Show Less

International Environmental Policy

Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Aynsley Kellow

The Kyoto Protocol has singularly failed to shape international environmental policy-making in the way that the earlier Montreal protocol did. Whereas Montreal placed reliance on the force of science and moralistic injunctions to save the planet, and successfully determined the international response to climate change, Kyoto has proved significantly more problematic. International Environmental Policy considers why this is the case. The authors contend that such arguments on this occasion proved inadequate to the task, not just because the core issues of the Kyoto process were subject to more powerful and conflicting interests than previously, and the science too uncertain, but because the science and moral arguments themselves remained too weak. They argue that ‘global warming’ is a failing policy construct because it has served to benefit limited but undeclared interests that were sustained by green beliefs rather than robust scientific knowledge.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: The Suppression of Scientific Controversy

Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Aynsley Kellow


In this chapter we examine the ways in which climate change science has been selectively interpreted by the IPCC itself and even more so by its many ‘users’: environmental bureaucracies, NGOs and the media in particular, to promote consensus in favour of a particular policy direction. Here we focus on NGOs and the media as external users of IPCC advice, but provide some evidence that IPCC spokesmen acceded to what we consider to be unwarranted alarmism on the part of these actors. We consider the IPCC (in its policy advisory role) and its users as a coalition of advocacy in favour of climate alarmism, with the IPCC as a research network possibly the more reluctant partner. To repeat, we accept the view reported to us by IPCC participants themselves that the underlying report is authored by the teams of scientists who have been nominated by governments and selected by the IPCC Bureau, with the Summary for Policy-makers representing a consensus document produced by government delegates at an IPCC Plenary Session. According to Richard Lindzen (and others), there is no scientific consensus supporting these SPMs. Here we illustrate this contention with some examples of scientific controversies where the alarmist ‘predisposition’ of the IPCC process has resulted in interpretations supporting a more alarmist view of climate change science. We consider there are three stages in this process: 1. the production of assessment chapters that neglect challenges and uncertainties (the task of this chapter); 2. the production of the Summaries for Policy-makers (SPM)...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.