Perceptions of American and Russian environmental scientists of today’s key environmental issues: a comparative analysis

Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Modern science is global. This is particularly true of environmental science, which has been guided to a considerable extent by international environmental policy. Accordingly, one might expect the standards of scientific research around the globe to have unified over the last 30 years. Yet environmental scientists from different nations and scientific schools have demonstrably dissimilar views on key environmental issues. This is the conclusion we reached after a series of in-depth interviews with prominent American and Russian environmental scientists. The greatest difference was found in the perception of two global issues—stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.

Keywords

Global environmental issues Climate change Ozone depletion American environmental scientists Russian environmental scientists 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research on which this account is based was initiated within the framework of a Fulbright fellowship granted to Nikolai Dronin. The first author is grateful to the Robert Wagner School of Public Management of New York University and in particular to Professor Dennis Smith who warmly hosted and guided him and to whose memory this article is dedicated. Dr. John Francis was a key inspiration to the author in undertaking this research, and his help in shaping of the paper was enormous. We also thank Ronald Witt from the UNEP/DEWA (Geneva) for his editing and for insightful comments on the paper. Last but not least, the authors would like thank all the participants in the interviews.

References

  1. Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2005). Deliberative environmental politics: Democracy and ecological rationality. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting In-depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Watertown: Pathfinder International.Google Scholar
  3. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christie, M. (2000). The ozone layer. A philosophy of science perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 024024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., et al. (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix014.Google Scholar
  7. Ewart, G. W., Rom, W. N., Braman, S. S., & Pinkerton, K. E. (2015). From closing the atmospheric ozone hole to reducing climate change lessons learned. Annals ATS, 12(2), 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Gallup. (2010). Australians’ views shift on climate change. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141782/australians-views-shift-climate-change.aspx. Accessed August 6, 2010.
  10. Goudie, A. (1993). The human impact on the natural environment. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Howell, R. A. (2013). It’s not (just) ‘‘the environment, stupid!’’ Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kopnina, H. (2016). Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in conservation. Biological Conservation, 203(2016), 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larvor, B. (2015). Naturalism. In A. Copson & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), The wiley blackwell handbook of humanism (pp. 37–54). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. 17 p. (Wiley Blackwell handbooks).Google Scholar
  14. Legates, D. R., Soon, W., Briggs, W. M., et al. (2015). Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Science Education, 24, 299. doi: 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masters, J. M. (2017) The skeptics versus the ozone hole. The weather underground, inc. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp. The last Access on April 02, 2017.
  16. Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Painter, J. (2011). Poles apart. The international reporting of climate skepticism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk.
  18. Populus. (2010). BBC poll on climate change. Available at: http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf040210-BBC-BBC-Poll-on-Climate-Change.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2011.
  19. Scannell, L., & Grouzet, F. M. E. (2010). The metacognitions of climate change. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Takahashi, B. (2011). Framing and sources: A study of mass media coverage of climate change in Peru during the V ALCUE. Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weiner, D. (1988). Models of nature: Ecology, conservation, and cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  23. Weiner, D. (1999). A little corner of freedom: Russian nature protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. WWF 1997 Global Annual Forest Report. (1997). http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/forest/report97/index.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of GeographyMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations