1
Q
What is the basic prediction of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)?
A
The EKC predicts an inverted-U relationship between environmental harm and income: pollution rises with development but eventually falls as a society becomes wealthier and more capable of managing environmental issues
2
Q
What is the intuition behind the the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)?
A
- As a country develops economically, pollution first increases, then decreases.
In the early stages, growth is prioritized over the environment. - As income rises, people and governments can afford cleaner technology and stronger environmental protections.
- Eventually, economic growth leads to improved environmental quality
3
Q
The 1992 Earth Summit didn’t produce any concrete commitments to address climate change. Why might this be? (Hint: what was the state of climate science at the time?)
A
- climate science was still developing
- there was no global consensus on who should act, how much, and when. - Instead, countries agreed on a framework for future action, which eventually led to later agreements like the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Paris Agreement (2015)
4
Q
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC)
A
- Adopted by: 179 countries initially (now 192).
- Goal: Stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations to avoid dangerous human-caused climate change (though “dangerous” was not defined).
- Principle: Common but differentiated responsibilities—developed (rich) countries lead in action, developing (poor) countries follow later.
- Targets:
Rich countries had non-binding targets to stabilize GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Poor countries had no targets. - Impact: Served as a foundational framework for future climate agreements but was largely aspirational rather than enforceable
5
Q
How did the Kyoto Protocol commitments differ from those in the FCCC?
A
- The Kyoto Protocol (1997) was a follow-up agreement that made legally binding commitments for developed countries to reduce emissions by specific targets (averaging 5.2% below 1990 levels during 2008–2012).
- Only developed countries had binding targets under Kyoto, while developing countries had voluntary roles.
- Kyoto introduced enforcement mechanisms, unlike the UNFCCC
6
Q
Which major emitters did NOT ratify Kyoto?
A
- The United States was the most significant emitter that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
- Main reason: It objected to binding commitments for developed nations only, while major developing emitters like China and India had no such obligations
7
Q
The Paris Agreement is based on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). What are these?
A
- NDCs: voluntary national climate action plans submitted under the Paris Agreement
- Each country defines its own targets for reducing emissions and adapting to climate change, and updates them every five years to reflect increasing ambition
8
Q
How is the Paris Agreement arguably a “stronger” climate agreement than Kyoto? In what ways is it nonetheless “weak”?
A
- The Paris Agreement is stronger politically and more inclusive, but weaker legally.
- It depends on voluntary ambition and transparency, rather than binding rules and penalties.
- Its success hinges on countries actually following through and ramping up efforts over time
9
Q
How might the Paris
process nonetheless produce important climate action?
A
Even without binding penalties, the Paris process creates a structure for progress through:
- Regular updates
- Transparency
- Global norms
- Economic shifts
- Public and political pressure
Together, these can lead to real emissions reductions, especially as climate impacts intensify and the cost of inaction becomes clearer.
10
Q
What is free riding? Why is it an obstacle to climate action?
A
Free riding: benefiting from others’ climate actions without doing your part, which makes global cooperation harder and slows down effective climate solutions.
11
Q
What are two ways in which rich countries are arguably most responsible for climate change?
A
-Rich countries caused most of the climate problem through past emissions
- and continue to contribute disproportionately through their high per capita emissions today
12
Q
Why will developing countries nonetheless have to be part of the solution?
A
Even though developing countries have emitted less historically, their growing emissions and global responsibility mean they must be part of the climate solution to effectively tackle climate change.
13
Q
What are the key goals of developing countries in global climate negotiations?
A
- financial resources
- technology
-fairness - adaptation help
- a meaningful role in shaping global climate policy
- balancing climate action with their development needs.
14
Q
How do developed countries push back against the goals of developing countries in climate negotiations?
A
- by stressing economic concerns
- demanding accountability
-seeking broader participation - negotiating for balanced commitments, which can create tensions over equity and burden-sharing in climate talks
15
Q
How might climate aid help to resolve differences between developed and developing countries in climate negotiations?
