PubPol 475
Climate Change

Politics for the Anthropocene

MW 8:30-9:50 AM, 1220 Weill Hall

Instructor: Devin Judge-Lord, , 715-204-4287

Office hours: MW 10-11 AM, 3215 Weill Hall

“All that you touch, You Change.
All that you Change Changes you.
The only lasting truth is Change.”
- Octavia E. Butler

“We live in a big science fiction novel we are all writing together”
- Kim Stanley Robinson

This is a small upper-level reading- and writing-intensive seminar that requires coming to class prepared to discuss the reading. There are no quizzes, exams, or prescriptive rubrics. Assessment is based on your thoughtful engagement with the ideas in the reading and with my feedback on your writing.

Links to course resources:

Syllabus updated: December 12 2024. The current version is here.

đŸ—ș Objectives

In the past century—the blink of an eye in ecological time—a small portion of humans concentrated in wealthier and more industrialized countries began to radically transform the ecology of our planet at an unprecedented scale.1

This class aims to help you develop your own critique of various policy fights over what to do about our new relationship with our biosphere.

Experts increasingly see the slow policy response to climate science as having less to do with climate science and more to do with politics. That is, climate change is increasingly seen as a problem for the social sciences to address. Thus, this class is about politics. “Politics” can mean many things, and a core objective of this class is understanding different forms of politics—different ways of having and resolving debates about who our community is and what we will do together about the challenges we face.

The core readings are mostly drawn from political science, political theory, and law. They are accompanied by op-eds and podcasts from advocates and journalists covering climate policy debates. Both the theories of politics and political arguments cover a wide range of perspectives. We will read a range of critiques based on different visions of good politics—from left to right, religious to utilitarian, populist to technocratic—with the aim of recognizing and critiquing these forms of politics when we see them in the wild. While we will mainly focus on policy debates in the United States, the underlying political struggles can be seen everywhere.

The assignments for this class are motivated by the observation that politics is fundamentally an organized activity. Thus, the critiques we develop in this class will target organizations. In your opinion, are they choosing the right battles? Are they taking the right positions? Are they framing the issues in the most effective way? Is their theory of change (or resistance to change) realistic?

Critiquing those with whom we severely disagree is easy, but they are also the least likely to listen to you. Thus, the critiques you develop in this class will be aimed at the organizations you see as having the best chance of making a positive difference in the world—specifically, the organizations for whom you hope to work. You may not know what your future career looks like; that is fine. Perhaps you will find an organization or cause that inspires you in this class. Or perhaps you have a very clear idea of your future career. In that case, this class will challenge you to think about how organizations in your intended field of work engage in politics and policymaking—and how they might do so differently. It is not a requirement that the organizations you address are activist organizations. Indeed, activist organizations may be the most difficult to critique because they already have a well-developed approach to politics and policy. You may even see yourself working for an organization that is currently strongly opposed to most proposed climate policies; that is fine. For example, if you aim to work at Exxon-Mobil, you might look to Business School scholarship to formulate a critique like this one.

As practice for developing your skills in both effective writing and constructive criticism, peer critiques of your colleagues’ writing are a major part of this class and 10% of your grade.

Course Philosophy

In designing this course, I proceed from several premises:

  1. It is worth knowing the history of our current policy debates and the ideas and values that the rhetoric of these policy debates evokes.

  2. It is more interesting to explore serious proposals about what to do than people arguing against doing anything. That said, there are lots of ideas about what to do, and many don’t agree. I just don’t give a ton of time to defenders of the status quo, especially to the extent that they intentionally use obfuscating rhetoric—I don’t want this class to be a victim of efforts to sow confusion. Thus, I focus on authors with the most earnest, sincere, and uncompromised statements of what to do and why. For example, big business lobbyists and public relations firms significantly shape our current debate, but we ought to take what they say is good for the environment with a huge grain of salt because they are not primarily interested in our relationship with our biosphere; they aim to help their clients make money by spinning what is good for business as good for the environment.

