Search

To what extent citizens are willing not only to support ambitious climate policy but also willing to pay for such policy remains subject to debate. Our analysis addresses three issues in this regard: whether, as is widely assumed but not empirically established, willingness to support (WTS) is higher than willingness to pay (WTP); whether the determinants of the two are similar; and what accounts for within-subject similarity between WTS and WTP. We address these issues based on data from an original nationally representative survey ( N = 2500) on forest conservation in Brazil, arguably the key climate policy issue in the country. The findings reveal that WTP is much lower than WTS. The determinants differ to some extent as well, regarding the effects of age, gender, and trust in government. The analysis also provides insights into factors influencing how much WTS and WTP line up within individuals, with respect to age, education, political ideology, salience of the deforestation issue, and trust in government. Our findings provide a more nuanced picture of how strong public support for climate change policy is and a starting point for more targeted climate policy communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper updates the SCVI (Socio-Climatic Vulnerability Index) maps developed by Torres et al. () for Brazil, by using the new Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections and more recent 2010 social indicators data. The updated maps differ significantly from their earlier versions in two main ways. First, they show that heavily populated metropolitan areas - namely Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Salvador, Manaus, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo - and a large swath of land across the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Bahia now have the highest SCVI values, that is, their populations are the most vulnerable to climate change in the country. Second, SCVI values for Northeast Brazil are considerably lower compared to the previous index version. An analysis of the causes of such difference reveals that changes in climate projections between CMIP3 and CMIP5 are responsible for most of the change between the different SCVI values and spatial distribution, while changes in social indicators have less influence, despite recent countrywide improvements in social indicators as a result of aggressive anti-poverty programs. These results raise the hypothesis that social reform alone may not be enough to decrease people's vulnerability to future climatic changes. Whereas the coarse spatial resolution and relatively simplistic formulation of the SCVI may limit how useful these maps are at informing decision-making at the local level, they can provide a valuable input for large-scale policies on climate change adaptation such as those of the Brazilian National Policy on Climate Change Adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the mathematical formalism of the Brazilian Proposal to the IPCC, we analyse eight power technologies with regard to their past and potential future contributions to global warming. Taking into account detailed bottom-up technology characteristics we define the mitigation potential of each technology in terms of avoided temperature increase by comparing a 'coal-only' reference scenario and an alternative low-carbon scenario. Future mitigation potentials are mainly determined by the magnitude of installed capacity and the temporal deployment profile. A general conclusion is that early technology deployment matters, at least within a period of 50-100 years. Our results conclusively show that avoided temperature increase is a better proxy for comparing technologies with regard to their impact on climate change, and that numerous short-term comparisons based on annual or even cumulative emissions may be misleading. Thus, our results support and extend the policy relevance of the Brazilian Proposal in the sense that not only comparisons between countries, but also comparisons between technologies could be undertaken on the basis of avoided temperature increase rather than on the basis of annual emissions as is practiced today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The IPCC and other global environmental assessment processes stress the need for national scientific participation to ensure decision makers’ trust in the associated scientific conclusions and political agendas. The underpinning assumption is that the relationship between scientists and decision makers at the national level is characterized by trust and interpretive synergy. Drawing on ethnographic research in Brazil, this article challenges that assumption through a case study of the policy uptake of divergent scientific interpretations as to whether or not the Amazon is a net carbon sink. It shows that the carbon sink issue became a site for struggles between important Brazilian scientists and decision-makers with central authority over the definition of the country’s official position in international climate negotiations. In a geopolitically charged scientific controversy involving scientific evidence bearing on the Kyoto Protocol, Brazilian decision makers studied revealed critical distance from national scientists advancing evidence that the Amazon is a net carbon sink. As such, the decision-makers’ interpretations were at odds also with dominant framings in the Brazilian media and closer to those of American scientists involved in carbon cycle research in the Amazon. Seeking to explain this disconnect, the paper discusses the divergent policy preferences of key scientists and decision-makers involved, and the correlations of these preferences with interpretations of the available scientific evidence. It identifies the continued impact of a national political tradition of limited participation in decision making and suggests that this tradition—while increasingly challenged by countervailing democratizing trends—is reinforced by key Brazilian decision makers’ constructions of science as a medium through which rich countries maintain political advantage. Reflecting this, key Brazilian decision-makers justified rejecting national scientists’ interpretations of the Amazon as a significant overall carbon sink by suggesting that the scientists’ scientific training and associated foreign interactions bias them in favor of foreign interests, compromising their ability to accurately identify national interests. The paper situates its analysis in terms of theories of the science–policy interface and argues for greater attention to the role of culturally and politically laden understandings of science and the role of science in policy and geopolitics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]