Editor's Notes

On February 21, 2012, Canada's national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, led its morning national radio news with a story concerning climate change and the Canadian oil sands. The broadcaster reported on the research of some leading Canadian climate researchers, which compared the climate impact of the oil sands to the world's coal and natural gas reserves. The broadcaster's Web site headline was “Climate expert says coal not oilsands real threat.”1 Leading with this story in the national media was not unique. The headline on the front page of Canada's most prominent national newspaper on the same day, the Globe and Mail, read: “Science rides to aid of oil sands.” The Globe and Mail's online story summarized that the research, published in Nature Climate Change, showed that “producing” all of the oil sands' oil-in-place would raise global temperatures by 0.2 to 0.5 degrees Celsius, while “burning” all of the world's coal resources would raise temperatures by 15 degrees Celsius.2 Burning the proven reserve of oil in the oil sands––the most realistic scenario––would lead to a warming of 0.03 degrees Celsius.3 That Canada's national media is leading with a story concerning climate change and the oil sands is not remarkable; what will be remarkable is how this research is picked up by the various interests for, against, and indifferent to the issue. The story is unremarkable because climate change and the oil sands have been and remain a divisive political issue. The current national government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has openly and unapologetically stated that it will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. It does not believe that industrialized countries have a higher pragmatic and ethical burden to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than industrializing and developing countries, such as China, India, and Brazil. Equally, the government has derided opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and the Northern Gateway Pipeline––potentially major conduits for the Canadian oil sands to reach the United States and Asia––suggesting radical environmentalists and foreign interests lead opposition. Adding fodder to the debate is the clear shift in regional economic dominance in Canada, with population increase and economic strength of Central and Western Canada eclipsing the former dominance of Eastern Canada. Given this history and events, one should not be surprised that Canadian media are drawing attention to this new research––it clearly believes this is of national importance and equally that Canadians care concerning this issue. At the same time, however, the main headlines are also remarkable because of how the media are framing the research and reflecting on its significance. The headlines alone are striking: “not so dirty after all,”“coal real threat not oil sands.” Newspapers are already suggesting that this research will be used by the national government to promote their development goals for the oil sands. While this will likely be the case, buried beneath the headlines are significant issues and questions that scholars of politics and policy will have to digest for months and years to come. The report authors, Neil Swart and Andrew Weaver, make clear that they are not supporting or promoting oil sands development or affiliated projects such as the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Weaver, for example, states that for environmental and social issues, he does not support the national government's promotion of the pipeline.4 As Weaver notes, the “real” story behind the research is not the impact of oil sands production but its ongoing enforcement of an economy based on fossil fuels and all of the supplemental emissions that derive from that dependence.5 Many stories are also contrasting this research to prominent critics of oil sands development such as James Hansen and Bill McKibben. The Edmonton Journal, a major Canadian newspaper geographically closest to the oil sands, is reporting on how varied the responses to the findings have been, suggesting that some scientists are explaining that this is old news, that oil sands advocates are celebrating, and that oil sands critics are suggesting that Weaver has been bought off from “Big Oil.” One of the research authors, however, is steadfast in their purpose in publishing the results: “Our responsibility as scientists is to report the facts, so that society and decision makers can make informed decisions, based on factual data, and not emotional rhetoric.”6 For those formally interested in the politics of climate change, in the days and months and years that follow, it will be critical to follow how this research and other climate research frames and reframes debate, how the evidence is integrated and excluded from decision making, how various interests mobilize to respond to the evidence, how it compares with how other evidence and knowledge have been integrated and excluded from decision making, and how it shapes public policy and public opinion in Canada and abroad. Indeed, many of the stories concerning the contribution of oil sands oil to climate change are contrasting this evidence with the European debate designating oil sands a “dirtier” form of oil than other sources. These debates highlight the importance of advancing research on the politics and policy of climate research and reinforce the importance of the research presented in this special issue of Review of Policy Research (RPR): “Comparative Climate Federalism: Carbon Pricing and Politics in Canada, United States and the European Union (EU).” For RPR, understanding and unpacking the politics of science, technology, and environmental knowledge is our central priority. This special issue of RPR is timely in light of the ongoing international debates concerning climate policy but also novel for bringing new comparative insights into climate politics. The collection of original papers by Barry Rabe, Erick Lachapelle, Christopher Borick, Kathryn Harrison, and Elizabeth Bomberg, as well as an insightful introduction by Douglas Brown, serve as a significant reminder that there is still much to understand concerning the politics and policy of climate policy. In fact, we might consider the work published in this special issue to be a second generation of climate policy research. The papers are, first and foremost, comparative. As I have written in past “notes,” single-jurisdiction studies provide deep understandings that are necessary for advancing knowledge of the politics and policy of science, technology, and environmental issues. However, comparative work that is systematic and grounded in deep contextual knowledge is essential for pushing beyond general observations and presumptions concerning what might or might not happen in a given setting. The papers in this issue, therefore, are unique for each comparing two jurisdictions––Canada and the United States or the United States and European Union. Further, several of the papers are based on new primary data relating to how and why elected officials took actions on climate change, how the public in two different jurisdictions perceives climate issues, and how nongovernment entities mobilize and act to influence policy and politics. Moving away from climate change, but remaining on the essential question of how governments understand, support, and examine the relationship between science and policy, I am delighted that the “viewpoints and perspectives” piece of this issue also focuses on the interaction between government policy, support, and evaluation of support for scientific funding. In “STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy,” Mark Largent and Julia Lane provide a concise and informative review of the purpose of the U.S. government's program to evaluate public scientific funding but they also do not shy away from noting the important debates and criticisms concerning the programs that still exist. This “viewpoints” piece is complemented by another excellent set of book reviews by leading researchers on recently published monographs. Finally, in an effort to expand and increase the global reach of our editorial board, I am pleased to announce that Dr. Kristine Kern has joined the editorial board of RPR. Dr. Kern is a leading scholar of environmental politics and policy in Europe and has published widely on climate change. Dr. Kern has recently been appointed as the research professor on the governance of urban infrastructure and global change, a joint appointment at the University of Potsdam and the Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.