This article compares the cases of ozone layer protection and climate change. In both cases, scientific expertise has played a comparatively important role in the policy process. The author argues that against conventional assumptions, scientific consensus is not necessary to achieve ambitious political goals. However, the architects of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operated under such assumptions. The author argues that this is problematic both from a theoretical viewpoint and from empirical evidence. Contrary to conventional assumptions, ambitious political regulations in the ozone case were agreed under scientific uncertainty, whereas the negotiations on climate change were much more modest albeit based on a large scientific consensus. On the basis of a media analysis, the author shows that the creation of a climate of expectation plus pressure from leader countries is crucial for success.
Andresen, S., and Agrawala, S.2002. Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change12:41-51.
2.
Baumgartner, F., and B. D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Benedick, R. E.1991. Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Benedick, R. E.1999. Contrasting approaches: The ozone layer, climate change, and resolving the Kyoto dilemma (WZB Discussion Paper FS II 99-404). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung.
5.
Betsill, M., and R. Pielke Jr.1998. Blurring the boundaries: Domestic and international ozone politics and lessons for climate change. International Environmental Affairs10:147-172.
6.
Caldeira K., A. K. Jain, and M. I. Hoffert. 2003. Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO emission. Science299 (5615): 2052-2054.
7.
de Leo, G. A., L. Rizzi, A. Caizzi, and M. Gatto. 2001. Carbon emissions: The economic benefits of the Kyoto Protocol. Nature413:478-479.
8.
Drozdiak, W. (2000). Globalwarming talks collapse; U.S., EU fail to resolve dispute over curbing emissions. The Washington Post, November 26, 2000, p. A01.
9.
Edwards, P.1996. Global comprehensive models in politics and policymaking. Climatic Change32:149-161.
10.
Edwards, P.1999. Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: Data-laden models, model-filtered data. Science as Culture8:437-472.
11.
Edwards, P., and S. Schneider. 2001.Self-governance and peer-review in science-for-policy: The case of the IPCC Second Assessment report. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, edited by C. A. Miller and P. Edwards, 219-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Elzinga, A.1995. Shaping worldwide consensus: The orchestration of global climate change research. In Internationalism in Science, edited by A. Elzinga and C. Lundström, 223-255. London: Taylor & Graham.
13.
Farman, J. C., B. G. Gardiner, and J. D. Shanklin. 1985. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClO/NO interaction. Nature315:207-210.
14.
Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures25 (7): 735-755.
15.
Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
16.
Gelbspan, R.1997. The heat is on. Reading, MA: Perseus.
17.
Grubb, M., with C. Vrolijk and D. Brack. 1999. The Kyoto Protocol: A guide and assessment. London: Earthscan.
Grundmann, R., and N. Stehr. 2003a. Climate science as a public actor. Unpublished manuscript.
20.
Grundmann, R., and N. Stehr. 2003b. Social control and knowledge in democratic societies. Science and Public Policy30 (3): 183-188.
21.
Gupta, J., and M. Grubb, eds. 2000. Climate change and European leadership: A sustainable role for Europe?Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22.
Gupta, J., X. Olsthoorn, and E. Rotenberg. 2003. The role of scientific uncertainty in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change Convention. Environmental Science & Policy6:475-486.
23.
Haas, P. M.1992. Banning chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone. International Organization46:187-224.
24.
Haas, P. M.1993. Stratospheric ozone: Regime formation in stages. In Polar politics: Creating international environmental regimes, edited by O. Young and G. Osherenko, 152-185. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
25.
Habermas, J.1970. Technology and science as “ideology” (translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro). Boston: Beacon.
26.
Hansen J. E., M. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. Matthews. 1998. Climate forcings in the industrial era. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America95:12753-12758.
27.
Harrison, N. E.2000. From the inside out: Domestic influences on global environmental policy. In Climate change and American foreign policy, edited by P. G. Harris, 89-109. New York: St Martin’s.
28.
Hart, D. M., and D. Victor. 1993. Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research 1957-74. Social Studies of Science23:643-680.
29.
Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and L. Lovins. 1999. Natural capitalism. London: Earthscan.
30.
Holloway, S.2000. US unilateralism at the UN: Why great powers do not make great multi-lateralists. Global Governance6 (3): 361-381.
31.
Horner, C. (2000). Commentary: Science not hot agenda item at climate summit. United Press International, November 20, 2000.
32.
Houghton, J. T., G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums. 1990. Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Houghton J. T., L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callender, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. 1996. Climate change 1995: The science of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1995. IPCC second assessment: Climate change 1995. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
35.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Summary for policymakers: A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf (accessed September 28, 2005).
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Kamm, H. (1987). U.S. blames Europe for lack of ozone-protection accord. The New York Times, February 28, 1987, p. 2.
39.
