Environmental policy

Environmental policy is the commitment of an organization or government to the laws, regulations, and other policy mechanisms concerning environmental issues. These issues generally include air and water pollution, waste management, ecosystem management, maintenance of biodiversity, the management of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species. ^[1] For example, concerning environmental policy, the implementation of an eco-energy-oriented policy at a global level to address the issue of climate change could be addressed. ^[2]

Policies concerning energy or regulation of toxic substances including pesticides and many types of industrial waste are part of the topic of environmental policy. This policy can be deliberately taken to influence human activities and thereby prevent undesirable effects on the biophysical environment and natural resources, as well as to make sure that changes in the environment do not have unacceptable effects on humans. ^[3]

Definition

One way is to describe environmental policy is that it comprises two major terms: environment and policy. Environment refers to the physical ecosystems, but can also take into consideration the social dimension (quality of life, health) and an economic dimension (resource management, biodiversity). ^[4] Policy can be defined as a "course of action or principle adopted or proposed by a government, party, business or individual". ^[5] Thus, environmental policy tends to focus on problems arising from human impact on the environment, which is important to human society by having a (negative) impact on human values. Such human values are often labeled as good health or the 'clean and green' environment. In practice, policy analysts provide a wide variety of types of information to the public decision-making process. ^[6]

The concept of environmental policy was first used in the 1960s to recognise that all environmental problems, like the environment itself, are interconnected. Addressing environmental problems effectively (such as air, water, and soil pollution) requires looking at their connections and underlying and common sources, and how policies addressing particular problems can have spill-over effects on other problems and policies. "The environment" thus became a focus for public policy and environmental policy the term to refer to the way environmental issues were addressed more or less comprehensively. ^[7]

Environmental issues typically addressed by environmental policy include (but are not limited to) air and water pollution, waste management, ecosystem management, biodiversity protection, the protection of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species, and the management of these natural resources for future generations. Relatively recently, environmental policy has also attended to the communication of environmental issues. ^[8] Environmental policies often address issues in one of three dimensions of the environment: ecological (for instance, policies aimed at protecting a particular species or natural areas), resource (for instance, related to energy, land, water), and the human environment (the environment modified or shaped by humans, for instance, urban planning, pollution). ^[9] Environmental policy-making is often highly fragmented, although environmental policy analysts have long pointed out the need for the development of more comprehensive and integrated environmental policies. ^{[10] [11] [12]}

In contrast to environmental policy, ecological policy addresses issues that focus on achieving benefits (both monetary and non monetary) from the non human ecological world. Broadly included in ecological policy is natural resource management (fisheries, forestry, wildlife, range, biodiversity, and at-risk species). This specialized area of policy possesses its own distinctive features. ^[13]

History

As documented by environmental historians, human societies have always impacted their environment, often with adverse consequences for themselves and the rest of nature. Their failure to (timely) recognise and address these problems has been a contributing factor to their decline and collapse. ^{[14] [15]}

Concerns about pollution and its threat to humans as well as nature has provided major stimulus for the development of environmental policies. In 1863, in the United Kingdom, health problems arising from the release of harmful chemicals led to the adoption of the Alkali Act and the creation of the Alkali Inspectorate. ^[16] In 1956, the Clean Air Act 1956 was adopted in the wake of London's Great Smog of 1952 that is believed to have killed 12,000 people. Concerns about the effects of pollution fuelled notably by the publication, in 1962, of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, sparked the beginning of the modern environmental movement. It also marked the start of "the environment" becoming a concern of public policy, as pointed out by Caldwell in 1963. ^[17] These growing concerns, as well as the growing publicity about environmental problems and accidents, forced governments to introduce or strengthen laws and policies aimed at enhancing environmental protection.

Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, became famous for his environmental work. Administrator Ruckelshaus was confirmed by the Senate on December 2, 1970, which is the traditional date used as the birth of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Five months earlier, in July 1970, President Nixon had signed Reorganization Plan No. 3 calling for the establishment of EPA. At the time, environmental policy was a bipartisan issue and the efforts of the United States of America made it an early environmental leader. ^{[18] [19]} During this period, legislation was passed to regulate pollutants that go into the air, water tables, and solid waste disposal. President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970.

In many countries, governments created environment ministries, departments or agencies, and appointed ministers of or for the environment. The world's first minister of the environment was the British Politician Peter Walker from the Conservative Party in 1970.

In the European Union, the very first Environmental Action Programme was adopted by national government representatives in July 1973 during the first meeting of the Council of Environmental Ministers. ^[20] Since then an increasingly dense network of legislation has developed, which now extends to all areas of environmental protection including air pollution control, water protection and waste policy but also nature conservation and the control of chemicals, biotechnology and other industrial risks. EU environmental policy has thus become a core area of European politics.

Despite commonalities between countries in the development of environmental policies and institutions, they have also adopted different approaches in this area. In the 1970s, the field of Comparative Environmental Politics and Policy emerged to compare the environmental policies and institutions of countries aimed at explaining differences and similarities. ^{[21] [22] [23]}

Although particular environmental problems like soil erosion, growing resource scarcity, air and water pollution increasingly became the subject of concern and government regulation in the 19th century, these were seen and addressed as separate issues. ^{[24] [25]} The shortcomings of this reactive and fragmented approach received growing recognition during the 1960s and early 1970s, the first wave of environmentalism. This was reflected in the creation, in many countries, of environmental agencies, policies and legislation with the aim of taking a more comprehensive and integrated approach to environmental issues. ^{[26] [27] [28]} In 1972, the need for this was also recognised at the international level at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme. ^{[29] [30]}

Rationale

Growing environmental awareness and concern provided the main rationale for the adoption of environmental policies and institutions by governments. Environmental protection became a focus of public policy. ^[7]

This rationale for environmental policy is broader than that provided by some interpretations based on economic theories. The rationale for governmental involvement in the environment is often attributed to market failure in the form of forces beyond the control of one person, including the free rider problem and the tragedy of the commons. An example of an externality is when a factory produces waste pollution which may be discharged into a river, ultimately contaminating water. The cost of such action is paid by society at large when they must clean the water before drinking it and is external to the costs of the polluter. The free rider problem occurs when the private marginal cost of taking action to protect the environment is greater than the private marginal benefit, but the social marginal cost is less than the social marginal benefit. The tragedy of the commons is the condition that, because no one person owns the commons, each individual has an incentive to utilize common resources as much as possible. Without governmental involvement, the commons is overused. Examples of tragedies of the commons are overfishing and overgrazing. ^{[31] [32]}

The "market failure" rationale for environmental policy has been criticised for its implicit assumptions about the drivers of human behaviour, which are considered to be rooted in the idea that societies are nothing but collections of self-interested "utility-maximising" individuals. ^{[33] [34]} As Elinor Ostrom has demonstrated, ^[35] this is not supported by evidence on how societies actually make resource decisions. The market-failure theory also assumes that "markets" have, or should have precedence over governments in collective decision-making, which is an ideological position that was challenged by Karl Polanyi whose historical analysis shows how the idea of a self-regulating market was politically created. He added that "Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society." ^[36]

By contrast, ecological economists argue that economic policies should be developed within a theoretical framework that recognises the biophysical reality. The economic system is a sub-system of the biophysical environmental system on which humans and other species depend for their well-being and survival. ^{[37] [38]} The need for grounding environmental policy on ecological principles has also been recognised by many environmental policy analysts, sometimes under the label of ecological rationality and/or environmental integration. ^{[39] [40] [41]} From this perspective, political, economic, and other systems, as well as policies, need to be "greened" to make them ecologically rational. ^{[42] [43] [9]}

Policy approaches

Instruments

In practice, governments have adopted a wide range of approaches to the development and implementation of environmental policies. To a large extent, differences in approaches have been influenced and shaped by the particular political, economic and social context of a country or polity (like the European Union or the United Nations). The differences in approaches, the reasons behind them, and their results have been the subject of research in the fields of comparative environmental politics and policy. ^{[44] [45] [46] [47]} But the study of problems and issues associated with environmental policy development has also been influenced by general public policy theories and analyses. ^{[17] [48] [49] [50]} Contributions on this front have been influenced by different academic disciplines, notably economics, public policy, and environmental studies, but also by political-ideological views, politics, and economic interests, among others through "think tanks". ^{[51] [52] [53] [54]} Thus, the design of environmental policy and the choice of policy instruments is always political and not just a matter determined by technical and efficiency considerations advanced by scientists, economists or other experts. ^{[55] [50]} As Majone has argued: "Policy instruments are seldom ideologically neutral" and "cannot be neatly separated from goals." ^[50] The choice of policy instruments always occurs in a political context. Differences in ideological preferences of governments and political actors, and in national policy styles, have been argued to strongly influence a government's approach to policy design, including the choice of instruments. ^{[55] [56] [57] [58]}

Although many different policy instruments can be identified, and many ways of classifying them have been put forward, ^{[59] [55] [60] [61]} very broadly, a minimalist approach distinguishes three kinds or categories of policy instruments: regulation, economic instruments, and normative or "hortatory" approaches. These have also been referred to as "sticks, carrots and sermons". ^{[59] [61]} Vedung, based on Majone's classification of power, argues that the main difference underlying these categories is the degree of coercion (authoritative force) involved. ^[61]

Regulation

Regulation has been a traditional and predominant approach to policymaking in many policy areas and countries. ^{[62] [63] [64]} It relies foremost on adopting rules (often backed up by legislation), to prohibit, impose or circumscribe human behaviour and practices. In the environmental policy area, this includes, for instance, the imposition of limits or standards for air and water pollution, car emissions, the regulation or banning of the use of hazardous substances, the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, waste disposal, and laws to protect endangered species and natural areas. ^{[65] [66] [50] [67] [68]}

Regulation is often derogatorily referred to by detractors as a top-down, "command and control" approach as it leaves target groups with little if any control over the way(s) environmental activities or goals must be pursued. Since the 1980s, with the rise of neoliberalism in many countries and the associated redefinition of the role of the state (centred on the notion of governance rather than government), regulation has been touted as ineffective and inefficient, sparking a move toward deregulation and the adoption by many governments of "new" policy instruments, notably market instruments and voluntary agreements, also in the realm of environmental policy. ^{[69] [70] [71]}

Economic instruments

Economic instruments involve the imposition or use of economic incentives, including (environmental) taxes, tax exemptions, fees, subsidies, and the creation of markets and rights for trading in substances, pollutants, resources, or activities, such as for SO2, CO2 (carbon or greenhouse gas emissions), water, and tradeable fisheries quota. They are based on the assumption that behaviour and practices are foremost driven by rationality, self-interest and economic considerations and that these motivations can be harnessed for environmental purposes. Decision-making studies cast doubt on these premises. Often, decisions are reached based on irrational influences, unconscious biases, illogical assumptions, and the desire to avoid or create ambiguity and uncertainty. ^{[72] [73] [74] [75]}

Market-based policy instruments also have their supporters and detractors. Among the detractors, for example, some environmentalists contend that a more radical, overarching approach is needed than a set of specific initiatives, to deal with climate change. For example, energy efficiency measures may actually increase energy consumption in the absence of a cap on fossil fuel use, as people might drive more fuel-efficient cars. To combat this result, Aubrey Meyer calls for a 'framework-based market' of Contraction and Convergence. ^[76] The Cap and Share and the Sky Trust are proposals based on the idea. In the case of corporations, it is assumed that such tools make it financially rewarding to engage in efficient environmental management that also improves business and organizational performance They also encourage businesses to become more transparent about their environmental performance by publishing data and reporting.

