Understanding Environmental Claims and Problem Structures in International Governance
This lecture explores the complexities of environmental issues through three types of claims and inferences: normative, descriptive, and causal. It discusses how these claims shape our understanding of problems and potential solutions. Additionally, the lecture highlights the structural factors influencing environmental governance, including political, economic, and social constraints. It examines upstream/downstream dynamics, the tragedy of the commons, and varying solutions to climate change. Understanding these elements is crucial for addressing environmental challenges effectively.
Understanding Environmental Claims and Problem Structures in International Governance
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Quest for Symphony video
Three Types of Claimsand Inferences • Normative claims: • Claims about how the world SHOULD be • Descriptive claims / inferences: • Claims about how the world IS • Inferences about the past which can’t observe • Causal claims / inferences: • Claims about WHY the world is as it is • Inferences about causes which we can’t observe
How environmental problems differ • “Problem structures” differ • Differences matter for: • Difficulty of resolving • Types of solutions that are politically possible • Types of solutions that are effective • Not all problems look alike
Structure vs. Agency • Structural factors impose constraints • Intentions don’t always produce outcomes • Political, economic, social, technological factors are “structures” • Certain options not available • Other options not seriously considered • Agency still matters • Within constraints, human choices matter • “Free will vs. determinism” revisited
Why environmental problemsmore common at international level? • Demand side – need for governance • More types of demands on resources • Larger amounts of demands on resources • Supply side – supply of governance • Ability to supply rules is more challenging • Interstate rivalry, nationalism, relative gains concerns • Ability to supply enforcement is more challenging
Upstream/Downstream Problemse.g. Rhine Upstream States Interests Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute Downstream State Interests
Upstream/Downstream Problemse.g. Rhine Upstream States Interests Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute; OTHERS are harmed Downstream State Interests
Direct Tragedy of the Commonse.g. fisheries Interests Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests
Direct Tragedy of the Commonse.g. fisheries Interests Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybodyis harmed Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests
Indirect Tragedy of the Commons Interests Interests Mitigating Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Harming Behaviors Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Harming Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Interests
Indirect Tragedy of the Commons Interests Interests Mitigating Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Harming Behaviors Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybodyis harmed Harming Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Interests
Indirect Tragedy of the Commonse.g. climate Interests Interests Mitigating Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Harming Behaviors Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybodyis harmed BUT behaviors that resolve problem DIFFER from those that cause it Harming Behaviors Mitigating Behaviors Interests
Other forms of variationin problem structure • Transparency of behaviors • Capacities • To engage in “good” behaviors • To engage in “bad” behaviors • Degree of value conflict • Distribution of power among actors • Contextual factors (e.g. Cold War, War on Terror)
Variation in solutions • How to address climate change • Broad or deep first? • Intergovernmental, unilateral, local, NGO, MNC • Stringent with high noncompliance or loose with high compliance • All gases or just some • Mechanisms of influence on behavior: sticks, carrots, locks, opportunities, labels, sermons