A
- helps align interests
- build trust
- enable action by supporting developing countries’ needs—making international climate cooperation smoother and more effective.
16
Q
How do short time horizons make climate action more difficult?
A
the long-term benefits of climate action get overshadowed by short-term costs and concerns, making it harder to build political will and investment for meaningful climate solutions.
17
Q
Why, more generally, do politicians have weak incentives to engage in preventive actions?
A
- Politicians face short-term pressures
- uncertain payoffs
- difficult communication challenges that make preventive actions—though vital—less attractive politically
18
Q
According to the objective function, what are politicians trying to maximize?
A
- usually to maximize their likelihood of being elected or re-elected, which influences their decisions and priorities.
19
Q
What is the ultimate goal of politicians in choosing climate policy?
A
Politicians craft climate policies that help them win or maintain elections, balancing ambition with political feasibility and public opinion.
20
Q
How can the right climate policy directly affect voter support?
A
can build political support by addressing voter concerns, delivering tangible benefits, and aligning with public values
21
Q
How can the right climate policy indirectly affect voter support through money?
A
Climate policy influences the flow of money in ways that affect economic conditions, campaign resources, and political alliances, which in turn shape voter support indirectly
22
Q
What evidence suggests that public opinion influences climate policy?
A
by influencing how politicians act, vote, and campaign—especially when voter concern is high, sustained, and politically salient
23
Q
How has aggregate US public opinion on climate change changed over time?
A
has shifted toward greater belief in and concern about climate change, but remains deeply polarized, which continues to shape political debate and policy responses.
24
Q
Americans are less likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and also less worried about it, than many (though not all) other nationalities. What are some possible reasons for this?
A
Americans are less likely to believe in and worry about human-caused climate change due to
- partisan polarization
- fossil fuel influence
- media fragmentation
- individualistic culture
- relatively lower perceived risk—a combination that’s fairly unique among wealthy nations
25
How does partisan polarization help explain the stability of US climate beliefs?
Partisan polarization locks climate beliefs into political identities, causing people to resist new evidence, follow party leaders, and consume reinforcing media—all of which stabilizes public opinion over time, even as the science evolves.
26
How does climate polarization in
the US compare with that of other countries?
The U.S. stands out globally for the depth and durability of its climate polarization, driven by party identity, elite messaging, and media fragmentation. Most other countries show more cross-party consensus on the science, even if they debate policy deta
27
Using Hornsey et al’s Figure 1, rank the following influences on climate beliefs in descending order of
importance: age, education, income, political affiliation, political ideology.
political ideology, education, political affiliation, income, age
28
How does the impact of education on climate beliefs differ across Republicans and Democrats?
Education boosts climate belief for Democrats, but not for Republicans due to political identity and motivated reasoning
29
What does the difference in education's impact on climate beliefs imply about the ability to educate our way out of climate skepticism?
While education helps some, political ideology limits its effectiveness. Overcoming climate skepticism requires not just more education, but also strategic communication that respects identity and builds trust across political divides
30
In most countries (including the US), a clear majority of citizens want more climate action. Why hasn’t this produced a policy response?
Widespread public support hasn't translated into strong policy because of political polarization, the power of vested interests, low voter urgency, institutional inertia, and the perceived long-term nature of the problem
31
The majority of Americans don’t consider climate change a high priority for the government. Why might Democratic politicians nonetheless feel pressured to prioritize the issue?
Even if climate isn’t a top priority for most Americans, Democratic politicians face pressure from their base, party identity, activist movements, and strategic and moral imperatives to prioritize climate action
32
What are interest groups?
Interest groups are organized efforts to influence public policy in favor of specific interests or causes. They are powerful players in shaping what governments do—or don’t do
33
What distinguishes interest groups from the mass public?
- Interest groups are organized, well-resourced entities that actively and directly try to influence policy.
- The mass public is broader and less organized, with less direct influence on policymaking.
34
Which interest groups OPPOSE climate mitigation? Why?
Fossil fuel companies and their trade associations are the most reliable opponents of climate mitigation
- They make their living from fossil fuels, have a clear interest in
opposing mitigation policies
- Although some are diversifying into clean energy, their reliance
on fossil fuel assets make them anti-climate on balance
35
Which interest groups SUPPORT climate mitigation? Why?
- Environmental groups are the most longstanding and consistent supporters of climate mitigation
- This includes “all purpose” environmental groups (Sierra Club,
Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) and climate-specific groups (Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Climate Action Network, Sunrise Movement, 350.org, etc.)
36
Which interest groups are “on the fence”? Why?
- Labor unions have diverse climate policy
positions, depending on industry of employment
- Basically, it depends on where your bread is
buttered
- But union stances have been shifting in a pro-
climate direction The United Mine Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Utility Workers of America and others protest Obama’s Clean Power Plan
37
What is the difference between a carbon-intensive and a carbon-dependent industry?
- Carbon-intensive describes how much an industry emits.
- Carbon-dependent describes how much an industry needs fossil fuels to survive
38
Why do both carbon-intensive and a carbon-dependent industry tend to oppose climate mitigation?
- Carbon-intensive industries oppose climate mitigation because it increases their costs and threatens competitiveness.
- Carbon-dependent industries oppose it because it undermines their fundamental business and profits.
Together, this opposition creates strong resistance to policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
39
What are two direct forms of lobbying discussed in this lecture?
- The ability to ENDORSE politicians and provide CUES to discrete voter
groups is another
- By endorsing political candidates, union leaders can potentially influence their rank-and-file members
40
Why do politicians want financial contributions?
Politicians seek financial contributions to fund campaigns, build support, increase competitiveness, gain access, and strengthen their political party. Money is essential in modern politics to effectively communicate with voters and maintain power
41
How do interest groups exploit financial contributions to influence politicians?
Interest groups use financial contributions to buy access, support allies, build political dependence, amplify influence through PACs, shape policy agendas, and deter opposition, effectively leveraging money to sway political decisions.
42
Why do politicians need interest groups’ expertise?
Politicians depend on interest groups for expert knowledge, detailed data, drafting help, and understanding impacts, enabling more informed and efficient policymaking.
43
How can politicians dependency on interest groups’ expertise potentially weaken climate policies?
Politicians’ reliance on interest groups’ expertise risks introducing bias, enabling regulatory capture, and diluting climate policies, because the information provided often reflects the interests of those groups rather than the public or scientific consensus
44
Why do politicians want interest-group (especially unions’) endorsements?
Politicians seek union endorsements because they provide organized voter mobilization, credibility with key constituencies, financial backing, coalition-building, and policy support, all crucial for electoral success and governance
45
Which climate-related interest groups tend to support Democrats and Republicans, respectively?
Incomplete specialization: pro and anti-climate
groups donate to both sides (PG&E Corp.)
46
Why do interest groups sometimes not specialize?
Interest groups sometimes avoid specialization to serve diverse member interests, build broader coalitions, maintain strategic flexibility, boost legitimacy, and expand political influence
47
What is the “double representation of carbon polluters”?
The double representation of carbon polluters means that fossil fuel and high-emission industries have multiple channels of influence in politics, increasing their ability to block or weaken climate mitigation efforts
48
Why does the “double representation of carbon polluters” make ambitious climate action difficult?
The double representation of carbon polluters consolidates their power and resources across multiple channels, making it much harder for policymakers to push through strong, ambitious climate action without facing coordinated resistance and political costs.
49
Why has renewable energy production accelerated in recent years?
Renewable energy production has accelerated due to technological progress, cost declines, supportive policies, rising demand, energy security concerns, private investment, and international climate commitments
50
Is renewable energy production growing fast enough to meet our climate goals?