For economic instruments to function, some form(s) of regulation are needed that involve policy design, for instance, related to the choice and level of taxation, who pays, who qualifies for rights or permits, and the rules on which trading, and a "market" depend for their functioning. For example, the implementation of greener public purchasing programs relies on a combination of regulation and economic incentives.

Normative ("hortatory") instruments

Normative ("hortatory") instruments ("sermons") rely on persuasion and information. ^[77] They include, among others, campaigns aimed at raising public awareness and enhancing knowledge of environmental problems, calls upon people to change their behaviour and practices (like taking up recycling, reducing waste, the use of water and energy, and using public transport), and voluntary agreements between governments and businesses. They share the aim of encouraging people to do "the right thing", to change their behaviour and practices, and to accept individual or group responsibility for addressing issues. Agreements between the government and private firms and commitments made by firms independent of government requirements are examples of voluntary environmental measures. ^[77]

Environmental Impact Assessment is a tool that relies foremost on the gathering of knowledge and information about (potential) environmental effects. It originated in the United States but has been adopted in many countries to analyse and assess the potential impacts of projects. Usually undertaken by experts, it is based on the assumption that an objective assessment of effects is possible, and that the knowledge generated will persuade decision-makers to make changes to proposals to mitigate or prevent adverse environmental effects. ^[78] How EIA rules and processes are designed and implemented depends on regulation and is influenced by the political context. ^[79] Eccleston and March argue that although policymakers normally have access to reasonably accurate environmental information, political and economic factors are important and often lead to policy decisions that rank environmental priorities of secondary importance.[Reference needed]

The effectiveness of hortatory instruments has also been under debate. ^[77] Policies relying foremost on such instruments may amount to little more than symbolic policies, implying that governments have little or no intention to effectively address an issue while creating the impression of taking it seriously. ^[80] Such policies rely more on rhetoric than action. In the environmental realm, sustainable development policies or strategies are often used for this purpose if these are not translated into clear and specific objectives, timeframes and measures. ^[81] Yet, hortatory policy instruments are often preferred by governments and other actors as they are seen as a way of recognising and sharing collective responsibility, possibly avoiding the need for regulation and/or economic instruments. They are thus often used as a first step towards addressing environmental problems. ^[61] However, these tools are often combined with some form of legislation and regulation, for instance, in the case of labelling of consumer products (product information), waste disposal and recycling.

Comparison of instruments

There has been much debate about the relative merits of the various kinds of policy instruments. Market instruments are often held up and used as a more efficient and cost-effective, alternative to regulation. Yet, many analysts have pointed out that regulation, economic incentives, "market" instruments, and environmental taxation and subsidies can achieve the same results. For instance, as Kemp and Pontoglio argue, policy instruments cannot be usefully ranked with regard to their effects on eco-innovation, "the often expressed view that market-based approaches such as pollution taxes and emission trading systems are better for promoting eco-innovation is not brought out by the case study literature or by survey analysis", and there is actually more evidence that regulations stimulate radical innovation more than market-based instruments. ^[82] It has also been argued that If the government can anticipate new technology or is able to react to it optimally, regulatory policies by virtue of administered prices (taxes) and policies by setting quantities (issuing tradable permits) are (almost) equivalent. ^[83] More generally, the performance of economic instruments in dealing with environmental problems has been a mixed bag, referred to by Hahn as "not very impressive", ^[72] and has led Tietenberg to conclude that they are "no panacea". ^[84]

Different instruments are sometimes combined in a policy mix to address a particular environmental problem. Since environmental issues have many aspects, several policy instruments may be required to adequately address each one. Ideally, government policies are carefully formulated so that the individual measures do not undermine one another or create a rigid and cost-ineffective framework. Overlapping policies result in unnecessary administrative costs, increasing the cost of implementation. To help governments realize their policy goals, the OECD Environment Directorate, for example, collects data on the efficiency and consequences of environmental policies implemented by the national governments. Their website provides a database detailing countries' experiences with their environmental policies. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE, and the OECD's Environmental Performance Reviews, evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.

However, although regulation, taxation and market instruments can be equally (in-) effective, they may differ significantly in the allocation and distribution of (potential) costs and benefits, with the allocation of tradeable ("property") rights potentially generating significant profits to those who receive such rights. ^{[85] [86]} They are, therefore, generally much preferred by affected resource users and industries, which explains their popularity since the rise of neoliberalism. This has led analysts to point out that there are many other important aspects to the choice of policy instruments than their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, such as distributional, ethical and political aspects, and their appropriateness for addressing environmental problems. ^{[87] [88] [89] [55] [90] [50] [91]}

Policy analysis

How environmental policies are made, how effective they are, and how they can or should be improved, has become the subject of considerable research and debate. In the academic realm, these questions are commonly addressed under the label of environmental policy analysis.

Environmental policy analysis is a broad field comprising different approaches to explaining and developing environmental policy. The first type has been referred to in the policy literature as the analysis of policy and the second as the analysis for policy. ^[92] Many approaches are derived from the broader field of public policy analysis which emerged as a scientific enterprise after WWII. ^[93] While policy analysis as a decision-making tool continued to be applied in the business sector, the study of public policy, defined broadly as "What governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes, ^[94] became an important strand in political science. This variety, which has been classified into analycentric, policy process, and meta-policy categories, has also manifested itself in the area of environmental policy analysis which developed since the 1960s. ^[4]

The analycentric or rational approach

The analycentric approach to environmental policy analysis, which focuses on particular issues and uses mostly quantitative methods to identify "optimal" (cost-effective or efficient) solutions, has been the prevalent way to address environmental problems, both by governments and businesses. It is also often depicted as the rational or scientific approach to and for policy development. While scientific analyses and (preferably) quantitative data provide knowledge of the more immediate sources or causes of environmental problems, such as forms of pollution and climate change, policy prescriptions are based on setting goals, objectives and targets and the identification of the most cost-effective and efficient means by assessing alternative options. Technological innovation, more efficient management, and economic instruments such as cost-benefit analysis, ^{[9] [95]} environmental taxes, ^{[96] [97]} and tradeable permit schemes (market creation) ^{[72] [84]} have been among the preferred means in this approach.

The analycentric or rational approach has been critiqued on various grounds. ^{[98] [99] [100] [101]} First, it assumes that there is adequate knowledge and agreement on the causes of problems and the goals to be achieved. Second, the approach (for policy) ignores the way policies are developed in (political) practice. Third, the preferred means are often based on questionable assumptions notably about human behaviour. Many of the limitations of the rational approach were already acknowledged by an early proponent, Herbert Simon, who argued that "limited rationality" provided a more realistic basis for decision-making. ^[102] This view has also been expressed by advocates of more comprehensive and integrated environmental policy development, who argued that looking at problems in isolation (on a one-by-one basis) ignores the linkages between environmental problems and their causes. ^{[103] [104]} In the late 1980s, "green planning" and the adoption of sustainable development strategies, in particular, received support in academic circles and among many governments as rational, goal-based policy approaches aimed at overcoming the limitations of the fragmented analycentric approach. ^{[105] [106] [107] [108] [109]}

The policy process approach

The policy process approach emphasises the role and importance of politics and power in policy development. It aims foremost at better understanding how policies are made and put into practice. It commonly involves identifying a variable number of steps, including problem definition and agenda setting, the formulation and selection of policy options, implementation, and evaluation. ^{[4] [110]} These are conceived as being parts of a policy cycle, as existing policies are reviewed and changed for political reasons and/or because they are deemed to be unsatisfactory. The various stages have become the focus of much research, generating insights into why and how policies have been developed and implemented, with variable outcomes and effectiveness. These studies show that policy development is more about the role of and interplay between conflicting interests than the result of rational analysis and finding and adopting (optimal) solutions to problems. One of the main schools of thought on this front is that of incrementalism, which argues that policy change often occurs in small steps that accommodate conflicting interests. ^{[111] [112] [100]}

Policy process analysis has also been applied to environmental policy in its different stages. It has been used, for instance, to clarify why environmental issues have had difficulty reaching or staying on the public and political agendas. ^{[113] [49] [114]} More recently, research has revealed the role and power of businesses, notably the oil industry, in downplaying the risks associated with climate change or "climate change denial." ^{[115] [116] [117]} "Think tanks" and the media have been used to sow scepticism about the science behind environmental and other problems, to redefine issues, and to avert policies that threaten the interests of businesses. ^{[118] [119] [120] [121]}

Policy process analyses also include studies of the variety of actors and their influence on government decision-making. Although pluralism, the idea that not one group dominates all decision-making in modern societies, has long been the prevailing school of thought in political science, ^{[122] [123]} it has been contested by elite theories that assign predominant power to elites in different areas or sectors of decision-making. ^{[124] [125] [126]} To what extent environmental groups have had influence on government decisions and policies continues to be a subject of debate. Some argue that Non-Governmental organizations have the greatest influence on environmental policies. ^[127] These days, many countries are facing huge environmental, social, and economic impacts of rapid population growth, development, and natural resource constraints. As NGOs try to help countries to tackle these issues more successfully, a lack of understanding about their role in civil society and the public perception that the government alone is responsible for the well-being of its citizens and residents makes NGOs tasks more difficult to achieve. NGOs such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund can help tackling issues by conducting research to facilitate policy development, building institutional capacity, and facilitating independent dialogue with civil society to help people live more sustainable lifestyles. The need for a legal framework to recognize NGOs and enable them to access more diverse funding sources, high-level support/endorsement from local figureheads, and engaging NGOs in policy development and implementation is more important as environmental issues continue to increase. ^[128]

It has been argued that notwithstanding Reagan's efforts to undo environmental regulation in the US, the effects have been limited as environmental interests were already strongly entrenched. ^[129] Under President Trump, again, many environmental regulations have been dismantled or were scheduled to be rolled back. ^{[130] [131] [132]} Other research suggests that many environmental policies adopted by governments are designed to be weak and largely ineffective as business interests use their power to influence or even shape these policies, also at the international level. ^{[9] [133]}

International organizations have also made great impacts on environmental policies by creating programmes such as the United Nations Environment Programme and hosting conferences such as the United Nations Earth Summit to address environmental issues. UNEP is the leading global environmental authority tasked with policy guidance for environmental programs. The UNEP monitors environmental aspects, such as waste management, energy use, greenhouse gas inventory, and water use to promote environmental sustainability and address environmental issues. ^[134]

The role of science and scientists in policy environmental policy development has been another focus of research. Scientists have been instrumental in discovering many environmental problems, from the damaging effects of the use of pesticides, ^[135] the depletion of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, and all kinds of pollution, among others. In this respect, they have often provided legitimacy and support to the raising of concerns by the environmental movement, although they have often been reluctant to get involved in environmental activism out of fear of compromising their scientific credibility. ^[136] Nonetheless, scientists have played a significant role pushing environmental issues onto the international agenda, together with international ENGOs, in what have been referred to as "epistemic communities." ^[137] However, to what extent science can be "value-free" has been a subject of debate. ^{[138] [139] [140]} Science and scientists always operate in a political-economic context that circumscribes their role, research and its effects. ^[141] This raises the question of scientific integrity, especially when scientists are paid to serve commercial and political interests. ^{[142] [121] [143] [144]}

The meta-policy approach

Meta-policy research focuses on the ways policy development is influenced or shaped by contextual factors, including political institutions and systems, socio-cultural patterns, economic systems, knowledge frameworks, discourses, and the changes therein. The latter may involve deliberate changes to the formal and non-formal institutions through which policy analysis, development, decision-making, and implementation occur, such as the introduction of rules for cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, consultation and accountability requirements, and organisational change. ^[4]

How environmental problems are interpreted and defined directly affects the development of environmental policies, at all stages of the policy cycle, from problem recognition, and the formulation of policy options, to decision-making, implementation and policy evaluation. However, much (meta-policy) research has been undertaken on what influences or shapes these views and interpretations. For instance, there is a large body of research that looks at whether societies have moved or are moving towards "post-materialist" values, ^{[145] [146]} or to a New Environmental Paradigm. ^{[147] [148]} More broadly, the link between dominant worldviews and the way the environment is treated has been a focus of much debate. ^{[149] [150] [151]} The rise and growing support for the environmental movement is often seen as a driver towards "greener" societies. ^{[152] [153]} If such socio-cultural trends hold, this is expected to lead governments to adopt stronger environmental policies.

