, it has taken a stance of not joining any multilateral agreement until the U.S. does so. Thus, China's right to develop economically is assured. Domestically, China has made progress developing solar and wind technology for domestic use and for foreign markets. However, it continues to use fossil fuels, especially coal,to ensure that it develops along the lines deemed acceptable to the CCP.IndiaIndia's position on climate change is guided by two priorities - - namely, sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. With a growing economy that demands more energy for growth, there are hundreds of millions of people without access to electricity in India. Energy use and consequently greenhouse gas emissions will grow substantially in the coming decades. As a modernizing country, India is not bound to any GHG emission reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocol. However, it has established a National Action Plan on Climate Change and implemented a combination of mitigation and adaptation policies to reduce the country's contributions to climate change. These policies include energy conservation, promotion of renewable energy, abatement of air pollution among others. While India's development will require growth in energy use, the country must work to reduce the energy intensity of its production processes.Comparative AnalysisOn the basis of political, economic and social factors, a comparative analysis of the case studies reveals three key groupings: supporters of international climate change policy that involves implementing significant carbon mitigation reduction requirements; fickle hesitators who, if cooperative, face major reduction requirements; and unburdened supporters who face little-to-no mitigation requirements. The EU and the UK, as a climate change leader, fall into the first category, politically defined as highly democratic and economically and regionally integrated. The EU and the UK have softened views on sovereignty, have historically utilized the market for political/social ends, and normatively seek international cooperation as a means of reducing risk.For Canada and Australia,reduced support for international action on climate change is largely based on modern era socio-political attitudes and a perceived threat to their economic viability. Stemming from strong political views on state sovereignty, they are historically less likely to cooperate on international initiatives and, unlike the economically integrated EU and UK, are not willing to constrain markets in the name of political or social ends. These nations traditionally prefer individualistic as opposed to collective responses to major issues and consequently see cooperative action as risky.The newly modernizing countries of China, India and Russia exhibit different degrees of democracy and are not economically integrated nor fully industrialized. While highly centralized political authority is helpful in making international level commitments, enforcement capacity is hindered domestically. Willingness to cooperate is generally conditional upon gaining financial assistance and technical support needed for development. For China and Russia, the first priority is maintaining state authority and social well-being for the sake of stability. Environmental policy is put forward only when these priorities are not threatened. For India, the focus centers on lifting its population out of poverty that takes precedence over international climate change cooperation.ConclusionOverall, countries willing to cooperate internationally and make sacrifices to mitigate the causes of climate change perceive a lower economic and political threat for doing so than countries that refuse. In fact, the supporters of international climate change policy are more likely to view global warming as an all-encompassing economic, political, and social threat rather than as a discrete environmental threat. Having said this, they also see potential opportunities in assuming the role of early adaptors to climate change.Countries reluctant to support international cooperation face domestic political barriers that the comparative analysis above indicates is due primarily to economic perceptions and viability. Some countries that have rejected a commitment to international cooperation have, in fact, implemented national or sub-state abatement policies. At the same time, others ignore the threat entirely.In short, differences in behavior toward climate change indicates that not all countries perceive the threat the same. The task for climate change leaders, therefore, is to maintain their resolve to educate global populations such that perceptions of economic risk become less significant than perceptions of climate change risk. At the same time, they must offer best practices of reducing compliance costs and sharing knowledgeto build a clean energy agenda in order to ensure a sustainable global solution to climate change. *Students in the Graduate Program in International StudiesOld Dominion University, USAUnder the Direction of Professor Glen Sussman