While renewable energy is expanding quickly, the pace must accelerate even more to effectively replace fossil fuels and achieve climate targets. Stronger policies, investments, and global cooperation are essential to close this gap.
51
What are three broad requirements of the clean energy transition?
- Investment in clean energy, electrification
- Building new power facilities (solar/wind farms, etc.) and transmission lines
- Supply chains to provide essential parts, minerals, raw materials
52
Why is it difficult to build new renewable energy facilities and transmission lines?
A massive expansion of clean energy facilities and transmission lines is needed, which will require covering and crossing large areas of land. However, building this infrastructure is challenging because it requires permits from multiple levels of government—municipal, county, state, and federal—which makes the process slow, costly, and complex
53
What is NIMBY-ism? (Not In My BackYard)
refers to the opposition people often have to developments—such as renewable energy projects, housing, or infrastructure—when they are proposed near where they live, even if they support the idea in general.
54
Why is NIMBY-ism a problem for the clean energy transition?
local opposition can delay or block renewable energy projects and transmission lines. Since these projects require a lot of land and often cross many communities, even small groups of residents can slow progress, increase costs, and make it harder to build the infrastructure needed to reduce emissions.
55
What specific trade-offs does NIMBY-ism highlight? (Hint: I’m referring to trade-
offs 1 and 2.)
- Climate mitigation and participatory democracy are both important goals
- Expanding clean energy requires building more infrastructure—like solar and wind farms, battery plants, mines, and transmission lines—which can harm local environments and face opposition from local environmentalists. This creates a tough choice between protecting local ecosystems and achieving broader global climate goals.
56
What is the goal of permitting reform?
The goal of permitting reform is to speed up and simplify the approval process for energy projects by shortening reviews, reducing involved jurisdictions, and limiting legal delays. This aims to balance the urgent need for climate action with democratic input, but raises concerns about reducing local voices and possibly easing fossil fuel permits. Supporters argue these trade-offs are necessary to tackle the climate crisis and that clean energy benefits most
57
What are some “traditional progressive” objections to Manchin’s proposal?
Traditional progressives objected to Manchin’s permitting reform because it would limit local community input and could speed up approval of fossil fuel projects, both seen as threats to environmental and climate goals.
58
How do “abundance progressives” respond to these concerns? (how has permitting reform split the pro-climate coalition?)
“Abundance progressives” accept the concerns but argue that urgent climate action requires faster permitting to build clean energy, which outweighs reduced local input. This disagreement has split the pro-climate coalition between those prioritizing local control and those focused on rapid clean energy growth.
59
I noted that the clean energy transition has created some “strange” coalitions that obstruct certain forms of climate action. What are some
examples of these strange coalitions?
“Strange” coalitions in climate politics include progressives and Republicans uniting to block permitting reform, local environmentalists opposing renewable projects despite climate benefits, and fossil fuel interests partnering with political groups against clean energy—showing how competing priorities complicate climate action.
60
Who are the main groups in the pro-climate (Democratic) coalition?
- Environmentalists
- Labor unions
- Progressives
- Swing-state moderates
- Racial/ethnic/other minorities, etc.
61
In very simplified terms, what does each group in the Democratic Party's pro-climate coalition want?
- Environmentalists: rapid transition to clean energy
- Labor: good jobs
- Racial/ethnic minorities: environmental justice
- Progressives: all of the above
- Swing-state moderates: some of the above (positions vary), but also (in some cases) limited
government, low taxes, low prices
- Red-state voters and politicians: climate-skeptical but pro-jobs
62
What are some examples of how the goals of different groups within the Democratic pro-climate coalition conflict with each other?
environmentalists and labor clash because fossil fuel jobs will be lost while new clean energy jobs tend to be less unionized and lower paid; moderates favor easier permitting, while environmental-justice advocates want stronger local community input; and progressives and moderates differ on how much climate action is feasible, often reflecting their political districts—progressives from deep-blue areas and moderates from more mixed or conservative ones.