Other meta-policy research focuses on the different "environmental discourses" and how they compete for dominance in societies and worldwide. ^{[154] [155] [156] [157]} The power to influence or shape people's view of the world has been referred to as "cognitive power". ^[158] The role of intellectuals, opinion leaders, and the media in shaping and advancing the dominant views and ideologies in societies has been an important focus of Marxist and critical theory that has also influenced the analysis of environmental policy formation. ^[159] Ownership and control of the media play an important role in the formation of public opinion on environmental issues. ^{[160] [161] [162]}

Other meta-policy research relevant to the development of environmental policy focuses on institutional and systemic factors. For instance, the role of environmental institutions and their capacity and power within the broader systems of government is found to be an important factor in advancing or constraining environmental policy. ^{[163] [164] [165]} More broadly, the question of whether capitalism is compatible or not with long-term environmental protection has been a subject of debate. ^{[158] [166] [167] [168]} As, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the introduction of capitalism in China, capitalism became a globally dominant system, this question has become even more important to the future development of environmental policy at the national and international levels. As many analysts of global environmental politics have pointed out, the institutions for developing effective environmental policy at that level are weak and rather ineffective, ^{[169] [170] [158] [171]} as demonstrated by accounts of continuing environmental deterioration. ^{[172] [173] [174] [175] [176]}

Evaluation

Ultimately, the environmental effectiveness of policies is measured by the extent to which they reduce or resolve environmental problems (ecological destruction and degradation, resource degradation and depletion, and adverse effects on humans by environmental modification, including by urban development and pollution). Whether environmental policies have addressed environmental problems more or less effectively remains a topic of debate. On the one hand, some take a very positive and optimistic view, arguing that, on many fronts, the environmental situation, especially as it affects humans, has improved. ^{[177] [178] [179]} On the other hand, many scientists and scientific reports paint a bleak picture of where the world is going, based on deteriorating environmental indicators linked to global heating, ^[180] declining biodiversity, ^[172] pollution trends (including of new forms of pollution such as the spread of plastic nanoparticles), ^{[181] [182]} and ongoing resource degradation and decline (such as water and agricultural land). ^{[183] [184] [173] [174] [175]}

Difficulties

Differences in approaches to environmental policy development and design, including the selection of policy instruments, linked to different historical, political-economic and socio-cultural contexts, and the inevitable role and influence of different cognitive and ideological frameworks in the analysis and design of policies, all make that evaluating environmental policies is also a complex and controversial matter.

As many policy analysts have pointed out, judging the merits of policies goes beyond an assessment of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the policy instruments used. In the realm of public policy, policy evaluation is a topic that is seen as much more encompassing and complex. ^{[185] [186]} Apart from efficiency and cost-effectiveness, many other important aspects of policy and criteria for evaluating them have been identified and discussed, including their knowledge (science) basis, their goals and objectives, ethical issues, distributional effects, and process and legitimacy. Although efforts have been made to put evaluation on its own (trans-) disciplinary footing ^{[187] [188] [189] [190]} as a systematic and independent stage in the policy process, either before the adoption of policies (ex-ante evaluation) or after their implementation (ex-post evaluation) ^[191] this remains fraught with problems. ^{[192] [190]} In practice, systematic evaluation remains a largely neglected aspect or stage of policymaking, in large part, because of the political nature and sensitivity of evaluating government's policies. ^{[193] [176]}

The difficulties of policy evaluation also apply to environmental policies. Also there, policy evaluation is often approached in simple terms based on the extent to which the stated goals of a policy have been achieved or not ("success or failure"). ^[185] However, as many environmental policy analysts have pointed out, many other aspects of environmental policy are important. These include the goals and objectives of the policies (which may be deemed too vague, inadequate, poorly or wrongly targeted), ^{[185] [194]} their distributional effects (whether they contribute to or reduce environmental and social injustice), ^{[195] [196] [197]} the kind of instruments used (for instance, their ethical and political dimensions), ^{[88] [89]} the processes by which policies have been developed (public participation and deliberation), ^{[198] [176] [199]} and the extent to which they are institutionally supported. ^{[185] [200]}

Policy integration

Policy integration has been discussed since the 1980s in many different forms and terminology. Often used terms include policy mainstreaming, policy coordination, holistic governance and – in the environmental field – environmental policy integration. ^[201] The core idea of policy integration is that policies in one domain should take into account potential side-effects in other domains, so that policies coming from different domains or organizations do not negate each other. Policy integration can take place on multiple "objects", including policy inputs, outputs, procedures, instruments, and goals. ^[201]

Many environmental thinkers and policy analysts have pointed out that addressing environmental problems effectively requires an integrated approach. ^{[202] [104] [203]} As the environment is an integrated whole or system, environmental policies need to take account of the interactions within that system and the effects of human actions and interventions not just on a problem in isolation, but also their (potential) effects of other problems. More often than not, fragmented policies and "solutions", for instance, to combat pollution, lead to the displacement of environmental problems or the generation of new ones. ^{[185] [204] [205]} The interconnectedness of the environmental challenge, it has been said, requires an approach that is "ecological rational" and environmentally effective. ^{[40] [206]}

Environmental integration, in broad terms, is "the integration of environmental considerations into all areas of human thinking, behaviour and practices that (potentially) affect the environment." ^[207] This involves, among others, the development and adoption of an overarching view of the environment, an overarching policy to guide the "greening" of policies, and an institutional framework that gives "teeth" to environmental integration. ^[208]

In academic and government circles (notably the EU), much of the focus has been on environmental policy integration (EPI), the process of integrating environmental objectives into non-environmental policy areas, such as energy, agriculture and transport, rather than leaving them to be pursued solely through "purely" environmental policies. This is often particularly challenging because of the need to reconcile global objectives and international rules with domestic needs and laws. ^[209] EPI is widely recognised as one of the key elements of sustainable development, and it was adopted as a formal requirement by the EU. ^[210] More recently, the notion of "climate policy integration", also denoted as "mainstreaming", has been applied to indicate the integration of climate considerations (both mitigation and adaptation) into the broader (often economically focused) activities of government. ^[211]

Although, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, many governments began to adopt a more comprehensive approach to environmental issues, notably in the form of National Sustainable Development Strategies and "Green Planning", ^{[212] [213] [214]} these efforts were largely abandoned during the 1990s due to the rise to prominence of neoliberal thinking, policies and reforms. This development led to the return of the fragmented and reactive approach to environmental problems with an emphasis on climate change and the use of "market-based" instruments. ^{[215] [216] [217]}

Comparative Environment Policy and Politics

The field of Comparative Environment Policy and Politics aims to explain the differences in performance related to, among others, differences in political systems, institutions, policy styles and cultures. ^{[218] [219] [220]} However, the environmental performance of governments remains commonly based on achievements in a range of environmental problems and policy outputs, as measured by separate indicators like CO2 emissions, different forms of air pollution, water quality indicators, and biological diversity (individual species). ^{[23] [221] [222]} These assessments are often used as a basis for ranking the environmental performance of countries, with some characterised as leaders and others as laggards. ^{[223] [224] [225]} However, such rankings have been treated with scepticism, not only on methodological grounds but especially because they mean little in terms of the extent to which governments take environmental integration seriously. ^{[226] [224]} While it has been noted that, at different stages, some countries have been leaders in some areas of environmental integration, these efforts have not been sustained over time. ^[158]

Possible improvements

Reflecting the diversity of approaches to environmental policy development, influenced by contextual factors, policy perspectives, and political-ideological views, among others, there are also different views on how environmental policy could or should be improved. The three most common standpoints have been referred to as incrementalism ("tinkering"), democratisation, and systemic change.

Incrementalism has been deemed to be the most common (standard) way governments change their policies with the stated aim of improving them. Propagated in particular by Charles Lindblom based on his view of American political reality, he argued that changing policies in small steps is not only the most common way policies are developed, but also the best way, as it avoids making big errors that could result from a "rational-comprehensive" approach. ^{[227] [228] [229] [112]} Also, over time, a series of small changes may add up and bring about significant and big change. Although incrementalism has been critiqued for its underlying assumptions and conservative implications ("tinkering"), ^{[230] [231] [232] [233]} and also for its failure to come to grips with environmental problems, ^{[234] [231] [235]} it is a very recognisable approach to policy "improvement" in many countries.

As incrementalism does not question the political-economic status quo, its suggestions for policy improvement are foremost of a managerial or technological kind. Tinkering with policy and management tools, and technological innovation, are seen as the main and most desirable ("win-win") ways to address environmental (and other) problems. This "technocentric" approach, which is seen as politically neutral, has been a preferred and dominant approach to "solving" environmental problems from the beginning of the environmental era, advocated by governments, businesses, and many environmentalists. ^{[236] [237] [178]} The managerial approach also involves training "environmental practitioners" and policy analysts. Given the growing need for trained environmental practitioners, graduate schools throughout the world offer specialized professional degrees in environmental policy studies. While there is not a standard curriculum, students typically take classes in policy analysis, environmental science, environmental law and politics, ecology, energy, and natural resource management. Graduates of these programs are employed by governments, international organizations, private sector, think tanks, advocacy organizations, and universities.

