| dc.contributor |
Cole, Daniel |
|
| dc.creator |
Miller, Christopher J. |
|
| dc.date |
2020-08-27T15:21:36Z |
|
| dc.date |
2020-08-27T15:21:36Z |
|
| dc.date |
2020-08 |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2023-02-24T18:26:20Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2023-02-24T18:26:20Z |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://hdl.handle.net/2022/25799 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/CUHPOERS/260269 |
|
| dc.description |
Thesis (Ph.D.) - Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs/University Graduate School, 2020 |
|
| dc.description |
Climate change is a politically fraught policy domain. It is beset by complications including a long-term time frame, increasing severity, time-inconsistent preferences resulting in irrational economic discounting, low incentives for responsible parties to act, and more. Moreover, in the United States political polarization means resistance to climate policy action has been high for many years, for reasons unrelated to the substantive merits of actual or potential policy
proposals. Most scholarship on climate policy focuses on traditional metrics, notably economic efficiency and/or scientific effectiveness. Political viability—the prospect of actually being enacted—is too often mentioned only in passing. No matter how well-designed, though, a policy that falls short of real-world political viability can be neither effective nor efficient. The purpose of this research is to cast a more politically attuned eye on climate policy options—to map a course forward using political viability as a compass. A few climate policy options—specifically, those often categorized as “geoengineering”—elicit less political resistance from the general public. However, public opinion alone is neither
necessary nor sufficient for policy formation, as increasing economic inequality has driven representational inequality as well. This dissertation analyzes the effects of both polarization and economic status as filters for the political viability of climate policy options in general, and geoengineering in particular. Part One investigates the process of state-level adoption of innovative climate policies. The approach is sequentially quantitative, then qualitative. It first updates a published event history analysis of the factors influencing past policy adoptions, then examines the experiences of state-level policy actors using semi-structured interviews. Part Two investigates the attitudes of individual economic elites, gathering data through a survey experiment and analyzing it to determine elites’ degree of openness to climate policy interventions in a geoengineering context.
Part Three investigates the behavior of economically elite organized interests, assessing their revealed preferences on geoengineering initiatives. The approach is mixed-method, employing qualitative comparative analysis to interpret relevant case studies and underlying conditions. As a whole, this dissertation charts a course that skirts conventional political obstacles, identifying the characteristics of climate policies that might get off the drawing board. |
|
| dc.language |
en |
|
| dc.publisher |
[Bloomington, Ind.] : Indiana University |
|
| dc.rights |
This work is under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This work is under a CC-BY-ND license. You are free to copy and redistribute the material in any format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original creator and provide a link to the license. You may not use this work for commercial purpose. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. |
|
| dc.rights |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
|
| dc.subject |
public policy |
|
| dc.subject |
environmental policy |
|
| dc.subject |
climate change |
|
| dc.subject |
polarization |
|
| dc.subject |
inequality |
|
| dc.subject |
geoengineering |
|
| dc.title |
Climate Policy and Political Viability: Polarization, Inequality, and the Prospects for Geoengineering |
|
| dc.type |
Doctoral Dissertation |
|