Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environmental activism works, study shows
http://csis.msu.edu/news/environmental-activism-works-sustainability[font face=Serif][font size=5]Environmental activism works, study shows[/font]
June 15, 2015
[font size=3]The environmental movement is making a difference – nudging greenhouse gas emissions down in states with strong green voices, according to a Michigan State University (MSU) study.
Social scientist Thomas Dietz and Kenneth Frank, MSU Foundation professor of sociometrics, have teamed up to find a way to tell if a state jumping on the environmental bandwagon can mitigate other human factors – population growth and economic affluence – known to hurt the environment.
“We’ve used new methods developed over the years and new innovations Ken has developed to add in the politics – and find that politics and environmentalism can mediate some environmental impact,” Dietz said. “Environmentalism seems to influence policies and how well policies that are in place are actually implemented and it also influences individual behavior and the choices people make.”
The study, in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows a state-level win for environmental activism that hasn’t been apparent on a national scale.
…[/font][/font]
June 15, 2015
[font size=3]The environmental movement is making a difference – nudging greenhouse gas emissions down in states with strong green voices, according to a Michigan State University (MSU) study.
Social scientist Thomas Dietz and Kenneth Frank, MSU Foundation professor of sociometrics, have teamed up to find a way to tell if a state jumping on the environmental bandwagon can mitigate other human factors – population growth and economic affluence – known to hurt the environment.
“We’ve used new methods developed over the years and new innovations Ken has developed to add in the politics – and find that politics and environmentalism can mediate some environmental impact,” Dietz said. “Environmentalism seems to influence policies and how well policies that are in place are actually implemented and it also influences individual behavior and the choices people make.”
The study, in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows a state-level win for environmental activism that hasn’t been apparent on a national scale.
…[/font][/font]
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/06/09/1417806112.full.pdf
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because it doesn't feel we're able to make a bit of difference. Nice to find out, maybe we are in some cases. 
This was especially good to read, with the talk here of over-population & our relative affluence doing us in~
All of this suggests that
“business as usual” growth in pop-
ulation and affluence will substantially increase anthropogenic
environmental stress.
However, the effect of environmentalism is
a potentially powerful mediating factor.
By counteracting the
time trend toward increased emissions and by moderating the
overall effect of population and affluence, environmentalism
seems to have been effective at reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions below levels that would otherwise have occurred. Thus,
even as efforts to establish a national policy to limit emissions
have yet to be implemented, at the state level, it appears that
a strong and broadly accepted environmental movement does
produce a mix of shifts in policy, consumption patterns, and
production practices that slows emissions.
Our analysis cannot
unpack the details of how those effects play out, as they will vary
from state to state. Across US states, there is an eclectic mix of
policies that influence greenhouse gas emissions. For example,
even ostensibly similar policies such as state renewable energy
portfolio standards differ in their target levels, their deadlines,
and their definitions of renewable. We consider detailed policies
and regulations as intervening variables that lie causally between
environmentalism and environmental outcomes. Because of the
diversity of policy and regulatory details, we do not try to dis-
entangle their effects, a problem best handled by case studies.
However, our results do counter the assessment that the envi-
ronmental movement has been ineffective in dealing with climate
change. Of course, the political system and institutional ar-
rangements of the US federal system are quite different from
those in most other industrial nations, so our results might not
generalize either to the dynamics within another nation or to
cross-national differences. Further comparative research is cer-
tainly warranted, including research that examines the effect of
institutional arrangements on environmental stress within and
across nations.
“business as usual” growth in pop-
ulation and affluence will substantially increase anthropogenic
environmental stress.
However, the effect of environmentalism is
a potentially powerful mediating factor.
By counteracting the
time trend toward increased emissions and by moderating the
overall effect of population and affluence, environmentalism
seems to have been effective at reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions below levels that would otherwise have occurred. Thus,
even as efforts to establish a national policy to limit emissions
have yet to be implemented, at the state level, it appears that
a strong and broadly accepted environmental movement does
produce a mix of shifts in policy, consumption patterns, and
production practices that slows emissions.
Our analysis cannot
unpack the details of how those effects play out, as they will vary
from state to state. Across US states, there is an eclectic mix of
policies that influence greenhouse gas emissions. For example,
even ostensibly similar policies such as state renewable energy
portfolio standards differ in their target levels, their deadlines,
and their definitions of renewable. We consider detailed policies
and regulations as intervening variables that lie causally between
environmentalism and environmental outcomes. Because of the
diversity of policy and regulatory details, we do not try to dis-
entangle their effects, a problem best handled by case studies.
However, our results do counter the assessment that the envi-
ronmental movement has been ineffective in dealing with climate
change. Of course, the political system and institutional ar-
rangements of the US federal system are quite different from
those in most other industrial nations, so our results might not
generalize either to the dynamics within another nation or to
cross-national differences. Further comparative research is cer-
tainly warranted, including research that examines the effect of
institutional arrangements on environmental stress within and
across nations.
