A Case Study of Environmental Politics

Order Description
Please review and amend this case study. The topic of this case study is very unclear. The introduction is also very broad and vague. The topic of the case study
should be environmental and political.

Here are some potential topics:
The Politics of Fracking
In this new century, energy economics and politics have been transformed by the exploitation of new reserves of shale gas mechanically extracted (or ‘fracked’) from
rocks. Energy suppliers argue that fracking provides much greater energy security, lower prices and jobs. In North America, a veritable ‘boom’ in fracking has
transformed the economy and created ripple effects across the world. For example, US coal supplies have been imported into Europe, where they are now undercutting the
price of some renewables. In Europe, publics and politicians are more cautious, but remain keenly aware of the competitiveness advantages of unlocking new energy
supplies. In the UK, the government issued a moratorium on new developments in 2011 after test drilling caused minor earth tremors. But it is now under mounting
political pressure to streamline the regulatory regime to allow shale gas supplies to be more rapidly exploited. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had
previously argued that if well managed, the UK can exploit shale gas without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but direct action protestors strongly disagree.

Reading
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. (2014) The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. 3rd Report of Session 2013–14, HL Paper 172. London:
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.
McGowan, F. (2014) Regulating innovation: European responses to shale gas development. Environmental Politics, 23, 1, 41-58.

The Politics of Sustainable Transport
The issue of transport remains one of the most intractable in environmental politics. Transport is a key policy sector whose greenhouse gas emissions continue to
increase and it is also a significant cause of local air pollution. In Europe, many laws regulating emissions have been adopted (including on vehicle emissions and
biofuels), but they seem incapable of holding down the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, which are rising faster than in any other sector. So, key questions are:
what are the barriers to transport decarbonisation, and how can decarbonisation be accelerated? Meanwhile, in the UK, emissions from the aviation sector continue to
increase, amid vociferous demands for UK airport capacity to be greatly expanded with the building of a third runway at Heathrow.
Reading
EEA. (2015) Briefing on Transport – https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/transport?Commission of the European Union. (2016) A European Strategy for Low-Emission
Mobility. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. ?Paterson, M. (2007) Automobile Politics: Ecology and Cultural Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ?Klüver H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 60-91. [Case study of the power of big business at EU level ]

Marletto, G. (2014) Car and the city: Socio-technical transition pathways to 2030. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 87, 164-178.
Committee on Climate Change (2009) Meeting the UK Aviation Targets – Options for Reducing Emissions to 2050. London: Committee on Climate Change. [available online]
Stettler, M.E.J., Eastham, S., Barrett, S.R.H. (2012) Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. Part I: Emissions. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 5415-5424.
Gravey, V. (2016) Heathrow expansion in the shadow of Brexit. Environmental Europe Blog. Available online:
https://environmentaleurope.ideasoneurope.eu/2016/10/27/heathrow-expansion-shadow- brexit/

The Politics of Direct Action
Direct action is the most visible form of protest by environmental movements. Think of cases such as the dumping of the Brent Spar, brought to the limelight through
direct action, and deeply affecting government decisions and public opinion. Other campaigns have been less ‘successful’, despite widespread support from the public.
Might they, nevertheless, have had a lasting legacy? You could explore the origins, ethics and impacts of direct action in the UK.

Reading?Connelly, J., Smith, G., Benson, D. and Saunders, C. (2012) Politics and the Environment, Chapter 3.?Doherty, B. (1999) Paving the way: the rise of direct
action against road building and the changing character of
British environmentalism. Political Studies, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 275-291 ?Jordan, G. (1998) Politics without parties: a growing trend? Parliamentary Affairs, 51(3), 314
-328. ?Wall, D. (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement: radical environmentalism and comparative social
movements. London: Routledge.
The Politics of ‘New’ Nuclear Power
Nuclear power generation capacity grew rapidly in Western countries between the 1950s and late 1980s. Thereafter, many European countries decided either to never build
nuclear power plants or to gradually close old ones. But in the 2000s, nuclear power began to enjoy a remarkable renaissance primarily due to concerns over climate
change, increasing energy insecurity and the depletion of indigenous energy supplies such as oil and gas. This context changed once again after the tragic accident at
Fukushima in 2011. Countries such as Germany reversed their nuclear policies as a result, while politicians elsewhere are reconsidering the costs and benefits of
nuclear power. However, the nuclear industry is still pushing hard for the UK to develop a new generation of nuclear power stations; the government is streamlining the
planning system and encouraging foreign investors. Environmentalists have responded by maintaining that new nuclear power stations will increase risks to people and
the environment, obscure underlying issues such as the need for greater energy efficiency, and crowd out promising new technologies such as solar and wind power.

Reading?Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., and Simmons P. (2008) Framing the energy debate in
the UK: nuclear power, radioactive waste and climate change mitigation. Public Understanding of
Science, 17: 145–169
UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). (2008) Meeting the Challenge: A
White Paper on Nuclear Power. London: BERR.?UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). (2011) Implementing the Climate Change Act 2008:
The Government’s Proposal for Setting the Fourth Carbon Budget. London: DECC.?UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (2007) Meeting the Challenge: A White Paper on
Energy.
London: DTI.?Szarka, J. (2013) From exception to norm – and back again? France, the nuclear revival, and the post-
Fukushima landscape, Environmental Politics, 22 (4): 646-663.