Why should the global community be concerned about climate change? What are the consequences of climate change? How has the clash between science and politics in the United States affected the policy debate about climate change around the world? Why has the United States failed to offer leadership on climate change? What can be done to craft a viable climate change agenda? These questions will guide the discussion below.Why should the global community be concerned about climate change?Climate change is one of the most important policy issues of the twenty-first century. It has potentially devastating consequences for the global environment. It is a transnational challenge that has social, political, and economic implications for the entire international community. During the first ten years of the twenty-first century, we have experienced the warmest years in modern climate history. This same decade has been characterized as one of the warmest on record. Although the scientific community has raised serious concerns about climate change, this global environmental phenomenon has not received the same kind of responsesuch as aPearl Harbor in 1941 or a 9/11 in New York City in 2001 that rallied U.S. citizens and the U.S. government to action.The political conflict over climate change within and between countries, especially in the United States, has demonstrated three important aspects about this issue. First, it shows how the clash between science and politics delays action. Second, it demonstrates how ideology and entrenched economic interests can trump the research findings of the scientific community. Third, it makes clear that rather than offering leadership, the U.S. has assumed the role of a laggard on the issue of climate change.What are the consequences of climate change? We are beyond the point of framing the issue of climate change as a "debate." There is no debate. As we have learned from the scientific community as reflected by the research of the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change in its 4th (2007) and 5th (2013) reports, climate change is occurring and human activities are a major contributor to the problem, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Global reinsurance companies including Munich Re, Swiss Re, and Lloyds of London have raised serious concerns about the prospects of a warming planet and the impact on the global insurance industry. In the United States, for instance, the consequences of climate change is forcing domestic insurance companies including MetLife, State Farm, Allstate, and American International Group to reconsider their coverage of commercial and residential properties in coastal zones. To be candid and frank, global and nationally-based insurance companies are well aware of the impact of human-induced climate change. A sample of the consequences of climate change can be described as follows.First, carbon dioxide, one of the primary greenhouse gases associated with climate change, has been absorbed into the atmosphere, terrestrial areas, and the oceans. The oceans, in particular, face a serious threat in terms of marine life, the fishing industry, coral reefs, and increased acidification. Second, with the melting of the polar caps, a warming planet is already resulting in rising seas around the globe. For instance, the states on the East and Gulf coasts of the United States are being challenged to establish viable adaption strategies to address rising seas. At the same time, some coastal areas are dealing with the twin threats of rising seas and sinking lands (i.e., subsidence). Moreover, sea level rise is not consistent around the globe, but rather, it is characterized by its variation. In other words, we see differential impacts facing some coastal areas (e.g., Bangladesh) compared to other coastal regions. Third, a warming planet and especially warmer seas will create an environment of more ferocious hurricanes. For instance, scientists at the 2007 International Summit on Global Warming, Climate Change, and Hurricanes were less concerned about the frequency of hurricanes and were increasingly concerned about the destructiveness of Katrina-like tropical cyclones around the globe. Fourth, an increasingly important aspect of this global environmental phenomenon is the impact of climate change on public health. One aspect of this concern involves an increase in water-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever due to the warming of the planet.How has the clash between science and politics in the United States affected the policy debate about climate change?The political response of the U.S. to climate change has been influenced bythe conflict taking place between the scientific community and a variety of partisans within the country.On the one hand, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change to the Environmental Protection Agency, from the World Meteorological Organization to the vast majority of climate scientists, we have learned that this global environmental phenomenon is clearly due to human actions. On the other hand, a variety of individuals and groups including members of the U.S. Congressto media celebritiesto organized interests (e.g., the fossil fuel industry) have been successful in opposing U.S. action on climate change. For instance, James Inhofe, Republican Senator representing the state of Oklahoma has been at the forefront of opposing federal and state actions in response to climate change. As a matter of fact, where Inhofe went so far as to say that climate change is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public,"conservative radio show host, Rush Limbaugh, stated that the "anti-global warmers have to go out there and get their own science to counter the science that the pro-global warming crowd is using, and they're making it up." In short, the clash between science and politics in the U.S. over climate change clearly shows the power of entrenched domestic interests and their impact on policy making.During the 1990s, a variety of industries including fossil fuels, automotive, manufacturing among others created the Global Climate Coalition to oppose efforts to respond to climate change.This coalition eventually collapsed as various industries withdrew from it. Another example of opposition to action on climate change is the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that published articles in opposition to federal action on climate change. It is important to note that underlying the actions of deniers of human-induced climate change has been their position that government regulations imposed on business and industry would be harmful to U.S. jobs and trade competitiveness. The veracity of this concern, however, has yet to be realized. Moreover, this argument set forth by the deniers overlooks the growth