Much of the research and innovation sponsored by governments, businesses and international organisations under the heading of "transition management" is aimed at the gradual (incremental) development of new "transformative" technologies, for instance, in areas like energy, transport and agriculture. ^[238] An example is the European environmental research and innovation policy, which aims at defining and implementing a transformative agenda to greening the economy and society as a whole so as to achieve "truly" sustainable development. The EU strategies, actions and programmes promote more and better research and innovation for building a resource-efficient, climate-resilient society and thriving economy which are meant to be in sync with the natural environment. Research and innovation in Europe are financially supported by the programme Horizon 2020, which is also open to participation worldwide. Yet, the "transition management" approach to sustainability has been critiqued for its a-political, technocratic and elitist nature. ^{[239] [240]} Also, Bucchi argues that the traditional technocentric approach no longer suffices as science has increasingly been commercialised and politicised and lost much of its image of neutrality that it enjoyed with the public at large. ^[241]

In line with the policy process perspective, many environmental advocates and analysts support improving the opportunities for public participation and input in the policy process, as well as increasing transparency. The policy design literature aims to pull together insights gained from studies of the various stages of the policy cycle to design more effective policies, to better consider the tools, rules and assumptions on which they are based, the groups at which they are targeted, contextual factors, as well as the nature (complexity) of the problem. ^{[242] [243]} Enhancing public input and participation is argued to have the potential to improve all stages of the policy cycle, including problem definition, decision-making, policy implementation, and evaluation. UNFCCC research shows that climate-related projects and policies that involve women are more effective. Policies, projects and investments without meaningful participation by women are less effective and often increase existing gender inequalities. Women found climate solutions that cross political or ethnic boundaries have been particularly important in regions where entire ecosystems are under threat, e.g. small island states, the Arctic and the Amazon and in areas where people's livelihoods depend on natural resources e.g. fishing, farming and forestry. ^{[244] [245] [246]} However, the degree and kind of opportunities provided for public input and deliberation are seen as a key factor, both for improving the effectiveness of policies and for enhancing their support basis and legitimacy. ^{[247] [248] [249]} Enhancing democracy, for instance, by adopting forms of "discursive designs" and other forms of "reflexive" deliberative democracy, ^{[250] [251] [198]} aims to create a level playing field on which citizens' representatives have a more equal chance to partake in shaping policy. Relatively recently, "citizens' assemblies" have been used in a range of countries to address controversial topics, including climate change policy. ^{[252] [253]} However, as these are temporary and advisory bodies, governments are not bound by their recommendations. ^[254]

Over time, many governments have introduced laws to provide public access to government-held information, for instance, by the adoption of Freedom of Information legislation. ^{[255] [256]} Although a growing number of governments have adopted such legislation, a report by Privacy International notes that in many countries much work remains to be done on the implementation front and the creation of a culture, "leaving access largely unfulfilled." ^[257]

A third approach to improving environmental policy is based on the view that meaningful progress on resolving environmental problems requires fundamental or systemic change, in particular of the prevailing socio-cultural, political and economic systems. Three categories of factors are commonly identified: cognitive factors (the way(s) environmental problems have been interpreted (cognitive factors), linked to dominant belief and value systems; political factors (the nature of the prevailing political systems); and the nature of the prevailing economic systems. These three types of factors are not mutually exclusive, and analysts often combine them to provide more comprehensive explanations. ^[216]

That the way environmental problems predominantly are interpreted is a fundamental obstacle to addressing the environmental challenge effectively, has been pointed out already from the earliest stages of the rise of environmental awareness and thinking. Many early environmental thinkers argued that environmental problems are interrelated, finding their roots in the interconnectedness of the environment itself and the failure of human societies to recognise that reality and to heed this in their behaviour and practices. ^{[7] [258] [135] [259] [260]} These thinkers point out the need to take a "holistic", ecosystems or integrated approach to the management of the environment and the use of resources. ^{[261] [262] [263] [264]} Often, it is argued that such an approach was common to indigenous societies, but that this got pushed aside and lost with the rise of "modernity" and rational-analytic (scientific) thinking. In modern societies, nature has come to be seen, analysed and manipulated as a machine in the service of human ends. ^{[265] [266] [267] [268]}

But as the way the environmental challenge is interpreted is closely linked to the dominant socio-cultural (value) system, the latter is also said to need fundamental change. There is a large body of literature on the role and importance of the dominant values in societies and the (possible) changes therein, among others linked to economic development, urbanisation and globalisation. On the one hand, analysts have identified the rise of individualism, materialism, consumerism, and the decline of community values in modern societies and cultures. ^{[269] [270] [271] [272] [273]} On the other hand, some analysts, notably based on Ronald Inglehart's work, argue that, with rising standards of living, comes a shift in societies, facilitated by generational change, from material to "post-material" values, including self-actualisation, belonging, and aesthetics. ^{[274] [275]} However, it is debatable to what extent this shift represents a move towards environmental values becoming dominant and whether the level of support for the environment depends on a high standard of living. ^{[276] [277] [278]} Others, notably inspired by Riley Dunlap's research, more directly explore whether the presently dominant paradigm is being replaced by what is referred to as the "New Environmental Paradigm". ^{[279] [280]} As yet, however, the findings of this research are inconclusive, although there is evidence that environmental concern and support have grown globally. ^{[281] [282] [276]}

Whether and how the dominant value systems and views on the environment can be purposefully changed by concerted social action aimed at assigning greater priority remains a matter of debate and uncertainty. On the one hand, the environmental movement has been touted as a "vanguard" in shifting the dominant paradigm. ^{[283] [284] [285]} On the other hand, the effectiveness of the environmental movement in bringing about fundamental value change can and has been drawn into doubt. One reason is that the environmental movement itself is very diverse in views on the kind of value change(s) required, ranging from technocentric to deep ecological stances. ^{[236] [286] [287]} To what extent green parties have been effective in changing dominant value patterns or are themselves subject to being co-opted by dominant values and interests is also subject to debate. ^{[288] [289] [290] [291]} To a large extent, as many analysts have pointed out, the ability to shape the dominant values and public views on the environment depends on the relative (cognitive) power held and exercised by groups, notably through control over the media and other institutions such as education, universities, think tanks, and the social media. ^{[292] [293] [294] [118] [54] [295] [296]}

The importance of the nature of political systems for the development of environmental (and other) policies has been the subject of much research, including in the field of Comparative Environmental Policy. ^{[22] [297] [222] [298] [299]} Analysts have pointed out a broad range of factors that stand in the way of environmental issues being adequately recognised and/or assigned political priority, including the role, privileged access, power and influence, and even dominance of (non-environmental) interest groups, bureaucratic thinking and interests, the lack of openness and transparency, (very) limited opportunities for public input and participation, and the short political horizon linked to electoral cycles. ^{[300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305]} Many of these factors are not confined to liberal-democratic political systems but also play a role, perhaps even more so, in authoritarian political systems. ^{[306] [307] [308] [309] [158]}

These political obstacles have generally led to a relative weakness in the power of government institutions (organisations and rules) advocating for environmental interests compared to non-environmental institutions and the circumscription of the power, role and influence of societal environmental groups, including green parties, if not their co-optation by the dominant powers and vested interests. ^{[289] [288] [310] [311]} This also affects the "environmental capacity" of political systems, severely limiting efforts to develop more comprehensive and integrated approaches to the environmental challenge. ^{[165] [312] [313] [314]}

Other analysts emphasise the importance of economic systems, notably capitalism, as a fundamental obstacle to developing and adopting effective environmental policies. Some take the view that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with long-term environmental protection, notably because of its inherent growth imperative. ^{[315] [143] [316] [317]} Others recognise this imperative as a problem but argue that it is possible to reform capitalism in a way that does not require growth, or that enables "green growth" based on the recognition of environmental limits. ^{[318] [319] [320] [321]} Many have pointed out that socialist economic systems have had even worse environmental records than capitalist systems, implying that socialism is no better alternative for the environment even apart from other considerations. ^{[306] [322] [307] [323] [324]} However, this view is contested by those who argue that socialism as an economic system does not necessarily require an authoritarian system and that there is scope for creating democratic socialist systems that assign greater priority to collective interests, including environmental protection. ^{[325] [326] [327] [328]}

These cognitive, social, political and economic factors are often referred to as systemic, meaning that overcoming these obstacles requires systemic, fundamental or transformative change, notably of the systems that are the sources and drivers of environmental pressures and problems, including the political and economic systems, and sectors like agriculture, energy, and transport. Increasingly, the tweaking of environmental and other policies is seen as inadequate, and there is growing recognition of the need for "transformative change". ^{[329] [330] [331]} However, the interrelatedness of these systems raises questions about whether and/or how such transformative change can be achieved, ^[158] which has led a growing number of environmental analysts, including scientists, to serious doubts and pessimism, ^{[332] [333] [334]} although others argue that it remains possible for societies to do so. ^{[177] [335] [336] [337]}

See also

• Environmental justice
• Environmental governance
• Environmental politics
• Normative science
• Policy advocacy
• Environmental history