The Politics of Dismantling: The Case of UK Energy Policy?
One way through which policy can change is through dismantling, which involves the reduction, cutting and / or removal of existing policies. After the 2015 election,
the Conservative government appeared intent on dismantling many settled aspects of UK energy policy. It announced a variety of modifications to the nation’s energy
policy: the withdrawal of subsidies for renewable wind energy generation on land, the closure of coal-fired power stations in the country by 2025 unless carbon capture
systems are developed (government funding for CCS has been withdrawn), changes to funding for home insulation schemes (from 2017), a new ‘carbon tax’ (the Climate
Change Levy) on wind, solar power and biogas, as well as changes to vehicle excise duty extending this to less polluting cars. The government has argued that these
changes are needed to make energy provision fairer and more competitive, to reduce national spending, and to meet the nation’s climate change targets. Critics maintain
that they undermine investor confidence, deter business investment in renewables and discourage individuals from adopting more environmentally- friendly options.
Similar processes are playing out in other European countries such as Germany and Spain.

Reading?Bauer, MW, Jordan, A. Green-Pedersen, C. and Heritier, A. (eds) (2012) Dismantling public policy.
Preferences, Strategies and Effects. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ?Jordan, A.J. M. Bauer and C. Green-Pedersen (2013) Policy dismantling. Journal of European
Public Policy,
20, 5, 795-805.
Hoppmann, J, Huenteler, J and Girod, B. (2014) Compulsive policy-making—The evolution of the German feed-in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power, Research Policy
43, (8) 1422–1441.
Environmental Data Services Ltd (2015) Feed in tariffs to be gutted under DECC proposals. The ENDS Report, October, 488, 13-14.

The Politics of Transport Emissions: The ‘Dieselgate’ Scandal
Shock waves rolled across the world when the news broke, on the 18th September 2015, that US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) officials had issued the Volkswagen
Group with a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act. It was found, after a year-long investigation, that some of its diesel engines had been programmed to meet US
standards during testing (so-called defeat devices), but produced much higher emissions during use. VW became the subject of regulatory investigations in many
countries. Quickly, trust and confidence in the manufacturer decreased rapidly, its image was tarnished, and the CEO resigned. VW responded by offering to refit the
affected vehicles after a huge product recall. But the scandal quickly widened to other manufacturers whose vehicles also appeared to exceed emissions limits when in
use and other pollutants. Reactions were very diverse – environmental NGOs in particular argued this was just the tip of the iceberg, as rigged tests had been
occurring for many years. Heavy lobbying from the car industry and some EU countries (e.g. Germany, UK and Spain who fail to meet EU NO2 standards) resulted in a
significant delay to the introduction of a more stringent ‘real driving emissions’ test. In the UK, the government delayed air quality improvements; in contrast, the
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) recommended a diesel scrappage scheme and higher VED to address pollution from all diesel vehicles.

Reading?EAC (2015) EAC response to DEFRA consultation on air quality. Available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/environmental-audit/Defra-air-quality-
consultation-response.pdf (accessed 26 Nov 2015)?Environmental Data Services Ltd (2015) Dieselgate compromises DEFRA plans to improve air quality. The
ENDS Report, December, 490, 37-38.?House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2015) Inquiry on diesel emissions and air quality –
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental- audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/diesel-emissions-and-air-quality-
inquiry/
Brand C. (2016) Beyond ‘Dieselgate’: Implications of unaccounted and future air pollutant emissions and energy use for cars in the United Kingdom, Energy Policy, 97,
1-12.
Council of the European Union (2016) Vehicle emissions in real driving conditions: Council gives green light to second package.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/12-vehicle- emissions-in-real-driving-conditions-2nd-package/
Klüver H. 2013. Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford University Press: Oxford; 60-91.

The Politics of Climate Change: The 2009 Copenhagen Conference
All eyes were focussed on the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in 2009 as the opportunity to set the foundations for a global, legally binding emissions
agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which was due to expire in 2012. Over 100 world leaders attended the event, joined by a multiplicity of other organisations
representing NGOs, media, UN agencies, faith-based groups, and others. A comprehensive deal on climate change proved elusive. This shattered the hopes of many. Others
maintained that the outputs of COP15 (improvements to the Clean Development Mechanism, the Copenhagen Accord – a clear political intent to continue discussions around
mitigation and adaptation, and funding enabling developing countries to pursue this, supported by four new institutional structures) were significant given the very
divergent positions taken by industrialised and industrialising nations, and the differences between interests of key states, primarily the USA and China, highlighting
issues of sovereignty and collective action.

Reading?Christoff, P. (2010) Cold climate in Copenhagen: China and the United States at COP15, Environmental Politics,
19 (4): 637-656.?Connelly, J., Smith, G., Benson, D. and Saunders, C. (2012) Politics and the Environment. Third Edition.
London: Routledge. Especially chapter 7.?Paterson, M. (2009) Post-hegemonic climate politics? British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
11(1): 140-58.?Vogler, J. (2015) Climate Change in World Politics. Palgrave, Basingstoke. ?Bodansky, D. (2010) The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Postmortem.
The American Journal of
International Law, 104, 2, April, 230-240.?Dimitrov, R. (2010) Inside Copenhagen: the state of climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 2, 18-24.