Kanie, N.2003. Assessing leadership potential for beyond 2012 climate change negotiation: Elaborating a framework of analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
40.
King, D. A.2004. Climate change science: Adapt, mitigate, or ignore?Science303:176-177.
41.
Krosnick, J. A., A. L. Holbrook, and P. S. Visser. 2000. The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science9 (3): 239-260.
42.
Lang, W.1994. Environmental treatymaking: Lessons to be learned for controlling pollution of outer space. In Preservation for near-Earth space for future generations, edited by J. Simpson, 165-179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Lasswell, H. D., and A. Kaplan. 1950. Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
Mazur, A.1998. Global environmental change in the news. International Sociology13 (4): 457-472.
45.
McCright, A. M., and R. Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50 (3): 348-373.
46.
Molina, M. J., and F. S. Rowland. 1974. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluormethanes: Chlorine-atom catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature249:810-812.
47.
Nance, J.1991. What goes up: The global assault on our atmosphere. New York: William Morrow.
48.
Oberthür, S.1999. The EU as an international actor: The protection of the ozone layer. Journal of Common Market Studies37 (4): 641-659.
49.
O’Riordan, T., C. L. Cooper, A. Jordan, S. Rayner, K. R. Richards, P. Runci, and S. Yoffe. 1998. Institutional frameworks for political action. In Human choice and climate change, vol. 1: The societal framework, edited by S. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 345-439. Columbus, OH: Batelle.
50.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., and M. M. Betsill. 1997. Policy for science for policy: Ozone depletion and acid rain revisited. Research Policy26:157-168.
51.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., and D. Sarewitz. 2003. Wanted: Scientific leadership on climate. Issues in Science and TechnologyWinter:27-30.
52.
Price, D.1965. The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Revkin, A. C. (2001). Bush’s shift could doom air pact, some say. The New York Times, March 17, 2001, p. A7.
54.
Revkin, A. C. (2002). U.S. to back scientist from India to replace global warming expert. The New York Times, April 3, 2002, p. A4.
55.
Roan, S.1989. Ozone crisis: The 15-year evolution of a sudden global emergency. New York: John Wiley.
56.
Rowland, F. S.2001. Atmospheric changes caused by human activities: From science to regulation. Ecology Law Quarterly27 (4): 1261-1293.
57.
Rowlands, I. H.1995. The politics of global atmospheric change. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
58.
Sarewitz, D., and R. Pielke Jr.2000. Breaking the global-warming gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly286 (1): 54-64.
59.
Sbragia, A.2000. Environmental policy. In Policy making in the European Union, 4th ed., edited by H. Wallace and W. Wallace, 293-316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
Seelye, K. Q., and Revkin, A. C. (2001). Panel tells Bush global warming is getting worse. The New York Times, June 7, 2001, p. A1.
61.
Shackley, S.1997. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Consensual knowledge and global politics. Global Environmental Change7:77-79.
62.
Skolnikoff, E. B.1997. Same science, differing policies: The saga of global climate change. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 22, August 1997.
63.
The Social Learning Group. 2001. Learning to manage global environmental risks (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
Soroos, M. S.1997. The endangered atmosphere. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
65.
Stolarski, R. S.1986. Nimbus 7 satellite measurements of the springtime Antarctic ozone decrease. Nature322:808-811.
66.
Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. F. Erasmus, M. F. De Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. T. Peterson, O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature427:145-148.
67.
Underdal, A.1994. Leadership theory: Rediscovering the arts of management. In International multilateral negotiation: Approaches to the management of complexity, edited by I. W. Zartman, 178-197. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
68.
Ungar, S.1999. Is strange weather in the air? A study of U.S. national news coverage of extreme weather events. Climatic Change41:133-150.
69.
Ungar, S.2000. Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus the ozone hole. Public Understanding of Science9:287-312.
70.
van der Sluijs, J., J. van Eijndhoven, S. Shackley, and B. Wynne. 1998. Anchoring devices in science for policy: The case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science28 (2): 291-323.
71.
Walzer, M.2003. Is there an American empire?Dissent Magazine November. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/fa03/walzer.htm.
72.
Weale, A.1998. The politics of ecological modernization. In Debating the Earth—The Environmental politics reader, edited by J. Dryzek and D. Schlosberg.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73.
Weingart, P., A. Engels, and P. Pansegrau. 2000. Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science9:261-283.
74.
World Meteorological Organization. 1986. Atmospheric ozone: Assessment of our understanding of the processes controlling its present distribution and change (3 vols.). Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Report No. 16. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
75.
Wuebbles, D., and N. Rosenberg. 1998. The natural science of global climate change. In Human choice and climate change, vol. 2: Resources and technology, edited by S. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 1-78. Columbus, OH: Batelle.
76.
Young, O. R.1991. Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization45:281-308.