  3. It is more interesting to explore deeply rooted ideas and see them in rhetoric than to stay at the level of rhetoric. This class is about politics and policy and only secondarily about rhetoric and communications. I don’t want us to limit our thinking to what plays well in current mass media or elite discourse. I want you to develop a position on how you think politics should be reshaped and how we should balance competing values. Then, let that inform your analysis of the rhetoric.

  4. Humans are having a significant impact on the biosphere. I don’t have much about climate change denialism on the syllabus. Mainstream policy debates have moved passed outright denialism. Even the incumbent industry talking points have moved on from denial and even away from doubt and minimizing. They now acknowledge climate science and cast themselves as helping to address it, sow skepticism that policies they dislike will work, slow policymaking behind the scenes, deflect responsibility, and focus on personal responsibility and other forms of anti-politics. The merchants of doubt have shifted from attacking science to attacking policies as too uncertain, too expensive, and unnecessary.

  5. Individual action is good but insufficient; collective action (and thus politics) is required. This class is in the public policy school, and I am a political scientist. We are here to learn about the many different kinds of policy and politics proposed to address climate change, not argue about whether policy and politics, in general, are useful for solving problems.

đŸ›ïž Learning Environment

Learning from each other is only possible if we show the respect due to our fellow citizens of this class.

To realize this goal, I expect us to respect our colleagues and cultivate inclusive discussions. This means that we must be careful not to mislead, degrade, interrupt someone who does not speak as much, or enforce hierarchies based on race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender expression, sexual orientation, or ability.

📜 Ford School and University of Michigan Policies

Ford School Inclusivity Statement: Members of the Ford School community represent a rich variety of backgrounds and perspectives. We are committed to providing an atmosphere for learning that respects diversity. While working together to build this community, we ask all members to:

  • share their unique experiences, values, and beliefs
  • be open to the views of others
  • honor the uniqueness of their colleagues
  • appreciate the opportunity that we have to learn from each other in this community
  • value one another’s opinions and communicate in a respectful manner
  • keep confidential discussions that the community has of a personal (or professional) nature
  • use this opportunity together to discuss ways in which we can create an inclusive environment in Ford - classes and across the UM community

Being a constructive member of a diverse community is always a learning process. The University has many resources to help us in this endeavor, including a glossary of terms.

Ford School Public Health Protection Policy. In order to participate in any in-person aspects of this course—including meeting with other students to study or work on a team project—you must follow all the public health safety measures and policies put in place by the State of Michigan, Washtenaw County, the University of Michigan, and the Ford School. Up-to-date information on U-M policies can be found on the U-M Health Response website. It is expected that you will protect and enhance the health of everyone in the Ford School community by staying home and following self-isolation guidelines if you are experiencing any symptoms of COVID-19.

Student Mental Health and Wellbeing. The University of Michigan is committed to advancing the mental health and wellbeing of its students. We acknowledge that a variety of issues, both those relating to the pandemic and other issues such as strained relationships, increased anxiety, alcohol/drug problems, and depression, can directly impact students’ academic performance and overall wellbeing. If you or someone you know is feeling overwhelmed, depressed, and/or in need of support, services are available.

You may access the Ford School’s embedded counselor Paige Ziegler (pziegler@umich.edu) and/or counselors and urgent services at Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and/or University Health Service (UHS). Students may also use the Crisis Text Line (text ‘4UMICH’ to 741741) to be connected to a trained crisis volunteer. You can find additional resources both on and off campus through the University Health Service and through CAPS.

Student/Faculty Interaction Best Practices. We strive to ensure a safe learning environment free from gender-based and sexual harassment, sexual violence, retaliation, and a hostile environment based on discrimination and intimidation. We make the following commitments:

  • To conduct office hours with the door open unless the student requests a closed-door meeting;
  • To document meeting times with students so that this record can be reviewed;
  • To meet students individually only at university venues;
  • To conduct off-campus meetings only at places where alcohol is not served;
  • To communicate electronically with students only on university platforms and not on social media, text, or non-university apps.
  • For more information on resources for reporting sexual misconduct, please see the faculty senate best practices for faculty interactions and U-M’s page on Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct.