in green jobs and the benefits of a clean energy agenda.Why has the United States failed to offer leadership on climate change? Until recently, the United States was the number one producer of the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Notwithstanding China's recent emergence as the largest producer of greenhouse gases, the U.S. remains a key player in greenhouse gas production and it remains a laggard in taking action to reduce greenhouse gases. We now turn our attention to the role of five key players in the U.S. political system.As far as modern U.S. presidents are concerned, where Ronald Reagan ignored the issue of climate change during the 1980s leading up to the Earth Summit in 1992, George H. W. Bush, facing pressure at home, opposed mandatory guidelines and timetables that emerged from the Earth Summit and used his influence to change the requirements to voluntary efforts on the part of industry. Having said this, the fact that Bush signed the climate change treaty lent legitimacy to the issue. Bill Clinton and his environmental Vice President Al Gore attempted to push a climate change agenda but ran into strong opposition from the U.S. Congress. Two months into his presidency, George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol arguing that it would hurt the U.S. economy and jobs.The U.S. Congress has been a major obstacle in responding to climate change.During the 1990s until the present time, Congressional Republicans held a majority during the administrations of Clinton and Bush, the son, and have controlled the House of Representatives during the Obama administration. Congressional Republicans, along with Democrats representing energy-intensive states, have opposed action on climate change.In a move that surprised many observers of American politics, the Supreme Court,the highest court in the U.S.,ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Action, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, had a responsibility to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and the environment. However, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has usedits resources to thwart action on the part of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.One aspect of American politics that has offered hope for a clean energy future has been the importance of federalism where a growing number of states have taken actions alone and in concert with other states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Moreover, several coalitions of U.S. states have joined with Canadian provinces in these efforts. In short, numerous states in the U.S. are taking action in response to climate change because of the failure of the U.S. federal government to act.What can be done to craft a viable climate change agenda? Climate change is a transnational, environmental problem that poses serious challenges to the entire international community. The U.S. must join with the developed countries of the EU in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work on viable adaption strategies. However, the U.S. will first have to deal with domestic forces at home (e.g., entrenched economic interests and ideological opponents) that exercise power in opposition to federal action on climate change. At the same time, incentives will have to be employed in order to encourage newly modernizing nations (e.g., China, India, Brazil among others) to join with the U.S. and members of the EU to work together to establish a clean energy future. Sobre el autorProfessor of Political ScienceOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk, Virginia USA

The 2008 campaign for the presidency has provided American citizens with surprises as well as opportunities in terms of choosing a new president. The long primary season that ran from January to June resulted in nominees - - John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D) - - who were not the likely winners of their respective parties. As far as Democrats were concerned, Hillary Clinton was the front-runner and heir apparent to the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, John McCain's faltering campaign in the early months of the primary season suggested that Republicans would end up selecting another nominee. All in all, the primary season provided Americans with a host of candidates one of whom might serve as a "first" - - the first African-American (Barack Obama) the first woman (Hillary Clinton), the first Hispanic (Bill Richardson), the first Morman (Mitt Romney) or the oldest nominee (John McCain).Both parties had a variety of candidates vying for the nomination of their party but it was the Democratic party that provided the most interest among citizens and media pundits alike. The primary contest between Obama and Clinton would test the mettle of both candidates as they crisscrossed the country in their respective attempt to capture delegates for the summer convention. In the end, Obama squeaked out a victory in one of the closest contests in party history. Two questions became inevitable at this point - - namely, would Hillary Clinton campaign for Obama and would supporters of Clinton, especially female voters, support Obama. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul were pushed aside, one by one, by a resurgent McCain campaign.Both Obama and McCain have supporters and opponents. While targeting traditional Democratic constituencies, Obama has also focused on the youthful cohort, young people 18-29 years old who have traditionally been ignored or neglected by major party candidates. Obama, however, pursued a campaign similar to that of Bill Clinton in 1992 when he too sought the support of young people. As noted in a recent article in Time Magazine (January 31, 2008), Obama is looking forward to a "youthquake" to help him win the White House. What the Clinton campaign of 1992 and the Obama campaign of 2008 have in common is the likelihood of a very close election and therefore the need to attract and recruit all segments of the American electorate. Of course, as has happened in other campaigns, young people have failed to register to vote and/or have failed to turn up on election day. Critics have argued that Obama lacks executive experience in general and in foreign policy in particular. McCain has a following among those who like his "maverick" approach to politics and willingness to buck even his own party when necessary. He was also a POW during the Vietnam War that has given him sympathy among citizens and members of the armed forces. On the other hand, McCain has been in a similar situation as George Bush (the father) - - namely conservatives who idolized Ronald Reagan were not so eager to give their support to Bush (the father) and two decades later, they have had second thoughts about the conservative credentials of McCain.Obama's and McCain's choice of running mate added excitement to the presidential contest. The junior senator from Illinois selected the longtime senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, as his running mate. By choosing Biden, Obama added a senator who had valuable experience in two very important aspects of American Politics - - namely, a legislator who had a clear understanding about the operation of the U.S. Senate and one who had foreign policy experience. In contrast, John McCain, who some thought would choose Romney to shore up his lack of expertise on economic matters, chose instead Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown governor of Alaska as his partner in the presidential contest. By choosing Palin, McCain shook up the race by attempting to bolster his support among conservatives with a very conservative running mate and to appeal to female voters by adding a woman to the Republican ticket for the first time in history. While Biden was well known among politicos and media pundits, Palin was a novelty - - unknown and therefore the likely target of media attention. Where Democrats questioned and criticized McCain's choice of Palin, Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, were very enthusiastic about her which helped to bolster the McCain-Palin ticket in the short term. Inevitably, however, both vice-presidential candidates were scrutinized since both carried "baggage" into the presidential contest. Biden has a history of verbal errors and has been criticized for "plagiarizing" comments used by other public officials. Palin has been accused of heavy-handed politics even by fellow Republicans in Alaska and with less than 50 days left in the run up to the election, she is involved in a troubling scandal involving allegations that she used her power as governor to fire the "top cop" in Alaska because he refused to fire an Alaska state trooper who divorced Palin's sister.One of the fascinating aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign is the involvement of a large number of young people - - the so-called Millenium generation - - who have been mobilized in a way not seen since young people worked to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 in the early 1970s. Although about 55% of young people voted in the 1972 presidential election, voter turnout among members of the youthful cohort has declined over the years (except for a slight upward bump in 1992) dropping to 32% during the 2000 presidential election. However, young people once again began to show interest in the electoral process and their participation increased in the 2004 and 2006 elections to about 42%. What makes this demographic important is that young people 18-29 make up approximately 44 million potential voters - - about 20% of the American electorate. Both issues and technology have played a role in energizing young people. The economy and jobs, along with terrorism and the war in Iraq, constitute the major issues identified by them in recent polls, the same issues of concern to older voters. Where younger and older voters diverge is found in the types of technology used by young voters and employed by the Obama campaign, in particular, to reach out to them. This form of communication includes Facebook and YouTube among others. It is interesting to note that young people are not a solid block with about a third identifying as Democrats, a third identifying as Republicans and a third identifying as Independents. If the youthful cohort is paying more attention to this election and has demonstrated an upward turn in participation as shown by increased turnout in the 2008 primary season, young people have the potential to play an important role in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, three out of four young people, 18-29, feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction, an indicator not good for the legacy of the Bush administration or the prospects of the McCain campaign, at least among this youthful constituency.Eight years ago, the Bush Administration inherited a balanced budget, a budget surplus and a country at peace. However, life in the U.S. changed on 9/11 but more importantly in March 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, the economy has deteriorated with huge budget and trade deficits, home foreclosures, infrastructure needs and the collapse of financial institutions. Against a backdrop of a very unpopular Republican president, a country at war and economic deterioration, the McCain-Obama presidential contest has taken on added importance making the 2008 presidential election very consequential for the American electorate.As the McCain and Obama campaigns are engaged in the race for the presidency, each candidate will have the opportunity to speak directly to the American people in three debates. It is very likely that the first debate on September 26 in Oxford, Mississippi will draw a large audience tuning in to watch and compare the candidates. Moreover, the one and only debate taking place in St. Louis, Missouri