References

1. Eccleston, Charles H. (2010). Global Environmental Policy: Concepts, Principles, and Practice. Taylor & Francis. ISBN   978-1439847664.
2. Banovac, Eraldo; Stojkov, Marinko; Kozak, Dražan (February 2017). "Designing a global energy policy model". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy. 170 (1): 2–11. Bibcode:2017ICEE..170....2B. doi:10.1680/jener.16.00005.
3. McCormick, John (2001). Environmental Policy in the European Union. The European Series. Palgrave. p. 21.
4. Bührs, Ton; Bartlett, Robert V (1991). Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green. Oxford University Press. Chapter 1. ISBN   0195582845.
5. Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995.
6. Loomis, John; Helfand, Gloria (2001). Environmental Policy Analysis for Decision Making. Springer. p. 330. ISBN   978-0-306-48023-2.
7. Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963). "Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy?". Public Administration Review. 23 (3): 132–139. doi:10.2307/973837. ISSN   0033-3352. JSTOR   973837.
8. A major article outlining and analyzing the history of environmental communication policy within the European Union has recently come out in The Information Society, a journal based in the United States. See Mathur, Piyush. "Environmental Communication in the Information Society: The Blueprint from Europe," The Information Society: An International Journal, 25: 2, March 2009, pp. 119–38.
9. Bührs, Ton (2009). Environmental integration: our common challenge. Albany, NY: Suny Press. pp. 204–210. ISBN   978-1-4384-2607-5.
10. Emmott, N.; Haigh, N. (1996-01-01). "Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: UK and Ec Approaches and Possible Next Steps". Journal of Environmental Law. 8 (2): 301–311. doi:10.1093/jel/8.2.301. ISSN   0952-8873.
11. Johnson, Huey D. (2008). Green Plans: Blueprint for a Sustainable Earth (3rd ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN   9780803260207.
12. Guruswamy, Lakshman (1992). "Integrated Environmental Control: The Expanding Matrix". Environmental Law. 22 (1): 77–118.
13. Lackey, Robert (2006). "Axioms of ecological policy" (PDF). Fisheries. 31 (6): 286–290.
14. Diamond, Jared M. (2006). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN   978-0-670-03337-9.
15. Ponting, Clive (1993). A green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York: Penguin. ISBN   978-0-14-016642-2.
16. Reed, Peter (2012), "The Alkali Inspectorate 1874–1906: Pressure for Wider and Tighter Pollution Regulation", Ambix, Vol.59, No.2, pp.131-151.
17. Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963), "Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy", Public Administration Review, Vol.23, pp.132-139.
18. "Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy"
19. Bührs, Ton (2022), A Planetary Tragedy. Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge. Tauranga: Fantail Publications.
20. Knill, C. and Liefferink, D. (2012) The establishment of EU environmental policy. In: Jordan, A.J. and C. Adelle (ed.) Environmental Policy in the European Union: Contexts, Actors and Policy Dynamics (3e). Earthscan: London and Sterling, VA.
21. Lundqvist, Lennart  J. (1974), Environmental Policies in Canada, Sweden, and the United States: A Comparative Overview. London: Sage Publications.
22. Lundqvist, Lennart J. (1974), "Do Political Structures Matter in Environmental Politics? The Case of Air Pollution Control in Canada, Sweden, and the United States", Canadian Public Administration, Vol.17, No.1, pp.119-141.
23. Enloe, Cynthia (1975), The Politics of Pollution in Comparative Perspective. New York: David McKay.
24. Markham, Adam (1995). A brief history of pollution (repr ed.). London: Earthscan Publ. ISBN   978-1-85383-213-0.
25. Carter, Dale, Vernon Gill Tom (1974). Topsoil and civilization (Revised ed.). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN   0-8061-1107-0.
26. Desai, Uday, ed. (2002). Environmental politics and policy in industrialized countries. American and comparative environmental policy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-54137-4.
27. Jänicke, Martin; Weidner, Helmut; Jörgens, Helge, eds. (1997). National environmental policies: a comparative study of capacity-building. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN   978-3-540-61519-4.
28. Weidner, Helmut; Jänicke, Martin; Jörgens, Helge (2002). Capacity building in national environmental policy: a comparative study of 17 countries. Berlin: Springer. ISBN   978-3-540-43158-9.
29. Nelson, Lisa (2017-09-25), "The Role of the United Nations: from Stockholm to Johannesburg", Handbook of Globalization and the Environment, Routledge, pp. 155–176, doi:10.4324/9781315093253-9, ISBN   978-1-315-09325-3 , retrieved 2023-11-14
30. Gray, Mark Allan. 1990. "The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment." Environmental Law 20:291-319.
31. Rushefsky, Mark E. (2002). Public Policy in the United States at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century (3rd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. pp. 253–254. ISBN   978-0-7656-1663-0.
32. Shakouri, Bhram; Yazdi, Soheila khoshnevis; Fashandi, Anahita (November 2010). "Overfishing". 2010 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering. pp. 229–234. doi:10.1109/ICBEE.2010.5649533. ISBN   978-1-4244-8748-6. S2CID   263500798.
33. Raworth, K. 2017. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House, Chapter 3. ISBN 9781473517813
34. Keen, Steve. 2011. Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? London: Zed Books. eISBN 9781780322209
35. Ostrom, Elinor (2015-09-23). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781316423936. ISBN   978-1-107-56978-2.
36. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. (1957 ed.). Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, pp.3-4. ISBN 9780807056790
37. Daly, Herman E. (2014-11-28), "Introduction: envisioning a successful steady-state economy", From Uneconomic Growth to a Steady-State Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, doi: 10.4337/9781783479979.00005 , ISBN   978-1-78347-997-9
38. Daly, Herman E. (2000). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (Nachdr. ed.). Boston, Mass: Beacon Press. p. 49. ISBN   978-0-8070-4708-8.
39. Dryzek, John S. (1992). Rational ecology: environment and political economy (Reprinted ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ISBN   978-0-631-15574-4.
40. Bartlett, Robert (1986). "Ecological Rationality: Reason and Environmental Policy". Environmental Ethics. 8 (221–239): 221–239. doi:10.5840/enviroethics1986833.
41. Bührs, Ton (2009). Environmental integration: our common challenge. Albany, NY: Suny Press. ISBN   978-1-4384-2607-5.
42. Eckersley, Robyn (2004). The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-05074-6.
43. Meadowcroft, James. 2012. "Greening the State?". In Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects, 63-86.  Edited by Paul F. Steinberg and Stacy D. VanDeveer. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
44. Knoepfel, Peter, Lennart J. Lundqvist, Rémy Prud'homme and Peter Wagner (1987), "Comparing Environmental Policies: Different Styles, Similar Content", in M. Dierkes, H. N. Weiler and A. Berthoin Antal (eds.), Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience. Berlin: Gower, pp.171-186.
45. McBeath, Jerry and Jonathan Rosenberg (2006), Comparative Environmental Politics. Dordrecht: Springer
46. Steinberg, Paul F. and Stacy D. VanDeveer (eds.) (2012), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
47. Vogel, David and Veronica Kun (1987), "The Comparative Study of Environmental Policy: A Review of the Literature", in M. Dierkes, H. Weiler and A. B. Antal (eds.), Comparative Policy Research. Learning from Experiences. Berlin: WZB Publications, pp.99-171.
48. Crenson, Matthew A. (1971), The Un-Politics of Air Pollution; a Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
49. Downs, Anthony. (1972), "Up and Down with Ecology - the "Issue-Attention Cycle"", The Public Interest, Vol.28, pp.38-50.
50. Majone, Giandomenico (1989), "Choosing among Policy Instruments: The Case of Pollution Control", in G. Majone (ed.) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp.116-144.
51. Beder, Sharon (1997; 2000), Global Spin. The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe Publications.
52. Fischer, Frank. (1993), "Policy Discourse and the Politics of Washington Think Tanks", in F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press, pp.21-42.
53. Goldenberg, Suzanne(2013), Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks. The Guardian, 14 February.
54. Jacques, Peter J., Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman (2008), "The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism", Environmental Politics, Vol.17, No.3, pp.349-385.
55. Howlett, Michael (1991), "Policy Instruments, Policy Styles and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice", Policy Studies Journal, Vol.19, No.2, pp.1-21.
56. Howlett, Michael (2009), "Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design", Policy Sciences, Vol.42, No.1, pp.73-89.
57. Justo-Hanani, Ronit and Tamar  Dayan (2016), "Explaining Transatlantic Policy Divergence: The Role of Domestic Politics and Policy Styles in Nanotechnology Risk Regulation", Global Environmental Politics, Vol.16, No.1, pp.79-98.
58. Vogel, David (1986), National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
59. Bemelmans-Videc, Marie-Louise, Ray C. Rist and Evert Vedung (eds.) (1998), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers.
60. Linder, Stephen. and Guy. Peters (1990), "The Design of Instruments for Public Policy", in S. Nagel (ed.) Policy Theory and Policy Exclusion. New York: Greenwood Press, pp.113-119.
61. Vedung, Evert (1998), "Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories", in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist and E. Vedung (eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, p.40.
62. Lemaire, Donald (1998), "The Stick: Regulation as a Tool of Government", in J. Bemelmans-Videc, G. Rist and E. Vedung (eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Publishers, pp.59-76.
63. Vogel, David (1990), "Environmental Policy in Europe and Japan", in N. Vig and M. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990's. Toward a New Agenda. Washington D.C.: Co Press, pp.257-278.
64. Yandle, Bruce (1989), The Political Limits of Environmental Regulation. Tracking the Unicorn. New York: Quorum Books.
65. Downie, David Leonard (1993), "Comparative Public Policy of Ozone Layer Protection", Political Science, Vol.45, No.2, pp.186-197.
66. Haigh, Nigel (1986), "Devolved Responsibility and Centralization: Effects of Eec Environmental Policy", Public Administration, Vol.64, pp.197-207.
67. Munch, Richard., Christian. Lahusen, Markus. Kurth, Cornelia. Borgards, Carsten. Stark and Claudia. Jaub (2001), Democracy at Work. A Comparative Sociology of Environmental Regulation in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.
68. Rees, J (1988), "Pollution Control Objectives and the Regulatory Framework", in K. Turner (ed.) Sustainable Environmental Management. Principles and Practice. London: Belhaven Press, pp.170-189.
69. Jordan, Andrew, Rudiger Wurzel and Anthony R. Zito (2003), New Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects. London; Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
70. Sterner, Thomas (2003), Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC; Stockholm, Sweden: Resources for the Future: World Bank; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
71. Tews, Kerstin, Per-Olof Busch and Helge Jörgens (2003), "The Diffusion of New Environmental Policy Instruments", European Journal of Political Research, Vol.42, No.4, pp.569-600.
72. Hahn, Robert W. (1995), "Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: Lessons for the United States and Continental Europe", in Eckersley, R. (ed.) Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration. Melbourne: Macmillan, pp.147-148. ISBN 0732930960
73. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1989), Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
74. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Task Force for the Implementation of the Environmental Action Programme for Central and Eastern Europe (EAP) (2003), The Use of Economic Instruments for Pollution Control and Natural Resource Management in the Eecca. Paris: OECD.
75. Stavins, R. N. (2000), "Market-Based Environmental Policies", in P. R. Portney and R. N. Stavins (eds.), Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future, pp.31-76.
76. Meyer, Aubrey (2000), Contraction & Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change. Totnes, Devon: Green Books for the Schumacher Society.
77. Vedung, Evert and Frans C. J. Van der Doelen (1998), "The Sermon: Information Programs in the Public Policy Process--Choice, Effects, Evaluation", in J. Bemelmans-Videc, G. Rist and E. Vedung (eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, pp.103-127.
78. Eccleston C. and Doub P., Preparing NEPA Environmental Assessments: A Users Guide to Best Professional Practices, CRC Press Inc., 300 pages (publication date: March 2012).
79. Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, 42-54.
80. Edelman, Murray (1971), Politics as Symbolic Action. Mass Arousal and Quiescence. New York, Academic Press.
81. Bührs, Ton. (1996). Green Plans: A New Generation of Symbolic Environmental Policies?, ECOPOLITICS X Conference. Canberra, The Australian National University.
82. Kemp, René and Serena Pontoglio (2011), "The Innovation Effects of Environmental Policy Instruments — a Typical Case of the Blind Men and the Elephant?", Ecological Economics, Vol.72, pp.28-36.
83. Requate, Till (2005), "Dynamic Incentives by Environmental Policy Instruments—a Survey", Ecological Economics, Vol.54, No.2, pp.175-195.
84. Tietenberg, Tom (2003), "The Tradable-Permits Approach to Protecting the Commons: Lessons for Climate Change", Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol.19, No.3, pp.416.
85. Hintermann, Beat (2011), "Market Power, Permit Allocation and Efficiency in Emission Permit Markets", Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.49, No.3, pp.327-349.