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities:
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: The University of Michigan recognizes disability as an integral part of diversity and is committed to creating an inclusive and equitable educational environment for students with disabilities. Students who are experiencing a disability-related barrier should visit the Services for Students with Disabilities website. They can be reached at 734-763-3000 or ssdoffice@umich.edu. For students who are connected with SSD, accommodation requests can be made in Accommodate. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your SSD Coordinator or visit SSD’s Current Student webpage. SSD considers aspects of the course design, course learning objects, and the individual academic and course barriers experienced by the student. Further conversation with SSD, instructors, and the student may be warranted to ensure an accessible course experience.

Important

If you require accommodations from SSD, please start that process quickly because it takes time.

Academic Integrity: The Ford School academic community, like all communities, functions best when its members treat one another with honesty, fairness, respect, and trust. We hold all members of our community to high standards of scholarship and integrity. To accomplish its mission of providing an optimal educational environment and developing leaders of society, the Ford School promotes the assumption of personal responsibility and integrity and prohibits all forms of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and misconduct. Academic dishonesty may be understood as any action or attempted action that may result in creating an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair academic advantage or disadvantage for any other member or members of the academic community. Plagiarism involves representing the words, ideas, or work of others as one’s own in writing or presentations, and failing to give full and proper credit to the original source. Conduct, without regard to motive, that violates academic integrity and ethical standards will result in serious consequences and disciplinary action. The Ford School’s policy of academic integrity can be found in the MPP, BA, and Ph.D. Program handbooks. Additional information regarding academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and misconduct and their consequences is available at U-M’s academic-policies page.

Use of Technology: Students should follow instructions from their instructor as to acceptable use of technology in the classroom, including laptops, in each course. All course materials (including slides, assignments, handouts, pre-recorded lectures, or recordings of class) are to be considered confidential material and are not to be shared in full or part with anyone outside of the course participants. Likewise, your own personal recording (audio or video) of your classes or office hour sessions is allowed only with the express written permission of your instructor. If you wish to post course materials or photographs/videos of classmates or your instructor to third-party sites (e.g., social media), you must first have informed consent. Without explicit permission from the instructor and, in some cases, your classmates, the public distribution or posting of any photos, audio/video recordings, or pre-recordings from class, discussion section, or office hours, even if you have permission to record, is not allowed and could be considered academic misconduct.

Please review additional information and policies regarding academic expectations and resources at the Ford School of Public Policy.

See the end of the syllabus for information about our commitment to best practices of instructor/student interactions.

đŸ“” Technology in Class

No screens in class (unless I give permission). Research shows that they inhibit learning and distract your colleagues. Out of respect to the instructor and your fellow students, put your cell phone away for the duration of class.

đŸ› ïž Tools That Generate Text

You learn by doing work, and I assess your learning by the work you do. You may use tools to help craft your writing, but you must learn the crafts of constructive critique and persuasive writing to succeed in class. To add value to any employer or cause, you must craft arguments and recommendations that are significantly better than they would get by asking a SALAMI. I expect the same.

Text extruded by large language models (LLMs) is, by construction, derivative of patterns of words already linked together on the internet. In some sense, everything we do is derivative of our experiences, but the generative process is very different for thinking subjects (you) than for a pre-trained language model. Language models are incapable of producing original critiques. If they produce something that sounds insightful, it is only because we are able to assign meaning to the strings of words they extrude. (It also probably sounds right because it resembles things already written by a human on the internet.) Language models have no sense of meaning and cannot judge the consistency, coherence, or logic of an argument. I expect the critiques you produce to be yours and for you to stand by them as intellectual projects. No LLM can help you justify your thought process and reasoning. LLMs have no thought process and do not reason.

I am not yet sure if LLMs are a helpful tool for the craft of persuasive writing or for learning this craft. I worry that they may constrain creativity by focusing our attention on problems and solutions that already exist and have already been frequently linked in the source material on which the LLMs are trained. Additionally, in many fields, including political science, rich White men are disproportionately the authors of the source texts. Uncritically using LLMs trained on biased source material risks reproducing those biases.