on October 2 between vice presidential candidates, Biden and Palin, will also draw a large audience in an effort to better understand and evaluate the candidates who might be only a heart beat away from becoming president.By September 2008 the race between Obama and McCain is considered very close as reflected by national polls and the electoral college map of states. While national polls are interesting they are not helpful since the U.S. does not select its president by the popular vote. Instead, we need to look at each state and where it falls in terms of its electoral vote allotment. In short, the country is still divided in terms of red and blue states although each campaign is trying to flip some states to their side.By mid-September, according to Cable News Network (CNN), Obama has 223 electoral votes from states that are strongly on his side or leaning toward him while McCain has 200 electoral votes from states that are strongly on his side or leaning toward him. With 538 electoral votes in play, Obama or McCain will need to secure 270 of these votes to win the election.Although there are some states where there is the possibility of reversal from one party to the other, the real focus of attention is on the handful of competitive or "battleground" states that include mid-Atlantic Virginia that hasn't voted Democratic since supporting Lyndon Johnson in 1964 but now finds itself with the McCain and Obama camps currently locked in a tight race. Large electoral states in play include Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Western states that are important to both Obama and McCain are Colorado and Nevada. Small but not to be ignored is New Hampshire in the New England region of the U.S. The important point is that, taken together, these states have 115 electoral votes that are important to winning the White House.As the 2008 presidential campaign unfolds, the results will be important not only for American citizens but also for the international community. Professor of Political Science Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia USA

During the past three decades, global environmental policy has increased in salience in international politics. What role has the USA, a principal actor in global affairs, played in multilateral efforts to promote environmental protection? What factors might account for US actions regarding progress or problems related to global environmental policy? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of three principal actors in the US political system, namely, the American president, the Congress, and domestic organized interests. This discussion is followed by three case studies (the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Global Climate Change, and the Convention on Biodiversity) that show the role of these political actors in shaping US global environmental policy. When the USA provides leadership, it bolsters multilateral efforts to address global environmental problems. When it fails to offer leadership, it weakens that effort. Either way, domestic political factors (rather than interstate relations) play a central role in shaping US global environmental policy.

Television programming is one means by which citizens gain access to the halls of government. A survey of state legislators finds that lawmakers generally support expanding television coverage of legislative proceedings to include gavel-to-gavel programming. Among the fifteen independent variables employed in this study to predict legislators' views, "public factors" - public confidence in the legislative institution and citizens' preference for more coverage - had the greatest impact on legislators' attitudes toward gavel-to-gavel public affairs programming. Overall, the findings are encouraging in terms of opening up the political process to citizens.

Why is climate change the subject of such vehement political rhetoric in the United States? What explains the policy deadlock that has existed for nearly two decades—and that has resulted in the failure of US leadership in the international arena? Addressing these questions, Glen Sussman and Byron Daynes trace the evolution of US climate change policy, assess how key players—the scientific community, Congress, the president, the judiciary, interest groups, the states, and the public—have responded to climate change, and explore the prospects for effective policymaking in the future

Why is climate change the subject of such vehement political rhetoric in the United States? What explains the policy deadlock that has existed for nearly two decades―and that has resulted in the failure of US leadership in the international arena? Addressing these questions, Glen Sussman and Byron Daynes trace the evolution of US climate change policy, assess how key players―the scientific community, Congress, the president, the judiciary, interest groups, the states, and the public―have responded to climate change, and explore the prospects for effective policymaking in the future. [From Amazon.com] ; https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/politicalscience_geography_books/1012/thumbnail.jpg

Presidents and their administrations since the 1960s have become increasingly active in environmental politics, despite their touted lack of expertise and their apparent frequent discomfort with the issue. In White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush, Byron W. Daynes and Glen Sussman study the multitude of resources presidents can use in their attempts to set the public agenda. They also provide a framework for considering the environmental direction and impact of U.S. presidents during the last seven decades, permitting an assessment of each president in terms of how his administration either aided or hindered the advancement of environmental issues… [From Amazon.com] ; https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/politicalscience_geography_books/1013/thumbnail.jpg