Hi Beth,
At the risk of tooting a horn that I had no business
playing...Benjamin Sovacool, Marilyn Brown, and I have just published
a book with Johns Hopkins University Press entitled "Fact and Fiction
in Global Energy Policy".
Link:
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fact-and-fiction-global-energy-policy
The book features 15 chapters that employ dialectic analysis to
examine 15 "contentious energy questions". Examples include:
1. Should governments intervene in energy markets?
2. Is shale gas a bridge to a clean energy future?
3. Is nuclear energy worth the risk?
In all chapters, we introduce all the data we can find in support of
the thesis and antithesis positions. We then conclude each chapter
with an attempted synthesis. I think (hope) it serves as applied
vignettes to demonstrate how conflicting perspectives emerge despite
"hard science".
The book does not comprehensively cover all that you are after because
it does not explicitly cover specific ideologies that underpin
competing world views. However, we dance around the subject enough
that hopefully the readers sees that every dance partner is not
wearing the same style shoes.
All the best,
Scott
Scott Victor VALENTINE, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Public Policy
Associate Professor, School of Energy and Environment
City University of Hong Kong
Room B7506, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon
Hong Kong SAR
Tel: (852) 3442-8922
website: www.scottvalentine.net
Quoting "Maniates, Michael Fields" <[email protected]>:
I’ve enjoyed good success with Deborah Stone’s The Policy Paradox:
The Art of Political Decision Making. It’s the main text for my
“Theory and Practice of Environmental Policymaking” seminar. The
book dissects the limitations of the ‘rationality project’ in
applied policymaking and illustrates how divergent understandings of
efficiency, equity, welfare, security, and liberty inevitability
produce policy outcomes driven more by values and politics than fact
and logic.
The book isn’t the pithy treatment that you’re looking for, but
perhaps the summary tables in the early chapters will prove helpful.
Best to all,
Michael
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of John M. Meyer
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 6:32 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ronald Mitchell; Beth DeSombre; GEP-Ed List
Subject: Re: [gep-ed] Responses to Neil deGrasse Tyson?
For a short, direct response to Tyson, here's Dave Roberts:
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson
Also, I think Mike Hulme's work (Why we disagree about climate
change; why we still disagree about climate change) is valuable on
this score.
Best,
John
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Max Boykoff
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Beth, Ron and all,
I suggest Andrew Hoffman's 2015 book "How Culture Shapes the Climate
Change Debate" http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621
It is specific to climate change but there are transferable insights
to associated science and environment issues. I've just used it in my
summer undergraduate course with success: it is approachable (and
short).
Cheers, max
---
Associate Professor, Environmental Studies, University of Colorado-Boulder
Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)
Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (CSTPR)
Deputy Editor, Climatic Change
@boykoff ~ http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/boykoff/
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Ronald Mitchell
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I don’t have a reading but I have an exercise that I think works pretty
well. I think of it as best to think of the distinction between faith,
opinion, and knowledge. Its here but also attached.
------------------------------------
PS367: Climate Change: Science and Politics of a Global Crisis
© Prof. Ronald Mitchell, 2016
Department of Political Science and Program in Environmental Studies
Assignment 3 Essay (submit online): “Different things we believe” (10%)
Write a 1,000 word essay explaining what differences, if any, you see in the
use of the word “believe” in the following three sentences (choose whichever
term in each of the 3 underlined pairs best fits your beliefs).
n I believe that there is/is not a God.
n I believe that American government will work better if
Republicans/Democrats win the next election.
n I believe that human-caused climate change is/is not already occurring.
This assignment involves careful thought but NOT a response to the readings.
The goal is to get you thinking about how our beliefs about religion, about
politics, and about science differ. Bring in good ideas on these subjects!
I prefer that your essay NOT tell me which of the underlined pairs you
believe! Instead, write out your answers to yourself and then think about
those answers to write an essay about the ways in which faith, opinion, and
knowledge differ. How strong are your beliefs in each of these areas? On
what basis have you come to hold your beliefs in each area? Are your beliefs
in each area susceptible to change in response to data and evidence and, if
so, to what kinds of data and evidence? Are your beliefs in each area
susceptible to arguments by others? What do differences among these types of
beliefs mean for political discourse? The goal is to use some time spent
thinking about your own experience to help you develop an essay which is
about how faith/opinion/knowledge differ more generally for everybody.
------------------------------------
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On
Behalf Of
Beth DeSombre
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:51 AM
To: GEP-Ed List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [gep-ed] Responses to Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Hi folks:
If you saw Tyson's tweet yesterday about creating the country of
"rationalia" (where "all policy shall be based on the weight of
evidence")-- there have been a few interesting responses designed to poke at
the problems with his logic, like this one from vox:
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson
What I'm hoping exists -- perhaps as a response, or better yet as an already
existing standalone piece -- is something that clearly articulates the
"science can't decide policy, because policy involves making actual choices
among multiple things we value and there's no "scientifically right" way to
do that."
I've tried a few different readings in my undergrad course to get at that
point, but none has been successful at communicating it to my students (or
my ES colleagues!). Does anyone have a reading to suggest?
Beth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
[email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
[email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
[email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
John M. Meyer, Professor and Chair
Department of Politics<http://humboldt.edu/politics/>
Humboldt State University
1 Harpst St.
Arcata, CA 95521 USA
707.826.4497 (voice)
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer<http://users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer>
Now Available: Engaging the Everyday: Environmental Social Criticism
and the Resonance
Dilemma.<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engaging-everyday> MIT Press,
2015;
Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory.
<http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199685271.do> Oxford, 2016.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
________________________________
Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us
immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor
disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
