Polar Cases in the Global Climate Change Debate: Japan, India, Canada/US and Germany/Sweden

• In Event: 382 - Section on Comparative-Historical Sociology Paper Session. Can Comparative Historical Sociology Save the World? (5) Climate Change

Abstract

Research on the global field of climate change discourse revealed two main dimensions of difference: 1) global climate negotiations versus local issues; 2) scientific denialism and continuation of carbon combustion versus science acceptance and implementation of effective mitigation policies. These differences have blocked the formation of effective international agreements. This paper will compare four cases that represent the poles of these two contentious dimensions: Dimension 1) Japan (focus on global negotiations and planned attainment of Kyoto target via the nuclear path, but failure due to nuclear disaster and now at the crux of deciding future energy pathway) versus India (main focus on domestic climate change issues topped by motivating the public and vulnerability to disaster, along with expecting initial action from the historically responsible developed countries and expecting carbon rights to grow). On Dimension 2) Canada/US (science denial, Kyoto rejection/withdrawal and oil wealth) versus Germany/Sweden (science acceptance, mitigation policy implementation, Kyoto target attainment through renewables). (One case each from last two sets to be determined). The paper develops a comparative-historical explanation for these four distinct cases and their energy and mitigation pathways.

Author

• Jeffrey Broadbent, University of Minnesota