Good policy and political strategy rests on good evidence. Many LLMs fabricate evidence. Work submitted with fake sources or made-up facts will get a 0 for similar reasons that other forms of academic dishonesty make work worse than worthless. Thus, references must be hyperlinked whenever possible; I will check to make sure sources of evidence are used appropriately.

If you use people or tools other than your brain and spelling/grammar checkers to string words together, you should be prepared to comment on what you used them for, what they got right, and what they got wrong.

I reserve the right to discuss your papers in length with you if I have concerns.

đŸȘ¶ Assignments

Credit hours will be earned by attending two classes of \(1.3\bar{3}\) hours each, reading and preparing written work outside of class for 6 to 9 hours per week, and a series of incremental assignments building to a highly-polished op-ed style critique of an organization’s approach to climate policy. A key part of the process will be critiquing the writing of others. Detailed instructions for each assignment are available in the assignment guide.

On all but three weeks, the assignments are incremental steps to your final op-ed. 

On week 4, you may write a reflection on how you have experienced climate politics. This should mirror Mary Annaïse Heglar’s essay, Home is Always Worth It, but can be significantly shorter (200-800 words).

On week 9, you may write a reflection on how you carry with you different world views/ways of seeing nature/forms of environmental imagination/paradigms and how they shape your thinking. This should mirror Purdy’s self-reflection in the introduction of After Nature by including the four world views we read about, but it may also include others (including, perhaps, some of the new emerging visions discussed in Chapter 7) (200-800 words).

On 13, we will practice civic engagement by writing to a public official or agency. Post 100-200 words about it and a link to the opportunity on Canvas. For example, you might Comment on a proposed federal agency policy, Comment on a proposed state agency policy (sort by Filing Date to see pending rules), Recommend a course of action to one of your elected representatives )

All assignments are to be submitted on Canvas.

How to write an op-ed

Example Op-eds

Humanity Is Facing a Great Injustice. The World Bank Must Respond by the NYT Editorial Board via proquest

Exxon Mobil’s Pioneer Acquisition Is a Direct Threat to Democracy by Jeff Colgan via proquest

Is Ecofeminism the Answer to the Climate Crisis?

The Climate Solution That’s Horrible for the Climate via proquest

I’m a Scientist Who Spoke Up About Climate Change. My Employer Fired Me.

Rumble at the Sierra Club via proquest

The Pope’s Journey to Climate Outrage by David Wallace-Wells via proquest

Georgia’s Unique Runoff System, a Product of Institutional Racism by Shaher Zakaria

The Patent System is Failing to Promote Pharmaceutical Innovation by Christina Del Grec

And here’s a piece by two climate activists trying to influence policy:

Will Lawmakers Sacrifice Our Health and Safety to Get a Debt Ceiling Deal? via [proquest]

Due Dates

Discussion posts are due Mondays and Wednesdays at 7 p.m.

All other assignments and critiques are due Tuesdays at 7 p.m.

Important

There is an incremental assignment building to your final op-ed due almost every Tuesday.

Tip

Subscribe to the due dates calendar here.

Below is the schedule of due dates.

Find your voice - 15% of final grade

  • Week 1: Introduce yourself to the class—e.g., in a few sentences, a short video, links to some things you find interesting or are passionate about, and/or some other means—feel free to be creative (1%)
  • Week 1: A list of the top twenty organizations for whom you would like to work and a one-sentence summary of how they engage (or avoid engaging) in climate politics or policy. If the organization has more than 100 employees, specify a unit within the organization. (1%)2
  • Week 2: Ten op-ed-style headlines critiquing one or more of the above organizations (in-class peer workshop) (1%)
  • Week 3:
    • Five revised headlines and the first 200 words for each (10%)
    • an annotated bibliography for each, which does not count toward the word limit
  • Week 4:
    • Meet with me about your op-ed ideas—Sign up here (part of the previous assignment grade)
    • Reflection post (1%)
  • At some point during the first half of the semester, pitch one of your critiques to the class (2-3 minutes each). Two students will pitch their ideas each week. This will give you practice testing out your argument and presentation skills (1%)