86. Verbruggen, Aviel (2008), "Windfall and Other Profits", Energy Policy, Vol.36, pp.3249-3251.
87. Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press.
88. Dryzek, John S. (1995), "Democracy and Environmental Policy Instruments", in R. Eckersley (ed.) Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration. Melbourne: Macmillan, pp.294-308.
89. Goodin, Robert E. (1994), "Selling Environmental Indulgences", Kyklos, Vol.47, No.4, pp.573-596.
90. Liberatore, Angela (1995), "Arguments, Assumptions and the Choice of Policy Instruments", in B. Dente (ed.) Environmental Policy in Search of New Instruments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.55-71.
91. Papadakis, E. and R. Grant (2003), "The Politics of 'Light-Handed Regulation': 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments in Australia", Environmental Politics, Vol.12, No.1, pp.27-+.
92. Hill, Michael (1997). The Policy Process in the Modern State (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. p. 2.
93. Ham, Christopher; Hill, Christopher (1984). The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. ISBN   0-7450-1106-3.
94. Dye, Thomas R. (2017). Understanding Public Policy (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson. p. 1. ISBN   978-0-13-416997-2.
95. Pearce, David W. (2000). "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy". In Helm, Dieter (ed.). Environmental Policy. Objectives, Instruments, and Implementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 48–74.
96. Ekins, P.; Barker, T. (2001). "Carbon Taxes and Carbon Emissions Trading". Journal of Economic Surveys. 15 (3): 325–376. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00142.
97. European Environment Agency (2000), Environmental Taxes: Recent Developments in Tools for Integration. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, http://reports.eea.eu.int/Environmental_Issues_No_18/en/envissue18.pdf .
98. Braybrooke, D. and Charles E. Lindblom (1963), A Strategy of Decision. New York: The Free Press.
99. Majone, Giandomenico (1989), "Analysis as Argument", in Majone, G. (ed.) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp.21-41. ISBN 9780300052596
100. Wildavsky, A. (1979), The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan Press. ISBN 978-3-319-58618-2
101. Wildavsky, Aaron (1973), "If Planning Is Everything, Maybe It's Nothing", Policy Sciences, Vol.4, No.2, pp.127-153.
102. Simon, Herbert A. (1961, 2nd ed.), Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan company.
103. Bartlett, Robert V. (1990), "Comprehensive Environmental Decision Making: Can It Work?", in Vig, N. J. and M. E. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.235-254.
104. Guruswamy, Lakshman (1989), "Integrating Thoughtways: Re-Opening of the Environmental Mind?", Wisconsin Law Review, Vol.3, pp.463-537.
105. Bührs, Ton (2000), "Green Planning in Australia and Canada: Dead or Alive?", Environmental Politics, Vol.9, No.2, pp.102-125.
106. Dalal-Clayton, D. B. (1996), Getting to Grips with Green Plans: National-Level Experience in Industrial Countries. London: Earthscan. ISBN 9781315870168
107. Jänicke, Martin  and Helge Jörgens (1997), National Environmental Policy Plans and Long-Term Sustainable Development Strategies: Learning from International Experiences. Berlin: Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik (FFU) Freie Universität Berlin, pp.1-29.
108. Johnson, Huey D. (1995, 2008, 3rd ed.), Green Plans: Blueprint for a Sustainable Earth. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803252323, 9780803252325
109. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006), National Strategies for Sustainable Development: Good Practices in OECD Countries. Report Presented at the OECD Annual Meeting of Sustainable Development Experts, Paris 3–4 October. Sg/Sd(2005)6, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
110. Hogwood, Brian. and Lewis. Gunn (1984), "Analysing Public Policy", in Hogwood, B. and L. Gunn (eds.), Policy Analysis for the  Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.12-31. ISBN 0198761848, 9780198761846
111. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). "The Science of "Muddling Through"". Public Administration Review. 19 (2): 79–88. doi:10.2307/973677. ISSN   0033-3352. JSTOR   973677.
112. Lindblom, Charles E. (1979), "Still Muddling, Not yet Through", Public Administration Review, Vol.39, No.6, pp.517-526.
113. Crenson, Matthew A. (1971), The Un-Politics of Air Pollution; a Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN 0801811775
114. Pralle, Sarah B. (2009), "Agenda-Setting and Climate Change", Environmental Politics, Vol.18, No.5, pp.781 - 799.
115. Farley, John W. (2012), "Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry", Monthly Review, Vol.64, No.1, pp.40-53.
116. Goldenberg, Suzanne (2013), "Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Thinktanks", The Guardian, Publication date: 14 February.
117. Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway (2011, e-book ed.), Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781596916104
118. Beder, Sharon (1997), Global Spin. The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe Publications. ISBN 0 908011 32 6
119. Jacques, Peter J.; Dunlap, Riley E.; Freeman, Mark (2008-05-20). "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics. 17 (3): 349–385. Bibcode:2008EnvPo..17..349J. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576. ISSN   0964-4016.
120. Mayer, Jane (2016), Dark Money. The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385535601
121. Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. ISBN 9781596916104
122. Dahl, Robert Alan (1961), Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300003951, 9780300003956
123. Smith, Martin J. (1990). "Pluralism, Reformed Pluralism and Neopluralism: The Role of Pressure Groups in Policy-Making". Political Studies. 38 (2): 302–322. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb01495.x. ISSN   0032-3217.
124. Domhoff, G.W. (2014, 7th ed.), Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-07-802671-3
125. Gilens, Martin; Page, Benjamin I. (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/s1537592714001595. ISSN   1537-5927.
126. Wright Mills, C. (1956), The Power Elite. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199761140, 9780199761142
127. "The Role of NGOs in Global Governance". www.worldpoliticsreview.com. 27 September 2011. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
128. "The Role of NGOs in Tackling Environmental Issues". Middle East Institute. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
129. Hoberg, George (1990). "Reaganism, pluralism, and the politics of pesticide regulation". Policy Sciences. 23 (4): 257–289. doi:10.1007/bf00141322. ISSN   0032-2687.
130. Chang, Alvin; Holden, Emily; Milman, Oliver; Yachot, Noa. "75 ways Trump made America dirtier and the planet warmer". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-02-05.
131. "Regulatory Tracker - Harvard Law School". eelp.law.harvard.edu. 2018-10-16. Retrieved 2024-02-05.
132. Holden, Emily (2020-05-11). "Trump dismantles environmental protections under cover of coronavirus". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-02-05.
133. Clapp, Jennifer (2005), "The Privatization of Global Governance: ISO 14000 and the Developing World", in Levy, D. L. and P. J. Newell (eds.), The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, Mass and London: MIT Press, pp.223-248. ISBN 0262621886, 9780262621885
134. Newell, Peter J. (2005), "Towards a Political Economy of Global Environmental Governance", in Dauvergne, P. (ed.) Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. Northampton, MA: E. Elgar, pp.187-201. ISBN 0262621886, 9780262621885
135. Carson, Rachel (1962), Silent Spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 014022404 1
136. Caldwell, Lynton K. (1990), Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environmental Movement, and Policy Choice. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 33152 8
137. Haas, Peter M. (1992). "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination". International Organization. 46 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1017/s0020818300001442. ISSN   0020-8183.
138. Longino, Helen (1983). "Beyond "Bad Science": Skeptical Reflections on the Value-Freedom of Scientific Inquiry". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 8 (1): 7–17. doi:10.1177/016224398300800103. ISSN   0162-2439.
139. Oreskes, Naomi (2004). "Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it?". Environmental Science & Policy. 7 (5): 369–383. Bibcode:2004ESPol...7..369O. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.002. ISSN   1462-9011.
140. Rushefsky, Mark (1982). "Technical disputes: Why experts disagree". Review of Policy Research. 1 (4): 676–685. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00492.x. ISSN   1541-132X.
141. Langley, Chris and Stuart Parkinson (2009), Science and the Corporate Agenda. The Detrimental Effects of Commercial Influence on Science and Technology Policy in the 1980s and Beyond. Folkestone, United Kingdom: Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR).
142. Bucchi, Massimiono (2009), Beyond Technology. Science, Politics and Citizens. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 0387895221, 9780387895222
143. Pepper, David (1984), The Roots of Environmentalism. London & New York: Routledge, Chapter 5. ISBN 1000753581, 9781000753585
144. Union of Concerned Scientists (2004), Statement - Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking .  Union of Concerned Scientists.
145. Inglehart, Ronald (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069118674X, 9780691186740
146. Inglehart, Ronald F. (2008). "Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006". West European Politics. 31 (1–2): 130–146. doi:10.1080/01402380701834747. ISSN   0140-2382.
147. Dunlap, Riley E. (2008). "The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use". The Journal of Environmental Education. 40 (1): 3–18. Bibcode:2008JEnEd..40a...3D. doi:10.3200/joee.40.1.3-18. ISSN   0095-8964.
148. Hodis, D. Denis and N. Pereira Luis (2014), "Measuring the Level of Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm: A Transnational Study", Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal, No.23, pp.4-26.
149. Cotgrove, Stephen; Duff, Andrew (1981). "Environmentalism, Values, and Social Change". The British Journal of Sociology. 32 (1): 92. doi:10.2307/589765. ISSN   0007-1315. JSTOR   589765.
150. Hedlund-de Witt, Annick (2012). "Exploring worldviews and their relationships to sustainable lifestyles: Towards a new conceptual and methodological approach". Ecological Economics. 84: 74–83. Bibcode:2012EcoEc..84...74H. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.009. ISSN   0921-8009.
151. Naess, Arne (1973). "The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary∗". Inquiry. 16 (1–4): 95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. ISSN   0020-174X.
152. Cotgrove, Stephen (1982), Catastrophe or Cornucopia? The Environment, Politics and the Future. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 047110079X, 9780471100799
153. Milbrath, Lester (1984), Environmentalists. Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. ISBN 087395887X, 9780873958875
154. Coffey, Brian (2015). "Unpacking the politics of natural capital and economic metaphors in environmental policy discourse". Environmental Politics. 25 (2): 203–222. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1090370. ISSN   0964-4016.
155. Dryzek, John S. (1997), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.ISBN 0199696004, 9780199696000
156. Hajer, Maarten A. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford England. ISBN 019152106X, 9780191521065
157. Torgerson, Douglas (1999), The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the Public Sphere. Durham and London: Duke University Press. ISBN 0822323702, 9780822323709
158. Bührs, Ton (2022), A Planetary Tragedy. Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge. Tauranga: Fantail Publications, pp.168-176. ISBN 978-0-473-65635-5.
159. Levy, David L. (2005), "Business and the Evolution of the Climate Regime: The Dynamics of Corporate Strategies", in Levy, D. L. and P. J. Newell (eds.), The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, pp.73-104. ISBN 0262621886, 9780262621885
160. Cracknell, Jon (1993), "Issue Arenas, Pressure Groups and Environmental Agendas", in Hansen, A. (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press, pp.3-21. ISBN 0718514440, 9780718514440
161. Hansen, Hans (1993), The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, Leicester University Press. ISBN 0718514440, 9780718514440
162. Luedecke, Gesa and Maxwell T. Boykoff (2017), "Environment and the Media", in Richardson, D., N. Castree, M. E. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu and R. A. Marston (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Geography. Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0464
163. German Advisory Council on the Environment (2016), Environmental Report 2016 - an Integrated Approach to Environmental Policy: The Way Forward. Chapter 1: Pioneering an Ecological Transformation. German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) Retrieved 22 July 2016.
164. Hukkinen, Janne (2006-09-27). Institutions in Environmental Management. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203029749. ISBN   978-1-134-71243-4.
165. Jänicke, Martin (2002), "The Political System's Capacity for Environmental Policy: The Framework for Comparison", in Weidner, H. and M. Jänicke (eds.), Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy. A Comparative Study of 17 Countries. Berlin: Springer, pp.1-18. ISBN 3540431586, 9783540431589
166. Jackson, Tim (2009), Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan. ISBN 1844078949, 781844078943
167. Liodakis, George (2017). "Capital, Economic Growth, and Socio-Ecological Crisis: A Critique of De-Growth". International Critical Thought. 8 (1): 46–65. doi:10.1080/21598282.2017.1357487. ISSN   2159-8282.
