Is There a Democracy–Civil Society Paradox in Global Environmental Governance?

Civil society is commonly assumed to have a positive effect on international cooperation. This paper sheds light on one important facet of this assumption: we examine the impact of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) on ratification behavior of countries vis-à-vis international environmental agreements (IEAs). The main argument of the paper focuses on a “democracy-civil society paradox”: although ENGOs have a positive effect on ratification of IEAs on average, this effect decreases with increasing levels of democracy. This argument is counter-intuitive and appears paradoxical because democracy is generally associated both with a more active civil society and more international cooperation. The reasons for this hypothesized effect pertain to public demand for environmental public goods provision, government incentives, and problems of collective action among ENGOs. To test the net effect of ENGOs on countries' ratification behavior, the paper uses a new dataset on ENGOs in the time-period 1973–2006. The results offer strong support for the presumed democracy–civil society paradox. </jats:p

Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy

Ambitious policies for limiting climate change require strong public support. But the public’s appetite for such policies, as currently observed in most countries, is rather limited. One possibility for enhancing public support could be to shift the main justification in the public policy discourse on greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation from benefits of reducing climate change risks (the conventional justification) to other types of benefits. Technological innovation and green jobs, community building, and health benefits are widely discussed candidates. The intuition is that re-framing GHG mitigation efforts and their benefits in such terms could make them more personally relevant and more emotionally engaging and appealing to citizens. However, based on results from two survey embedded experiments (combined N=1664), and in contrast to some earlier studies, we conclude that simple re-framing of climate policy is unlikely to increase public support, and outline reasons for this finding. As the added value of other justifications remains unclear at best and potentially nil, sticking to climate risk reduction as the dominant justification seems worthwhile

Commitment failures are unlikely to undermine public support for the Paris agreement

ISSN:1758-679

Current surveys may underestimate climate change skepticism evidence from list experiments in Germany and the USA

Strong public support is a prerequisite for ambitious and thus costly climate change mitigation policy, and strong public concern over climate change is a prerequisite for policy support. Why, then, do most public opinion surveys indicate rather high levels of concern and rather strong policy support, while de facto mitigation efforts in most countries remain far from ambitious? One possibility is that survey measures for public concern fail to fully reveal the true attitudes of citizens due to social desirability bias. In this paper, we implemented list-experiments in representative surveys in Germany and the United States (N = 3620 and 3640 respectively) to assess such potential bias. We find evidence that people systematically misreport, that is, understate their disbelief in human caused climate change. This misreporting is particularly strong amongst politically relevant subgroups. Individuals in the top 20% of the income distribution in the United States and supporters of conservative parties in Germany exhibit significantly higher climate change skepticism according to the list experiment, relative to conventional measures. While this does not definitively mean that climate skepticism is a widespread phenomenon in these countries, it does suggest that future research should reconsider how climate change concern is measured, and what subgroups of the population are more susceptible to misreporting and why. Our findings imply that public support for ambitious climate policy may be weaker than existing survey research suggests

Command and control or market-based instruments? Public support for policies to address vehicular pollution in Beijing and New Delhi

Environmental protection efforts commonly make use of two types of government interventions: command and control policies (C&C) and market-based instruments (MBIs). While MBIs are favored for their economic efficiency, visible prices on pollution may generate political backlash. We examine whether citizens are more likely to support policies that tend to obfuscate policy costs (C&C), as opposed to MBIs, which impose visible costs. Using conjoint experiments in Beijing and New Delhi, we examine support for ‘policy bundles’, including both C&C policies and MBIs, aimed at limiting air pollution from vehicles. In both cities, increasing fuel taxes (a MBI) reduces policy support. However, pledging revenue usage from fuel taxes to subsidize electric cars or public transport eliminates this negative effect. Furthermore, individuals with a lower evaluation of their government respond more negatively to MBIs. MBIs may be economically efficient, but are politically difficult unless policy-makers can offset visible costs through additional measures

Do exemptions undermine environmental policy support? An experimental stress test on the odd-even road space rationing policy in India

Policies sometimes exempt particular categories of regulatees for reasons of equity and political feasibility. Will the non‐exempt oppose the policy because they shoulder all of the policy costs? We outline an analytic framework for “stress testing” public support among the non‐exempt when they are provided negative information about exemptions and reduced policy effectiveness. Empirically, we study public support for the odd‐even road space rationing policy in India. Using a survey experiment with 2,182 car owners in Bangalore, we find considerable baseline support for this policy. While support among the non‐exempt erodes when they are told about exemptions, there is no additional erosion when they are told that exemptions reduce policy effectiveness. This suggests that the perception of fairness, not policy efficacy, drives the erosion of support among the non‐exempt. Yet the policy survives the stress test because the majority of respondents continue to support it, in spite of support erosion among the non‐exempt (© Wiley 2020).ISSN:1748-5983ISSN:1748-599

Six‐Axis Ground Motion Measurements of Caldera Collapse at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai'i—More Data, More Puzzles?

Near‐field recordings of large earthquakes and volcano‐induced events using traditional seismological instrumentation often suffer from unaccounted effects of local tilt and saturation of signals. Recent hardware advances have led to the development of the blueSeis‐3A, a very broadband, highly sensitive rotational motion sensor. We installed this sensor in close proximity to permanently deployed classical instrumentation (i.e., translational seismometer, accelerometer, and tiltmeter) at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (USGS). There, we were able to record three ~Mw 5 earthquakes associated with large collapse events during the later phase of the 2018 Kīlauea summit eruption. Located less than 2 km from the origins of these sources, the combined six‐axis translational and rotational measurements revealed clear static rotations around all three coordinate axes. With these six component recordings, we have been able to reconstruct the complete time history of ground motion of a fixed point during an earthquake for the first time

Parliament, people or technocrats? Explaining mass public preferences on delegation of policymaking authority

While delegation of policymaking authority from citizens to parliament is the most defining characteristic of representative democracy, public demand for delegating such authority away from legislature/government to technocrats or back to citizens appears to have increased. Drawing on spatial models of voting, we argue that the distance between individuals’ ideal policy points, the status quo, experts’ policy positions and aggregated societal policy preferences can help explain whether individuals prefer to delegate decision-making power away from parliament and, if so, to whom. The effects of individual’s preference distance from these ideal points are likely to be stronger the more salient the policy issue is for the respective individual. We test this argument using survey experiments in Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The analysis provides evidence for the empirical implications of our theoretical arguments. The research presented here contributes to better understanding variation in citizens’ support for representative democracy and preferences for delegating policymaking authority away from parliament

The size of the proton - closing in on the radius puzzle

We analyze the recent electron-proton scattering data from Mainz using a dispersive framework that respects the constraints from analyticity and unitarity on the nucleon structure. We also perform a continued fraction analysis of these data. We find a small electric proton charge radius, r_E^p = 0.84_{-0.01}^{+0.01} fm, consistent with the recent determination from muonic hydrogen measurements and earlier dispersive analyses. We also extract the proton magnetic radius, r_M^p = 0.86_{-0.03}^{+0.02} fm, consistent with earlier determinations based on dispersion relations.Comment: 4 pages, 2 figures, fit improved, small modifications, section on continued fractions modified, conclusions on the proton charge radius unchanged, version accepted for publication in European Physical Journal