E-109: Environmental Politics Section Meeting 1 September 30, 2008

1. E-109: Environmental Politics Section Meeting 1 September 30, 2008

2. Introductions A little bit about me: Erin Frey erin.l.frey@gmail.com, erinfrey@fas.harvard.edu)

3. Introductions • …and a little bit about you • Name • Profession/Other Activities • Reasons for Taking E-109

4. Administrative Late Policy/Grading Section Assignments; Other Assignments Section Attendance - 20% of final grade Technical Problems Extension School Website/Services Emailing Assignments Reply/Email Policy

5. Assignment Zero Support your arguments with the text—and cite properly! Section assignments are too short to summarize extensively—assume the reader has a general idea about articles you refer to

6. Section Questions • Website has updated guidelines for questions • In general, section discussion questions/topics should: • Be emailed to me by 9:00 AM EST Saturday before section • Be based on the readings/lectures from the week before • Provide background/context of question or topic • Explicitly state which readings/lectures they relate to

7. Important Concepts • Social Construction • Interpretive Flexibility • Government versus Governance • Historical Progression of “Evironmentalism” • Symmetric Explanations

8. Discussion Topic 1 • Background: • In the clips we saw in class, how were skeptics and critics of climate change treated by Gore in An Inconvenient Truth? • What was the nature of the legal controversy that surrounded The Great Global Warming Swindle, and what was decided? • What are “symmetric explanations”, and what are some of the assumptions underlying them?

9. Discussion Topic 1 In light of how skeptics were treated in An Inconvienent Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle, can we say that this is an illustration of “symmetrical explanations”? Were global warming skeptics treated “fairly” or “unfairly” by IC? By GGWS? What are your assumptions underlying the idea of “fairness”? How are our ideas of scientific “fairness” socially constructed? In your opinion, should GGWS be aired? Should IC be aired? How would you present these films so as to achieve “symmetric explanations”? Should we present these films in this way? Should we present the debate about climate change as “symmetric explanations”?

10. Discussion Topic 2 If science is socially constructed—that is, science inevitably reflects its surrounding society ( interests, ideologies, underlying assumptions about evidence and proof), rather than operating as a truth machine that results in direct knowledge of reality—how should this affect its legitimacy in guiding policy?

11. Discussion Topic 2 • Related Discussion: • Joe Monzione argues that narratives (which he defines as an interpretation of environmental events) provide a vehicle for opponents of climate change to deny its existence. In contrast, Joe implies that “reports” (a “rational, scientific study of environmental events”) provide a “correct” understanding of our environment and are not subjective or based on non-scientific factors. • Are social constructionist descriptions of science akin to these “narratives” (based on Joe’s description)? Why or why not? • If so, do social constructionist narratives add or detract to our understanding of environmental problems and events? How and why? • If social constructionist descriptions of science are not “narratives” (interpretations of environmental events), what role should it play in environmental policy?

12. Discussion Topic 3 Background Let us imagine two nations sharing a common border: one called “Country A” and the other called “Country B.” Country A is a mountainous one with a severe deforestation problem that results in a high level of erosion. Country B has more stringent environmental regulations for its rivers and watersheds, many of which originate from (and therefore are affected by) Country A. However, despite Country B’s insistence that Country A address these environmental problems, the ecological situation in Country A has continued to worsen and is starting to adversely affect the water resources and economy of Country B (for example, in Country B flooding occurs more frequently, drinking water quality is becoming impaired, eco-tourism rates are declining).

13. Discussion Topic 3 Based on what you have read and heard in ESPP 78, what underlying values might be preventing Country A from implementing stricter environmental regulations? What values might environmentalists engage to be more politically effective in Country A (so that regulations are implemented)? What underlying values might environmentalists engage to be more politically effective in Country B (so that Country B’s government takes action to pressure Country A implement regulations)? Are these values the same or different in the two countries? How? What accounts for the similarities or differences?

14. Discussion Topic 4 Do you agree or disagree with Professor Jasanoff’s assertion that, in contrast to many other “tightly regulated” forums of debate, the public sphere of environmental science is “unruly” and not well defined? How does this affect the nature of the relationship between citizens and government when discussing environmental issues?

15. Summary Questions? Comments? Ideas? Off-Campus Students Post to Discussion Board (under “Sections” tab) by 9:00 PM EST on Wednesday, October 1 Assignment 2 is now posted on the website Due Sunday, October 5 by 9:00 PM EST Student Questions/Topics for Next Section Email to me by 9:00 AM EST on Saturday, October 4

16. Additional How do you define “nature” or “the environment”? How did the readings for this week affect how you define and value nature? Do we want science to influence policy? Why or why not? If yes: What is there about science that affords it special legitimacy in policy formation? How much certainty is necessary for science to influence policy? What are some defining features of “regulatory science” versus “research science”?