168. Smith, Richard A. (2015), Green Capitalism: The God That Failed. World Economics Association. ISBN 1848902050, 9781848902053
169. Bauer, Steffen (2013). "Strengthening the United Nations". The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy. pp. 320–338. doi:10.1002/9781118326213.ch19. ISBN   978-0-470-67324-9.
170. Biermann, Frank, Bernd Siebenhüner and Anna Schreyögg (2009), International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance. Abingdon; New York: Routledge. ISBN 1134031335, 781134031337
171. Charnovitz, Steve (2005), "A World Environment Organization", in Chambers, W. B. and J. F. Green (eds.), Reforming International Environmental Governance: From Institutional Limits to Innovative Reforms. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press, pp.93-123. ISBN 9280811118, 9789280811117
172. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. "Ecosystems and human well-being - Synthesis". www.millenniumassessment.org. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
173. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F. (2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. hdl: 11336/71342 . ISSN   0006-3568.
174. J. Rockström, J. Gupta, D. Qin, S. J. Lade, J. F. Abrams, L. S. Andersen, et al. (2023), Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature. doi : 10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8
175. United Nations Environment Programme (2019), Global Environmental Outlook GEO-6. Healthy Planet, Healthy People . Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
176. Subirats, Joan (1995), "Policy Instruments, Public Deliberation and Evaluation Processes", in B. Dente (ed.) Environmental Policy in Search of New Instruments. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 143-157.
177. AtKisson, Alan (1999), Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist's World. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.
178. Lomborg, Bjørn (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
179. Ridley, Matt (2020), Against Environmental Pessimism, Property and Environment Research Centre (PERC). Retrieved: 30 July 2021.
180. IPCC, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (2021), Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: International Panel on Climate Change.
181. Geyer, Roland, Jenna R. Jambeck and Kara Lavender Law (2017), "Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made", Science Advances, 7, 10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
182. IQ Air (2023), 2023 World Air Quality Report .
183. Unesco (2023), Imminent Risk of Global Water Crisis .  Unesco (Retrieved: 28 March 2024).
184. Olsson, Lennart, Humberto Barbosa and et al (2019), Land Degradation. In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report Onclimate Change, Desertification and Land. IPCC.
185. Bartlett, Robert V. (1993), "Evaluating Environmental Policy Success and Failure", in Vig, N. J. and M. E. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Towards a New Agenda. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.167-187.
186. Scrivan, Michael. (1991), "Introduction: The Nature of Evaluation", in Scrivan, M. (ed.) Evaluation Thesaurus. . Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.
187. Gauch, Ronal R. (1992), "Mayne, J., Bemelmans-Videc, J.Conner, H., Advancing Public Policy Evaluation", Policy Studies Review, Vol.11, pp.3-4.
188. Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, Giandomenico Majone and Vincent Ostrom (1986), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector: The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.
189. Nagel, Stuart S. and Policy Studies Organization. (1990), Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms. New York: Greenwood Press.
190. Scrivan, Michael. (1991), "Introduction: The Nature of Evaluation", in M. Scrivan (ed.) Evaluation Thesaurus. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications, pp.1-43.
191. Herrick, Charles and Daniel Sarewitz (2000), "Ex Post Evaluation: A More Effective Role for Scientific Assessments in Environmental Policy", Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol.25, No.3, pp.309-331.
192. Scioli, Frank. (1980), "Problems and Prospects for Evaluation", in Nagel, S. (ed.) Improving Policy Analysis. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications, 165-181.
193. Bovens, Mark, Paul 't Hart and Sanneke Kuipers (2006), "The Politics of Policy Evaluation", in M. Moran, M. Rein and R. E. Goodin (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford England: Oxford University Press, pp.319-335.
194. Dudek, D. and A. Golub (2003), "'Intensity' Targets: Pathway or Roadblock to Preventing Climate Change While Enhancing Economic Growth?", Climate Policy, Vol.3, No.Supplement 2, pp.S21-S28.
195. Dobson, Andrew (1998), Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
196. Low, Nicholas and Brendan Gleeson (1998), Justice, Society, and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology. London; New York: Routledge.
197. Sexton, Ken and Rae ZImmerman (1999), "The Emerging Role of Environmental Justice in Decision Making", in K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter and T. D. Burkhardt (eds.), Better Environmental Decisions - Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, D.C. and Covelo, California: Island Press, pp.419-443.
198. Dryzek, John S. and Jonathan Pickering (2017), "Deliberation as a Catalyst for Reflexive Environmental Governance", Ecological Economics, Vol.131, No.Supplement C, pp.353-360.
199. Warriner, G. Keith (1997), "Public Participation and Environmental Planning", in T. Fleming (ed.) The Environment and Canadian Society. Scarborough, Ontario: ITP Press, pp.171-200.
200. Jänicke, Martin (1997), "The Political System's Capacity for Environmental Policy", in M. Jänicke and H. Weidner (eds.), National Environmental Policies - a Comparative Study of Capacity Building. Berlin: Springer, pp.1-24.
201. Bogers, Maya; Biermann, Frank; Kalfagianni, Agni; Kim, Rakhyun E. (2022). "Sustainable Development Goals fail to advance policy integration: A large-n text analysis of 159 international organizations". Environmental Science & Policy. 138: 134–145. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.002 . Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
202. Cairns Jr., John (1991), "The Need for Integrated Environmental Management", in Cairns Jr., J. and T. V. Crawford (eds.), Integrated Environmental Management. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc., pp.5-20.
203. Margerum, Richard D. (1996), Integrated Environmental Management: A Framework for Practice. Armidale: Centre for Water Policy Research of the University of New England.
204. Haigh, Nigel and Frances Irwin (eds.) (1990), Integrated Pollution Control in Europe and North America. Washington, D.C.; Bonn: Conservation Foundation; Institute for European Environmental Policy.
205. OECD (1991), Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Environment Directorate. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
206. Dryzek, John S. (1987), Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
207. Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, p.1.
208. Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, Chapter 1.
209. Farah, Paolo Davide; Rossi, Piercarlo (December 2, 2011). "National Energy Policies and Energy Security in the Context of Climate Change and Global Environmental Risks: A Theoretical Framework for Reconciling Domestic and International Law Through a Multiscalar and Multilevel Approach". European Energy and Environmental Law Review. 2 (6): 232–244. SSRN   1970698.
210. Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 193-194.
211. "Environmental Policy Integration – Taskforce on Conceptual Foundations of Earth System Governance" . Retrieved 2024-04-01.
212. Jänicke, Martin and Helge Jörgens (1998), "National Environmental Policy Planning in OECD Countries: Preliminary Lessons from Cross-National Comparisons", Environmental Politics, Vol.7, No.2, pp.27-54.
213. Falloux, Francois and Lee M. Talbot (1993), Crisis and Opportunity: Environment and Development in Africa. London: Earthscan.
214. Johnson, Huey D. (1995, 2008,  3rd ed.), Green Plans: Blueprint for a Sustainable Earth. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
215. Klein, Naomi (2014), This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.
216. Bührs, Ton (2022), A Planetary Tragedy. Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge. Tauranga: Fantail Publications, Chapter 3.
217. Meckling, Jonas (2011), Carbon Coalitions: Business, Climate Politics, and the Rise of Emissions Trading. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
218. McBeath, Jerry and Jonathan Rosenberg (2006), Comparative Environmental Politics. Dordrecht: Springer.
219. Steinberg, Paul F. and Stacy D. VanDeveer (eds.) (2012), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
220. Wall, G. (1976), "National Coping Styles: Policies to Combat Environmental Problems", International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol.9, pp.239-245.
221. Jahn, D. (2005), "Sustaining Abundance: Environmental Performance in Western Democracies", Environmental Politics, Vol.14, No.1, pp.128-130.
222. Jahn, Detlef (1998), "Environmental Performance and Policy Regimes: Explaining Variations in 18 OECD-Countries", Policy Sciences, Vol.31, No.2, pp.107-131.
223. Hsu, A. et al. (2016), 2016 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale University, www.epi.yale.edu (Accessed: 15 June 2016).
224. Knill, Christoph, Stephan Heichel and Daniel Arndt (2012), "Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative Policy Perspective", Energy Policy, Vol.48, pp.36-45.
225. Liefferink, Duncan, Bas Arts, Jelmer Kamstra and Jeroen Ooijevaar (2009), "Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of Domestic Policy Outputs", Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.16, No.5, pp.677-700.
226. Bührs, Ton (2022), A Planetary Tragedy. Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge. Tauranga: Fantail Publications, 41-46.
227. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959), "The Science of "Muddling Through"", Public Administration Review, Vol.19, No.2, pp.79-88.
228. Braybrooke, David and Charles E. Lindblom (1963), A Strategy of Decision. New York: The Free Press.
229. Lindblom, Charles E. (1965), The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
230. Etzioni, Amitai (1967), "Mixed-Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-Making", Public Administration Review, Vol.27, No.5, pp.385-392.
231. Goodin, Robert (1982), "Anticipating Outcomes: Overcoming the Errors of Incrementalism", in Goodin, R. E. (ed.) Political Theory and Public Policy. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
232. Adams, Bruce (1979), "The Limitations of Muddling Through: Does Anyone in Washington Really Think Anymore?", Public Administration Review, Vol.39, No.6, pp.545-552.
233. Gregory, Robert (1989), "Political Rationality or 'Incrementalism'? Charles E.Lindblom's Enduring Contribution to Public Policy Making Theory", Policy and Politics, Vol.17, No.2, pp.139-153.
234. Stillman, Peter G. (1974), "Ecological Problems, Political Theory, and Public Policy", in Nagel, S. S. (ed.) Environmental Politics. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp.49-60.
235. O'Leary, Rosemary (1993), "The Progressive Ratcheting of Environmental Laws: Impact on Public Management", Policy Studies Review, Vol.12, No.3/4, pp.118-136.
236. O'Riordan, Timothy (1981, 2nd rev. ed.), Environmentalism. London: Pion Limited.
237. Sutton, Philip W. (2000), Explaining Environmentalism: In Search of a New Social Movement. Aldershot, Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate.
238. Kemp, René, Jan Rotmans and Derk Loorbach (2007), "Assessing the Dutch Energy Transition Policy: How Does It Deal with Dilemmas of Managing Transitions?", Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol.9, No.3-4, pp.315-331.
239. Meadowcroft, James (2009), "What About the Politics? Sustainable Development, Transition Management, and Long Term Energy Transitions", Policy Sciences, Vol.42, No.4, pp.323-340.
240. Hendriks, Carolyn (2009), "Policy Design without Democracy? Making Democratic Sense of Transition Management", Policy Sciences, Vol.42, No.4, pp.341-368.
241. Bucchi, Massimiono (2009), Beyond Technology. Science, Politics and Citizens. Dordrecht: Springer.
242. Ingraham, Peter. (1987), "Toward More Systematic Consideration of Policy Design", Policy Studies Journal, Vol.15, No.4.
243. Schneider, Anne L. and Helen Ingram (1990), "Policy Design: Elements, Premises, and Strategies", in Nagel, S. S. (ed.) Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms. New York: Greenwood Press, pp.77-101.
244. "Development Solutions: How to fight climate change with gender equality". European Investment Bank. Retrieved 2020-09-17.
245. "Women Still Underrepresented in Decision-Making on Climate Issues under the UN". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2020-09-17.
246. "Five Reasons Why Climate Action Needs Women". 8 March 2023.
247. deLeon, Peter (1995), "Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences", American Journal of Political Science, Vol.39, No.4, pp.886 - 905.
248. Warriner, G. Keith (1997), "Public Participation and Environmental Planning", in Fleming, T. (ed.) The Environment and Canadian Society. Scarborough, Ontario: ITP Press, pp.171-200.
249. Wagle, Udaya (2000), "The Policy Science of Democracy: The Issues of Methodology and Citizen Participation", Policy Sciences, Vol.33, pp.207-223.
250. Dryzek, John S. (1987), "Discursive Designs: Critical Theory and Political Institutions", American Journal of Political Science, Vol.31, No.3, pp.656-679.
251. Hendriks, Carolyn (2009), "Policy Design without Democracy? Making Democratic Sense of Transition Management", Policy Sciences, Vol.42, No.4, pp.341-368.
252. Willis, Rebecca (2021), "The Big Idea: Is Democracy up to the Task of Climate Change?", The Guardian, Publication date: 1 November. Retrieved 8 November 2021.
253. Harvey, Fiona (2021), "Global Citizens' Assembly to Be Chosen for UN Climate Talks", The Guardian, Publication date: 5 October, Retrieved 6 October 2021.