63
What does the Green New Deal's “all-of-the-above” approach to building a pro-climate coalition entail?
aimed to address conflicts in the clean energy transition by promising a fair and just shift to net-zero emissions by 2030, creating millions of high-wage jobs, investing in sustainable infrastructure, ensuring clean air and water, climate resilience, healthy food, and access to nature, while promoting justice and equity for historically marginalized and vulnerable communities.
64
What are some reasons to think the Green New Deal’s “all-of-the-above” approach might be successful?
could succeed because it builds a broad coalition by linking climate goals with jobs and equity, offers holistic solutions, sets ambitious targets, prioritizes justice for marginalized groups, and invests in sustainable infrastructure and industry.
65
Why did the Green New Deal ultimately fail to succeed, despite its broad coalition-building strategy?
failed to succeed because its ambitious goals faced strong political opposition, including concerns about feasibility and costs. It struggled to gain enough bipartisan support, with critics arguing it was too radical or unrealistic. Additionally, disagreements within the coalition over priorities and strategies, along with entrenched fossil fuel interests and complex political dynamics, made it difficult to turn the broad vision into concrete legislation.
66
How does the Inflation Reduction Act help maintain the pro-climate coalition? (what provisions of the act appeal to which coalition
members?)
- Labor unions: The IRA provides tax credits for clean
energy, green manufacturing, etc
- Progressives and environmental justice
advocates: The IRA gives bonus credits to projects in low-income, Native
American communities (and ones that give assistance to these
communities)
- Swing-state moderates: Relatively modest scope, lack of “sticks” against fossil fuels brought
moderates on board
- Red states: they included bonus tax credits for projects located in fossil-fuel-dependent “energy communities,” which are mostly in Republican-leaning (red) states and districts
67
What is “everything-bagel liberalism”?
a term used to describe a political approach that tries to combine a wide range of progressive priorities and policies—much like an everything bagel has many different toppings—into a single, comprehensive agenda. It often refers to efforts to address climate change alongside social justice, economic inequality, healthcare, and other issues all at once.
68
Why does Ezra Klein argue that “everything-bagel liberalism” can be counterproductive?
While ambitious and inclusive, this approach can sometimes face criticism for trying to do too much at once, making it harder to build broad consensus or achieve specific goals.
69
How might an “everything-bagel” approach to climate mitigation slow down the clean energy transition?
trying to address many goals—like social justice, economic reform, and environmental protection—all at once can make it harder to reach agreements or pass policies quickly. The complexity and broad scope can lead to prolonged debates, conflicting priorities, and political resistance, delaying urgent actions needed to reduce emissions and build clean energy infrastructure.
70
What additional trade-off does the “everything-bagel” approach to climate policy highlight? (hint: trade-off 3)
it may also push policies that disrupt traditional jobs—especially in fossil fuel industries—without immediately providing equally good or well-paid alternatives for workers. This can create tension between the urgency of climate action and the need to protect workers’ livelihoods and support a just transition, making it harder to build broad political support.
71
International trade could affect the environment through scale, composition and technique effects.
What are these?
- Scale effect = Trade leads to higher output, and hence to more pollution (+)
- Composition effect = Trade affects the mix of goods an economy produces, which could lead to specialization in dirtier goods (+)
OR cleaner goods (-)
- Technique effect - Trade affects the way goods are produced (+ or -)
72
Which of the scale, composition, and technique effects seem most relevant to climate change, and which seem less relevant?
The composition effect is less directly relevant but still important—it influences which industries grow or shrink, which can affect emissions depending on whether a country specializes in cleaner or more polluting sectors.
73
Why might international trade make it more difficult to adopt carbon pricing policies?
