Three Faces of Environmental Politics

1
Three Faces of Environmental Politics

• Science, Ideology, and Office-Holding

2
(No Transcript)
3
I. Controversies in Environmental Politics

• Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental
  costs?

4
(No Transcript)
5
I. Controversies in Environmental Politics

• Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental
  costs?
• Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars?

6
(No Transcript)
7
I. Controversies in Environmental Politics

• Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental
  costs?
• Should SUVs be held to the same standards as
  cars?
• Will more nuclear power help or harm the
  environment?

8
(No Transcript)
9
I. Controversies in Environmental Politics

• Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental
  costs?
• Should SUVs be held to the same standards as
  cars?
• Will more nuclear power help or harm the
  environment?
• Can humans prevent climate change?

10
(No Transcript)
11
I. Controversies in Environmental Politics

• Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental
  costs?
• Should SUVs be held to the same standards as
  cars?
• Will more nuclear power help or harm the
  environment?
• Can humans prevent climate change?
• When should we punish people for harming animals?

12
The Core Problem

• Real environmental controversies have scientific,
  moral, and political elements
• But we are
• Nonscientists who must learn to evaluate science
• Humans who must find a way to assign value to
  nature
• Citizens who must evaluate the policies of
  office-holders
• How can we accomplish this?

13
II. What is Science?

• This question is not trivial it is a major
  argument on many environmental issues
• My approach Recount the history and philosophy
  of science in order to discover rules for
• Separating science from pseudo-science
• Comparing two scientific theories or explanations

14
A. Ancient Science

• Plato World of ideas vs. World of senses
• World of Senses Unreliable Analogy of shadows
  on a wall everything we see is imperfect and
  incomplete in some way.
• World of Ideas Truth. Only logic can reveal
  the true nature of the world. Idea of perfect
  Forms which are more real than anything we see.

15
2. Aristotelian Science

1. Rejection of Platonic epistemology Aristotle
   believes that nature is real and must be studied,
   using a deductive method
2. Rejection of experiment goal is to understand
   what is natural and changing nature is not
   natural
3. Method Look for categories in nature and deduce
   essence of things.

16
Example 1 Aristotelian Biology

• Aristotle observes that male sheep, goats and
  pigs have more teeth than females
• Aristotle argues that men have more vitality than
  women (hotter essence)
• Aristotle therefore concludes that men have more
  teeth than women, by reason of the abundance of
  heat and blood which is more in men than in
  women
• Men and women have the same number of teeth (on
  average) Aristotle never bothered to check

17
Example 2 Aristotelian Gravity

• Earth is the center of the universe
• Objects made from the earth naturally attempt to
  return there (i.e. fall to the ground)
• The heavier an object is, the more it desires to
  be in its natural state
• Objects actually fall at the same rate,
  regardless of mass

18
d. Ptolemy Facts ? models, not the other way
around

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

19
B. The Enlightenment Essentialism Rejected

1. Rediscovery of ancient texts reveals ancients
   didnt know all the answers (example Ptolemys
   orbits arent accurate)
2. Belief in progress As economic growth and
   technology advanced, people came to believe that
   we would know more in the future (vs. wisdom of
   the ancients)

20
3. The Copernican Revolution

1. Heliocentrism Copernicus argued that planets
   revolved around the sun simpler system than
   Ptolemy, but not (initially) better at predicting
   planets positions

21
b. Scientists compare models Cumulative knowledge

1. Observations undermine idea of heavenly spheres
   Tycho Brahe observes comet passing through
   planetary orbits
2. Galileo observes phases of Venus (predicted by
   Copernican model but not by Ptolemaic model) and
   moons of Jupiter (not everything revolves around
   Earth)
3. Kepler discovers that geometry (ellipse)
   describes planetary motion (theory sun/God
   animates the universe)
4. Newton theorizes that simple mathematical laws of
   gravity might explain Keplers model of planetary
   motion

22
C. Logical Positivism

• Positivism 19th-Century idea that scientific
  knowledge is the only authentic knowledge.
• Logical positivism (early 20th century) Only
  statements proven true through logic (deduction)
  or observation (induction) are to be accepted.
  Fact vs. value distinction.
• Process
• Induction Prove statements true through
  observation, then
• Deduction combine these statements to make new
  predictions

23
4. Problems of Logical Positivism

1. The Inductive Fallacy How many observations
   does it take to confirm a theory?

24
Inductive Fallacy
Will always get fed at 9 AM
Christmas at 9 AM
Fed at 9 AM everyday for the past few months
25
Inductive Fallacy (continued)

• How many functions (explanations) will perfectly
  explain the data?
• An infinite number, making dramatically different
  predictions

26
4. Problems of Logical Positivism

1. The Inductive Fallacy How many observations
   does it take to confirm a theory?
2. The Demarcation Problem Empirical observation
   and attempts at confirmation dont separate
   science and pseudo-science