254. Bénilde, Marie (Translated by George Miller) (2021), "France's Watered-Down Climate Bill", Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition), August, p.16.
255. Walker, Gordon P. (1989), "Risks, Rights and Secrets: Public Access to Information on Industrial Major Hazards", Policy and Politics, Vol.7, No.3, pp.255-271.
256. Mason, Michael (2008), "Transparency for Whom? Information Disclosure and Power in Global Environmental Governance", Global Environmental Politics, Vol.8, No.2, pp.8-13.
257. Banisar, David (2006), Freedom of Information around the World 2006: A Global Survey of Access to Government Information Laws Privacy International.
258. Capra, Fritjof (2002), The Hidden Connections. Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
259. Commoner, Barry (1972), The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred Knopf.
260. Cotgrove, Stephen (1982), Catastrophe or Cornucopia? The Environment, Politics and the Future. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
261. Berkes, Fikret and Carl  Folke (1998), "Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability", in Berkes, F., C. Folke and J. Colding (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-25.
262. Born, Stephen M. and William C.  Sonzogni (1995), "Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization", Environmental Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.167-181.
263. Caldwell, Lynton K. (1970, 1st ed.), Environment: A Challenge for Modern Society. Garden City, New York: Published for the American Museum of Natural History by the Natural History Press;
264. Savory, Allan and Jody Butterfield (1999, 2nd ed.), Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
265. Capra, Fritjof (1982, 1983 ed.), The Turning Point. Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. London: HarperCollins (Flamingo).
266. Merchant, Carolyn (2013, Second edition. ed.), Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture. New York: Routledge.
267. Ophuls, William (1997), Requiem for Modern Politics: The Tragedy of the Enlightenment and the Challenge of the New Millennium. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
268. White, Lynn (1967), "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis", Science, Vol.155, No.3767, pp.1203-1207.
269. Fromm, Erich (1941, 1969 ed.), Escape from Freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
270. Giddens, Anthony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
271. Harvey, David (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
272. Kornhauser, William (1960), The Politics of Mass Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
273. Veblen, Thorstein (1899; 2007), The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
274. Inglehart, Ronald (1977), The Silent Revolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
275. Inglehart, Ronald (2008), "Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006", West European Politics, Vol.31, No.1-2, pp.130-146.
276. Dunlap, Riley E. and Richard York (2012), "The Globalisation of Environmental Concern", in Steinberg, P. F. and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge and Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp.89-111.
277. Haynes, Jeff (1999), "Power, Politics and Environmental Movements in the Third World", Environmental Politics, Vol.8, No.1, pp.222-242.
278. Shiva, Vandana (1991), Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural Resources in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
279. Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig and Robert Emmet Jones (2000), "New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale", Journal of Social Issues, Vol.56, No.3, pp.425-442.
280. Dunlap, Riley and Kent Van Liere (2008), "The "New Environmental Paradigm"", The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol.40, No.1, pp.19-28.
281. Abramson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart (1995), Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.
282. Bloom, D. E. (1995), "International Public Opinion on the Environment", Science, Vol.269, No.5222, p.354.
283. Milbrath, Lester (1984), Environmentalists. Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
284. Weber, Edward P. (2000), "A New Vanguard for the Environment: Grass-Roots Ecosystem Management as a New Environmental Movement", Society and Natural Resources, Vol.13, No.3, pp.237-259.
285. Esteva, Gustavo and Mdhu Suri Prakash (1988), Grassroots Post-Modernism. Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books.
286. Barry, John (1994), "The Limits of the Shallow and the Deep: Green Politics, Philosophy, and Praxis", Environmental Politics, Vol.3, No.3, pp.369-394.
287. Doyle, Timothy and Sherilyn MacGregor (eds.) (2014), Environmental Movements around the World: Shades of Green in Politics and Culture. 2: Europe, Asia and Oceania. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.
288. Dryzek, John S., David Downes, Christian Hunold, David Schlosberg and Hans-Kristian Hernes (2003), Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. New York: Oxford University Press.
289. Bomberg, Elizabeth and Neil Carter (2006), "The Greens in Brussels: Shaping or Shaped?", European Journal of Political Research, Vol.45, No.1, pp.99-125.
290. Poguntke, Thomas (2002), "Green Parties in National Governments: From Protest to Acquiescence?", Environmental Politics, Vol.11, No.1, pp.133-145.
291. Rihoux, Benoît and Wolfgang Rüdig (2006), "Analyzing Greens in Power: Setting the Agenda", European Journal of Political Research, Vol.45, No.1, pp.1-33.
292. Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky (2002, Updated ed.), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.
293. McChesney, Robert W. (2014), Blowing the Roof Off the Twenty-First Century: Media, Politics, and the Struggle for Post-Capitalist Democracy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
294. Anderson, Alison (1993), "Source-Media Relations: The Production of the Environmental Agenda", in Hansen, A. (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press, pp.51-68.
295. Hansen, Anders (1991), "The Media and the Social Construction of the Environment", Media, Culture and Society, Vol.13, pp.443-458.
296. Muttitt, Greg (No date), Degrees of Capture. Universities, the Oil Industry and Climate Change. London, Oxford: Corporate Watch, New Economics Foundation, Platform.
297. Scruggs, Lyle A. (1999), "Institutions and Environmental Performance in Seventeen Western Democracies", British Journal of Political Science, Vol.29, pp.1-31.
298. Duit, Andreas (2016), "The Four Faces of the Environmental State: Environmental Governance Regimes in 28 Countries", Environmental Politics, Vol.25, No.1, pp.69-91.
299. Jänicke, Martin, Helmut Weidner and Helge Jörgens (1997), National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity-Building. Berlin: Springer.
300. Dryzek, John S. (1992), "Ecology and Discursive Democracy: Beyond Liberal Capitalism and the Administrative State", Capitalism Nature, Socialism, Vol.3, No.20, pp.18-42.
301. Paehlke, Robert and Douglas Torgerson (1990), "Environmental Politics and the Administrative State", in Paehlke, R. and D. Torgerson (eds.), Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, pp.285-301.
302. Kitschelt, Herbert (1986), "Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.", British Journal of Political Science, Vol.16, pp.57-85.
303. Newell, P. and M. Paterson (1998), "A Climate for Business: Global Warming, the State and Capital", Review of International Political Economy, Vol.5, No.4, pp.679-703.
304. Paterson, Matthew (2000), Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumulation, Resistance. New York: St. Martin's Press.
305. Eckersley, Robyn (2004), The Green State. Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
306. Gare, Arran (2002), "The Environmental Record of the Soviet Union", Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol.13, No.3, pp.52-72.
307. Sarkar, Saral (1999), Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices. London and New York: Zed Books.
308. Shapiro, Judith (2001), Mao's War against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
309. Brettell, Anna (2008), "Channeling Dissent. The Institutionalization of Environmental Complaint Resolution", in Ho, P. and R. L. Edmonds (eds.), China's Embedded Activism: Opportunities and Constraints of a Social Movement. London and New York: Routledge, pp.111-150.
310. Richardson, Dick (1995), "The Green Challenge: Philosophical, Programmatic and Electoral Considerations", in Richardson, D. and C. Rootes (eds.), The Green Challenge. The Development of Green Parties in Europe. London: Routledge, pp.4-22.
311. Eckersley, R. (2002), "Green Governance in the New Millennium: Towards the Green Democratic State", Ecopolitics - Thought and Action, Vol.1, No.3, pp.28-40.
312. Bührs, Ton (2002), "New Zealand's Capacity for Green Planning: A Political-Institutional Assessment and Analysis", Political Science, Vol.54, No.1, pp.27-46.
313. Weidner, H. (2002), "Capacity Building for Ecological Modernization - Lessons from Cross-National Research", American Behavioral Scientist, Vol.45, No.9, pp.1340-1368.
314. Bartosiewicz, Petra and Marissa Miley (2014), "The Too-Polite Revolution: Understanding the Failure to Pass U.S. Climate Legislation", in Prugh, T. and M. Renner (eds.), State of the World 2014: Governing for Sustainability. Washington, Covelo and London: Island Press, pp.115-128.
315. Kovel, Joel (2002), The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? New York: Zed Books.
316. Smith, Richard A. (2015), Green Capitalism: The God That Failed. World Economics Association.
317. Williams, Chris (2010), Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to the Capitalist Ecological Crisis. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
318. Jackson, Tim (2009), Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan.
319. Jacobs, Michael (1991), The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development, and the Politics of the Future. London; Concord, Mass.: Pluto Press.
320. Mathews, John A. (2014), Greening of Capitalism: How Asia Is Driving the Next Great Transformation. Palo Alto, United States: Stanford University Press.
321. Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (1999), Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
322. Ziegler, Charles E. (1989), Environmental Policy in the USSR. London: Pinter.
323. Peterson, D. J. (1993), Troubled Lands: The Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction. Boulder: Westview Press
324. Economy, Elizabeth (2010, e-book ed.), The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
325. Foster, John Bellamy (1999, Kindle ed.), The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press.
326. Magdoff, Fred and Chris Williams (2017), Creating an Ecological Society. Toward a Revolutionary Transformation. New York: Monthly Review Press.
327. Saito, Kohei (2017), Karl Marx's Ecosocialism. Capitalism, Nature, and the Unfinished Business of Political Economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
328. Kallis, Giorgos (2017), "Socialism without Growth", Capitalism Nature Socialism. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2017.1386695
329. Deutsch, Karl W. (1977), "On the Interaction of Ecological and Political Systems: Some Contributions of the Social Sciences to the Study of Man and His Environment", in Deutch, K. W. (ed.) Ecosocial Systems and Ecopolitics: A Reader on Human and Social Implications of Environmental Management in Developing Countries.
330. Sonnenfeld, D. A. and A. P. J. Mol (2002), "Globalization and the Transformation of Environmental Governance - an Introduction", American Behavioral Scientist, Vol.45, No.9, pp.1318-1339
331. Speth, James Gustave (2008, e-book ed.), The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
332. Oreskes, Naomi and Eric Conway (2014), The Collapse of Western Civilisation: A View from the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
333. Rees, Martin J. (2003), Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future in This Century - on Earth and Beyond. New York: Basic Books.
334. Leslie, John (1998), The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. New York: Routledge.
335. Tonn, Bruce and Donald MacGregor (2009), "Are We Doomed?", Futures, Vol.41, No.10, pp.673-675.
336. Bührs, Ton (2012), "Time to Say Goodbye? The Politics of Doom and Gloom", Paper presented at New Zealand Political Studies Conference, University of Victoria, Wellington, 26–28 November.
337. Vanderheiden, Steve (2011), "Rethinking Environmentalism: Beyond Doom and Gloom", Global Environmental Politics, Vol.11, No.1, pp.108-113.

External links

• GreenWill Global nonprofit initiative offering free environmental policies ("Green Policy") worldwide
• Envirowise UK Portal Government funded site offering environmental policy advice
• Responding to Climate Change Climate Change organization publishing annually since 2002.
• Resources for the Future A nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that conducts independent research—rooted primarily in economics and other social sciences—on environmental, energy, and natural resource issues.
• EEA/OECD Environmental Policy and Natural Resource Management database
• US National Environmental Policy Act Archived 2019-11-10 at the Wayback Machine
• Schelling, Thomas C. (2002). "Greenhouse Effect". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. OCLC   317650570 , 50016270 , 163149563
• In December 1997 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA'97) was signed and promulgated by the President of Pakistan. It provides for the protection, conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of the environment, for the prevention and control of pollution, and promotion of sustainable development. PEPA'97 covers nearly all issues from pollution generation to pollution prevention, monitoring to confiscation, compliance to violation, and prosecution to penalization. However, results of this legislation are subjected to virtuous and unadulterated implementation.
• Burden, L. 2010, How to write an environmental policy (for organizations), <http://www.environmentalpolicy.com.au/>