International trade complicates carbon pricing because countries worry it will hurt their industries’ competitiveness, cause companies to move production elsewhere (carbon leakage), lead to trade disputes, and require difficult international coordination
74
How might international trade weaken the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies once they are implemented?
can weaken carbon pricing effectiveness by encouraging carbon leakage, where companies shift production to countries with weaker or no carbon pricing to avoid costs. This reduces emissions reductions in the pricing country but doesn’t lower global emissions.
75
Why might international trade create challenges for adopting tax credit policies that support green industries, such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act?
International trade challenges tax credits for green industries because such credits can be seen as unfair subsidies, risking trade disputes. They may favor domestic producers over foreign ones, complicate global supply chains, and face limits under trade agreements, making policy design difficult
76
How are both the European Union and the United States restricting trade to support their climate goals?
Both the EU and the US use or plan to use carbon pricing adjustments on imports and environmental standards to restrict trade in high-emission goods. The EU is more advanced with concrete mechanisms like CBAM, while the US is moving toward similar approaches through policy proposals and climate-focused trade rules.
77
What, broadly speaking, are three rationales for “green protectionism”?
1. Allaying competitiveness concerns, making it easier to pass climate mitigation policies
2. Reducing carbon leakage, increasing the efficacy of climate mitigation policies
3. Incentivizing “laggard” countries to take climate action
78
What, from an environmental
standpoint, is the downside to “green protectionism”?
trade barriers aimed at achieving environmental goals. However, since trade is crucial for accessing the goods needed for the clean energy transition, such barriers could also slow down progress. Therefore, the potential downsides of protectionism must be balanced against its environmental benefits.
79
Why did the Democrats who passed the IRA seek to build domestic supply chains for “green” goods
instead of relying on international ones?
Democrats pushed for domestic supply chains for green goods to ensure energy security, create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign rivals, and enforce strong environmental standards—balancing climate goals with economic and strategic priorities
80
What is the “triple injustice” of climate change?
1. Environmental injustice: Vulnerable communities—often poorer or marginalized—suffer the most from climate impacts like extreme weather, pollution, and resource scarcity.
2. Economic injustice: Those least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions typically face the greatest economic burdens from climate change and related policies.
3. Intergenerational injustice: Future generations will bear the long-term consequences of today’s emissions and inadequate climate action
81
What are three broad principles of climate justice?
1. Responsibility: Rich countries, being the biggest emitters, should cut emissions the most, allowing poorer countries a larger share of the remaining carbon budget.
2. Capacity: Those with greater resources should provide financial support for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage in poorer countries.
3. Just Transition: Climate policies should fairly support workers affected by the shift to green industries and ensure environmentally just project locations.
82
What are some ways in which governments have tried to address climate justice concerns?
1. Providing climate finance to help poorer nations adapt and reduce emissions.
2. Supporting just transitions for workers moving out of fossil fuel industries.
3. Investing in disadvantaged communities, like through the U.S. Justice40 Initiative.
4. Recognizing Indigenous rights and involving affected communities in decisions.
5. Creating loss and damage funds to help vulnerable countries recover from climate impacts
83
Why do climate justice advocates feel like the way the government has tried to address climate justice hasn’t been enough?
In short, advocates argue that government efforts often lack urgency, equity, and accountability, failing to match the scale of the crisis or the needs of those most impacted
84
What are four ways in which climate justice and climate mitigation complement each other?
1. Coalition Building: Providing more support to workers and disadvantaged communities helps sustain domestic and international alliances for climate action.
2. Mitigation Resources: Climate justice calls for increased aid to poor countries, which also helps accelerate the clean energy transition.
3. Judicial Politics: Climate justice principles have driven lawsuits demanding emission cuts, especially to protect future generations—opening new paths for stronger climate policies.
4. Mitigation as Justice: Since poor people and future generations suffer most from climate change, rapid mitigation is the most effective way to address climate injustice
davis
flashcards
Decks in class (13)
# Cards
