COOKIES: By using this website you agree that we can place Google Analytics Cookies on your device for performance monitoring. |
University of Cambridge > Talks.cam > Energy and Environment Seminar, Lent 2011 > Vinaigrette or Oil and Vinegar? Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas
Vinaigrette or Oil and Vinegar? Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmasAdd to your list(s) Download to your calendar using vCal
If you have a question about this talk, please contact Yi-Jun Lin. The ideal relationship between climate change adaptation and mitigation policy has been long debated. Are they substitutes for each other, in which case the policy task is to find the optimal trade-off between the two, or can they be integrated to take advantage of win-win overlaps? Instead of proposing how these policies should relate to one another from an abstract policy perspective, this study examines public rationales about justice and burden-sharing trade-offs in each case. What arguments about justice resonate from a mitigation perspective, which ones are dominant from an adaptation perspective, and what might this suggest about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy? Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public, this study provides evidence that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly depending on arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized ideas of need and ability, and used social and spatial distance to modify the allocation of responsibility. Two considerations emerge from these findings. First, the public is able to engage with the justice dilemmas of climate policy, suggesting that predictions of political palatability or public responses need to consider these concerns. Second, it is important to recognize that support for adaptation and mitigation policies stem from different arguments. This could make transition between mitigation and adaptation potentially much more difficult, especially if treated as complete substitutes. This talk is part of the Energy and Environment Seminar, Lent 2011 series. This talk is included in these lists:
Note that ex-directory lists are not shown. |
Other listsAndrew Chamblin Memorial Lecture 2014 Peterhouse Theory Group Cabinet of Natural HistoryOther talks'Cryptocurrency and BLOCKCHAIN – PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE' Statistical Methods in Pre- and Clinical Drug Development: Tumour Growth-Inhibition Model Example Lunchtime Talk: Helen's Bedroom Stopping the Biological Clock – The Lazarus factor and Pulling Life back from the Edge. CGHR Practitioner Series: Andrea Coomber, JUSTICE Art speak Fields of definition of Fukaya categories of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces Retinal mechanisms of non-image-forming vision Liver Regeneration in the Damaged Liver 70th Anniversary Celebration Structural basis for human mitochondrial DNA replication, repair and antiviral drug toxicity UK 7T travelling-head study: pilot results |