27
Who uses empirical methods?

• Astrologers Mass of horoscopes, biographies,
  star charts

28
Who uses empirical methods?

• Astrologers Mass of horoscopes, biographies,
  star charts
• Phrenologists Thousands of skull measurements

29
Who uses empirical methods?

• Astrologers Mass of horoscopes, biographies,
  star charts
• Phrenologists Thousands of skull measurements
• Scientific racists One recent author tabulates
  620 separate studies of average IQ from 100
  different countries with a total sample size of
  813,778 to confirm hypotheses of racial
  differences

30
C. Falsificationism

1. Karl Popper Stop trying to confirm theories and
   try falsifying them instead
2. Method Make novel predictions with theory that
   prove the theory false if they fail to occur
   (critical experiments)
3. Result Scientific theories are never proven
   true. Science consists of conjectures (theories
   which havent failed yet) and refutations (those
   which have failed)

31
4. The Demarcation Problem

1. Allows us to reject astrology, etc as
   pseudo-science Astrologers rarely make testable
   predictions, and dont give up astrology when
   they fail
2. Popper argues that Marxism and Freudianism are
   both pseudo-science (example of false
   consciousness in Marxism) enough ifs, ands,
   and buts allow them to explain anything after
   the fact, but predict nothing novel

32
5. Problems of Falsificationism

1. The ceteris paribus Clause Theories are tested
   all else being equal but it never is.
2. Virtually all useful scientific theories had
   anomalies when first stated (Copernicus, plate
   tectonics, etc) strict falsificationism is a
   recipe for ignorance
3. Poppers solution require a replacement theory
   that explains everything the old one did, plus
   something else, before abandoning old theory (may
   mean we retain pseudoscience)

33
D. Social Models of Science

• Kuhns Paradigm Shifts
• Idea Science is a social activity that proceeds
  under a paradigm of unquestioned assumptions
  about the world and a set of problems considered
  to be critical (value decision)
• Every interesting theory has anomalies things
  that seem inconsistent with the theory.
• Normal science is puzzle-solving unexplained
  anomalies are simply assumed to be unsolved
  puzzles scientists usually suppress novel
  explanations if they can retain their paradigms
  (Tycho Brahe believed in an earth-centered
  universe, plate tectonics was rejected for
  decades, etc)

34
d. Scientific Revolutions

• When enough anomalies start piling up (especially
  ones that get in the way of practical uses of
  science), new explanations begin to receive a
  hearing
• At some point, the new explanation becomes the
  expected explanation a new paradigm
• Note that this is a social process we cannot be
  sure the new paradigm is any better or more
  accurate than the old one. Its justdifferent.

35
2. Lakatos Research Programs

• Goal Retain idea of falsification while
  acknowledging that scientists do not actually
  reject theories when anomalies are found
• Objections to Kuhn
• Kuhn offers no way of comparing paradigms but
  science often looks like it has progressed over
  the past centuries
• Most fields have multiple paradigms at the same
  time

36
c. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs

1. Research programs rely on multiple theories to
   identify problems and solve puzzles
2. Each scientific research program has a hard
   core of unquestioned assumptions and a
   protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses (i.e.
   attempts to save the program from
   falsification)
3. Evaluation Look for progressive research
   programs (making new predictions and discoveries)
   and reject degenerative ones (simply adding to
   the protective belt without offering new
   knowledge)

37
Example Neptune

• Astronomers discovered that the orbit of Uranus
  didnt match Newtons predictions
• They did NOT give up Newtonian physics
• They DID add a new item to the protective belt
  something else must be perturbing the orbit of
  Uranus
• This turned out to be Neptune Progressive change
  to research program
• What ifno Neptune? Could hypothesize that some
  unobservable force acts only on Uranus ? no new
  predictions degenerative shift

38
d. The Demarcation Problem

• This was the assigned reading by Lakatos
• How do we know pseudoscience?
• It critiques science without offering an
  alternative set of predictions
• It continually invents new hypotheses that
  explain its previous failures but do NOT make
  new, falsifiable predictions

39
E. Conclusion Standards for Evaluating Science

• Every model must be tested against another model
• Simplest model random chance (systematic
  studies of astrology usually show it fails this
  test)
• It takes a model to beat a model Where an
  existing theory outperforms chance, critics are
  obligated to suggest a better explanation for the
  facts

40
2. What makes one explanation better than another?

1. Progressive vs. degenerative research programs
   A theory or set of theories that keeps making
   novel, falsifiable predictions beats one that
   keeps adding new assumptions just to explain what
   we already know or generates untestable
   hypotheses
2. Utility Since we cannot be sure theories are
   True or False (ceteris paribus problem) they need
   to be useful. Preference for parsimonious
   theories using observable variables.

41
III. Ideology

• Ideology defined A connected set of beliefs
  about what the world should look like
• Preferences between states of the world
• Rationality Connected and transitive preferences

42
B. Science vs. Ideology?

• Science cannot disprove ideology because they
  address different questions!
• Prediction vs. Prescription Taxes stifle
  growth vs. Taxes should be cut.
• Ideology adds the should
• Ideology may cause people to make empirical
  statements (i.e. taxes and growth) but the
  statement is not a necessary part of the ideology

43
3. Styles of argument

1. Science Hypothesis-testing and theory-comparison
   using data
2. Ideology The lawyer style Starting with a
   conclusion and building a case from confirming
   evidence
3. Implication Scientists can also be ideologues
   CO2 increases average temperatures vs. Global
   warming must be stopped

44
C. Activism How ideologues work

• What do Americans think about the environment?
• a. The importance of salience relative weight of
  different issues

45
(No Transcript)
46
C. Activism How ideologues work

• What do Americans think about the environment?
• The importance of salience relative weight of
  different issues
• General sympathy for environmental movement
  (activists)

47
(No Transcript)
48
C. Activism How ideologues work

• What do Americans think about the environment?
• The importance of salience relative weight of
  different issues
• General sympathy for environmental movement
  (activists)
• Perception of environment as distant problem

49
(No Transcript)
50
2. Tactics of environmental activists

• Raising the salience of the environment
• Time pressure Argue a brink in the near future
• Irrevocable damage Argue that environmental
  damage is different from economic damage, i.e.
  cannot be repaired
• Magnify impacts Argue that environmental damage
  is worse than other problems, i.e. risks human
  extinction or other catastrophe

51
b. Framing the issues

1. Anti-Environmentalism Since public supports
   environmentalism, activists portray opponents as
   anti-environment
2. The political use of science Portray opponents
   as ignorant of environmental science

52
3. Is there an anti-environment ideology?

1. Who hates Earth? Not a serious interest group
2. Key some people have objectives they value MORE
   than environmental protection
3. What are those objectives? Not a unified
   ideology National security, economic growth,
   profits, property rights, etc.
4. Most common adversary of environmental movement
   businesses

53
4. Tactics of business interests

• General strategies
• Key be seen as pro-environment
• Emphasize issues of higher salience (gas prices,
  jobs)
• Greenwashing
• Diversionary greenwashing advertise small-scale
  support for environment while inflicting
  large-scale damage

54
This GE ad targets environmental sympathies.
What is the message of the ad?
55
Ford

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

56
Mobil Oil

• Helping the Earth Breathe Easier campaign
• Focuses on financial support for environmental
  groups

57
ii. Obfuscatory Greenwashing

• Goal sell environmentally-destructive activity
  as environmentally-friendly
• Example They call it pollution. We call it
  life.

58
iii. Defensive Greenwashing

• Attempts to shift responsibility from activities
  of business to other businesses or consumers
• Example Ad by Clean Sky Coalition (group of
  natural gas companies) ?
• Another example Keep America Beautiful was
  founded by corporations threatened by mandatory
  recycling / waste reduction proposals. Their
  most famous ad Crying Indian

59
c. Astroturfing Front groups

1. Problem People dont believe it when
   corporations defend their business models as good
   for everyone (suspicion of self-interest)
2. Solution Create groups that appear to be
   composed of scientists, environmentalists,
   economists, workers, etc. Use them as
   mouthpieces for the same arguments.
3. Distinct from ordinary funding Involves complete
   control over groups message

60
Examples

• Corporate-owned
• Clean Skies Coalition (pro-gas) Entirely
  composed of natural gas companies
• Air Quality Standards Coalition (against
  mandatory emissions controls) Chaired by
  National Association of Manufacturers
• Sea Lion Defense Fund (against fishing quotas)
  Association of Alaskan fishing companies
• Extensions of PR/Lobbying Firms
• Alliance for Better Foods (pro-GMO
  foods/anti-labeling) Run by BSMG Worldwide on
  behalf of clients such as Monsanto
• National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition
  (seeks to weaken ESA) Shares a fax number with
  lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman

61
IV. Office-Holding and Politics

• Politics Defined Who Gets What? or The
  authoritative allocation of resources and
  values.
• Implication Politics creates winners and losers
• Key Terms
• Authority Government has a monopoly on the
  legitimate use of force, so it is the only one
  with the authority to allocate.
• Resource Allocation Money, labor, and even
  commodities
• Allocation of Values Deciding between
  incompatible moral or ethical principles

62
B. A model of politics How are resources
authoritatively allocated?
63
C. Agenda-Setting

• Proposing alternatives to the status quo
• Status Quo The way things are (the current
  system)
• How do office-holders view demands made by
  citizens? Assume their perspective for a moment

64
1. Individuals
65
1. Individuals
66
1. Individuals -- Powerless alone
67
2. Unorganized Groups
68
2. Unorganized Groups -- Must be considered, but
cannot set agenda
69
3. Organized interest groups
70
3. Organized interest groups -- Set agenda and
shape citizen response
71
4. Benefits of Organization
a. Credible Commitment -- Conditional support b.
Outreach -- Publicity, Money, Media Access c.
Persuasion -- Information to representatives
72
5. How to Initiate Change in the US

• Representatives The Elected
• Use Money, Votes, Publicity
• Math for politicians
• Anything Money Anything Else

73
Environmental Group Campaign Cash, 1990-2006
74
Energy / Resources Campaign Contributions,
1990-2006
75
5. How to Initiate Change in the US

• 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.

76
B. Government Action1. Legislation
a. Logrolling You scratch my back, Ill scratch
yours
From the early American practice of neighbors
gathering to help clear land by rolling off and
burning felled timber.
77
Example of Logrolling

• Republicans add ethanol subsidies to 2002 Energy
  bill to attract votes of Democrats from Iowa and
  the Dakotas
• Several Democratic Senators (including majority
  leader Daschle-SD) vote for the bill, enabling
  its passage

78
B. Government Action1. Legislation
79
2. Bureaucratic Change

• Regulation Power delegated to Executive agencies
  by Congress
• Enforcement of laws
• 1981 Anne Gorsuch appointed to head
  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First act
  close enforcement office (to avoid the
  embarassment of overturning popular environmental
  standards)

80
3. Judicial Change

• a. Judicial Review Power of courts to review
  laws
• b. Interpretation Court must interpret words
  like navigable waters and pollutant
• c. Limit Chevron deference (if law is unclear,
  then defer to Executive)

81
C. Citizen Response

• The Media
• 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)
• Bias
• Spin Bias General tendency to sensationalize
  stories for immediate impact. Favors
  catastrophic environmental scenarios over stories
  about incremental damage.
• Citation Bias Fox (Right), Other Broadcast
  Networks (Left)

82
(No Transcript)
83
C. Citizen Response

• The Media
• 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)
• Bias
• Spin Bias General tendency to sensationalize
  stories for immediate impact. Favors
  catastrophic environmental scenarios over stories
  about incremental damage.
• Citation Bias Fox (Right), Other Broadcast
  Networks (Left)
• Effect of Bias Remarkably small, due to
  self-selection by voters

84
c. How the media covers science stories

1. Science reporters know little about science
   they are journalists
2. Both sides of the story Reports on candy and
   tooth decay must include sugar spokesperson
   Does this create false equivalence, or is it
   necessary for fairness?
3. No follow-up Media loves new discoveries but
   seldom reports on whether they hold up to
   replication

85
2. How Politicians Manipulate Activists

1. Lesser of two evils Convince issue group to
   put party ID ahead of issue stance in individual
   races
2. Janus-Face Politicians say what activists want
   to hear
3. The Takeover Political activists try to gain
   control of established organizations (Sierra Club
   immigration battle, NRA shifts from sporting to
   gun rights)
4. Front Groups Can convince activists to oppose
   ones opponent

86
3. Elections The Environmentalist
Office-Holders Dilemma

1. Environmentalism is popular but seldom affects
   vote choice, despite public support for
   Democratic policies on the issue. Why?
2. Low salience
3. Small perceived differences between candidates on
   matters of environmental policy Probably due to
   low information
4. Environmentalism is weaker than partisan feeling
   Republicans seldom switch votes due to the
   issue, and independents see liitle difference
   between parties.
5. Economic performance DOES affect vote choice

87

• Economy

88
4. Behavior

1. Protest Battle of Seattle, Eco-Terrorism (ELF)
2. Non-compliance 55 MPH Limit

89
V. Evaluating Environmental Controversies

• Separate the questions
• Claims about observable variables
• Descriptive claims Arguments about the true
  value of a measurable variable, or about its
  direction or rate of change
• Causal statements Arguments that increases in
  an independent variable will increase or decrease
  a dependent variable.
• Claims about unobservable variables (i.e. the
  distant future or what might have been)
• Claims about values (should/ought statements)

90
B. The right methods for the right questions

• Descriptive or causal statements use scientific
  reasoning (compare theories, choosing for
  progressive research programs over degenerative
  ones)
• Physical science Use physical scientific
  theories
• Social science Use models of politics and/or
  economics
• Unobservable variables Use the best available
  theory on observable variables to predict the
  unobservable ones

91
3. Philosophy and Religion

• Value claims require moral reasoning
• Goals of moral philosophy (scholars disagree
  about which ones are important)
• Consistency Treat morally similar situations
  similarly (the same rules apply to all)
• Comfort Willingness to accept/follow the
  overall philosophy
• Utility The system should be usable to quickly
  render moral judgments using available data
• Value claims have political implications about
  who should get what