Craft your critique - 25% of final grade

  • Week 5: Three revised headlines and the first 400 words for each + annotated bibliographies + revision spreadsheets for each (9%)
  • Week 6: peer critique of first 400 words (5%)
  • Week 7: Two revised first 400 words + annotated bibliographies + updated revision spreadsheets (10%)
  • Week 9:
    • My feedback on your first 400 words
    • Reflection post (1%)

Hone your critique - 36% of final grade

Through multiple rounds of revision, you will hone your critique, improving your logic and writing (writing can always be improved).

Note

I am mostly grading on how you respond to feedback. If you would like, you can include revision comments on the document in Canvas addressing any points where you feel context is needed for me to understand how you incorporated feedback.

  • Week 10: One 750-800 word op-ed + annotated bibliography + updated revision spreadsheet (10%)
  • Week 11: Peer critique of op-ed (5%)
  • Week 12: Revised op-ed + updated revision spreadsheet (10%)
  • Week 13:
    • My feedback on your op-ed
    • Civic engagement post (1%)
  • Week 14: Final due + updated revision spreadsheet (10%)

Late Submissions

Because nearly all assignments are either revised versions of previous submissions that someone else must review on a tight timeline or peer-reviews that your peers depend on in order to make revisions on a tight timeline, late work is not an option.

  • If you do not submit a revised version of your op-ed(s) on time, I will re-submit your previous version for review on your behalf. This will make sure you still get feedback on your work. If you submit by the end of the week, I will award partial points, but your reviewer is not expected to wait for the revised version to submit their review.
  • Late reviews are unfair to your classmates. If you do not submit a peer review on time, I will submit a review on your behalf, and you will not receive points for that review.

Under extenuating circumstances, I will attempt to work out some alternative review cycle. This is much easier if I am the one reviewing a draft than if it is a draft submitted for peer review.

Participation 24% (26 class periods X 1% per class - 2 pass days)

  • Discussion posts about at least one of the readings are due by 7 p.m. on Canvas every Sunday and Tuesday weeks 2-14 (see the course calendar above). Late posts are not counted. Posts should be 100-200 words and include a brief summary of (1) Your understanding of the author’s main argument, (2) What you think about that argument, AND (3) A question about the reading(s) that merits further discussion.
  • Participate in class discussion. Attendance is required. You must let me know ahead of time if you must miss class.
  • Summarize the discussion questions posed on Canvas for one class (2-3 minutes OR summarize what we have learned and how we have refined the points of debate at the end of one class (2-3 minutes)

Sign up to summarize questions or what we learned here.

Note

Discussion questions are graded on a 0-3 scale.

Advice on writing good questions from Professor Rohde:

Questions should model good intellectual practice; that is, not just a one-sentence question, but a few sentences providing some important framing or context. This could include, for example, an explanation of why the question is important (the stakes), an elaboration on the nuances of the question, etc. Reference to specific language in the text(s) is encouraged, and quotes are welcome. For material on the syllabus, simply cite the author and page; for materials beyond the syllabus, please include a full reference. Be sure to reflect on the bulk of the readings for the day; i.e., demonstrate that you’ve read all of the assigned material.

Questions should represent two specific types according to the following classification (identify the types in your post):

  • Clarification/Comprehension (e.g., What does X mean?)
  • Analytical/Interpretive (e.g., How does X evidence relate to Y point?)
  • Synthetic/Evaluative (e.g., Are you convinced by the author’s argument that X? ) If you choose this question, be sure to say why the argument is provocative or has important implications. If you think a statement is obviously correct or trivial, then it is not worth discussing whether we agree with it.
  • Connective/Comparative (e.g., How does X’s argument compare to Y’s we read last week?) If you choose this question, point us in the direction of some key similarities or differences.
  • Provocative/Argumentative (e.g., Doesn’t evidence X undermine author’s point Y?!)
  • Applied/Extended (e.g., Does X point help explain current problem Y?) If you choose this question, be sure to indicate why or how the comparison is relevant. I.e., don’t use this as a mindless invitation to extend an analysis across policy problems.

Make up policy

You get two days to take a pass on posting a discussion question and/or participating in class. Even if you are taking a pass on participation, I hope you will still come to class. If you are taking a pass and don’t want me to call you into the conversation, just let me know ahead of time.

Pass days will initially appear as “0” on Canvas, but I will adjust participation points when I calculate your final scores in Canvas.

Beyond your two pass days, I allow you to make up two additional days:

  • If you know that you will miss class, write a 1-page reflection on the readings and share it with the class with your discussion post.
  • If you unexpectedly miss class, post a 1-page reflection on the readings AND schedule a time to discuss the readings with me (ideally, during office hours)

Beyond four missed classes (two passes, two make-ups), I only allow make-ups in very extenuating circumstances. Participation is a core part of this class, and the entire class is deprived of your perspective when you are not with us. # 📚 Materials

Each week’s required readings are indented and marked with a grey sidebar. I also often note “resources” or “further readings” with bullets—these are not required readings.

I call on students during class and expect you to do all assigned readings for each week before Tuesday’s class (discussion posts are due Monday evening).

📚 Required Books

You must have a physical copy of one book to bring to class:

  • After Nature by Jedediah Purdy (2015, Harvard University Press) — available on reserve, ~$8 used, $19 new

The other readings will be available for free online (you may need to go through the library website for journal articles) or on Canvas.

Resources

American Government Module

If you are looking for more foundation in how government works, the Ford School organized an Intro to American Government Module taught by Political Science Ph.D. candidate Ciera Hammond:

Background on Climate Science

Climate Change 101

Assessments of Climate Models:

Sources of Greenhouse Gases:

Background on Climate Policy

European Union Climate Policy:

📖 Reading by Week

I have intentionally put a wide range of perspectives on the syllabus, sometimes in conversation (see weeks on justice, markets, nationalism, and movements).

There are some questions we will ask of every reading:

  • What is the author’s argument?
  • What do you think about it?
  • Does it apply elsewhere?
  • What does it imply for what we should do?

Come to class ready to answer these questions.

🎧 Most weeks include audio content, either in addition to or as an alternative to required reading. Pay attention to the minutes assigned. Some podcasts keep going, and you don’t need to keep listening.

If you hit a paywall on a link from the syllabus:

  1. Look to see if it says (Canvas) next to it. These readings should be in the “files/readings” folder on Canvas. If they are not, please let me know ASAP.
  2. Make sure that you are logged in to get library access to journals. You can also search for the journal on the library website.
  3. If 1 & 2 don’t work, please let me know ASAP so that I can make sure you all have access. Sometimes, paywalls don’t pop up for me because of some cached credentials, and I don’t realize that the content is paywalled. You should not pay for any of the online content for this course. There are many “further” readings, and some required readings (especially the longer academic articles) say “skim.” Here is advice on how to read political science from Amelia Hoover Green and how to skim from Jessica Calarco.

Week 1: Hope


in an unequal and chaotic world.

Tuesday: Syllabus Review and in-class best-practices exercise

Please read the entire syllabus before class—this is your chance to ask questions about the assignments and readings.

  • What has your personal experience with climate change discourse and policy? What motivates you to do something? What makes you not want to get involved?

To Discuss: Home is Always Worth It - Mary AnnaĂŻse Heglar (Medium, 2019) (Canvas)

To Discuss: But the Greatest of These is Love - Mary AnnaĂŻse Heglar (Medium, 2019) (Canvas)

To Discuss: We Can’t Tackle Climate Change Without You: It’s time to make a commitment to do more for the climate. Do what you’re good at, and do your best. - Mary Annaïse Heglar (Wired, 2020)

Thursday: Visions for the Future

  • How does the Harris campaign’s climate plan implicitly define the scope of “climate policy”—what is included and what is left out?
  • How does the Data For Progress implicitly define the scope of “climate policy”—what is included and what is left out?
  • How do the Heritage Foundation’s policy proposals implicitly respond to climate change and energy transition?

To Discuss: A Climate Plan For the People - Kamala Harris Campaign (24 pages)

To Discuss: Candidate Climate Plan Summary - Data For Progress (4 pages) + Skim: Other Candidate Climate Plan Summaries

To Discuss: The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership climate-related selections (short version) (Canvas) (8 pages)

Background explain:

Week 2: Policy

“The hope is that the [Inflation Reduction Act’s] bundle of subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure investment, and market protectionism will unite green-tech boosters with big capital, organized labor, and the beneficiaries of the growth-to-come. If this coalition-building is successful, more green-industrial policy will ensue
Climate is reshaping the terrain on which we will be fighting in the years to come.” (Battistoni and Mann)

Tuesday: The State of U.S. Climate Policy:

This week, we are hearing from fairly mainstream policy people who work in similar circles (except for Battistoni and Mann’s critique from the labor left). You should not take agreement among them as evidence that there is broad political agreement on all of these things; it is just a function of what I assigned, which is a function of who happens to be in the room where climate policy is being made today. In future weeks, we will read a broader range of perspectives, but I think we need to start here to understand where we are today before we dive deeper into how we got here in weeks 3-7 and where we might go from here in weeks 8-14.

Background:

To Discuss:

To Discuss: Interview with Matto Mildenberger (SSN, 2023) (minutes 2-13) 🎧

To Discuss: Climate Bidenomics by Alyssa Battistoni and Geoff Mann in New Left Review (5 pages)

To Discuss: An insider’s view of the Biden years in clean energy policy: A conversation with Sonia Aggarwal (Volts, 2023) (minutes 1-54) 🎧 OR Getting ready for IRA 2: A conversation with Costa Samaras. (minutes 1-68) 🎧

All We Can Save: Litigating in a Time of Crisis (51-59) and The Politics of Policy (85-91)

To Discuss: The Farm Bill is the most important climate bill this Congress will pass (Volts, 2023) (59 min) 🎧

To Discuss: The Case for a Green New Deal for Public Housing, Executive Summary by Kira McDonald, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and Ruthy Gourevitch (4 pages)

To Discuss: Skim: Modernizing America with Rebuilding to Kickstart the Economy of the Twenty-first Century with a Historic Infrastructure-Centered Expansion Act or the MARKET CHOICEAct

To Discuss: Skim: H.R.5744 - Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2023 (A carbon tax with the revenue going to households as a monthly cash dividend)

Thursday: The State of Michigan Climate Policy

In-class peer workshop of draft op-ed headlines for Week 3 assignment.

Background: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer might notch a big climate win

Background: Clean energy package policy changes earn a mixed response from environmental advocates

Skim: Roadmap to Clean & Equitable Power in Michigan by the University of Michigan Law School’s Problem Solving Initiative (PSI)

The State of Ann Arbor Climate Policy:

Background: Skim: Carbon Neutrality — \(A^2ZERO\) — Building a just transition to community-wide carbon neutrality by 2030. (at least read the landing page for the report)

Further reading on state-level policy:

Further reading on federal policy:

Further resources for understanding cap-and-trade (e.g., the Waxman-Markey bill):

Further resources for understanding the Inflation Reduction Act:

Week 3: Politics


in the Anthropocene

“In a purblindness that has marked all of human history before today, nature has been the thing without politics, the home of the principles that come before politics, whether those are the divine right of kings or the equality of all persons.” (Purdy, p. 21)

Tuesday: World Views:

  • What is the “Anthropocene challenge” as described by Purdy?
  • What does Purdy mean by politics and anti-politics? What are some examples?
  • What does Buck mean by the “constructive ambiguity” of net zero?
  • Purdy discusses several forms of environmental imagination/ideology that shaped U.S. environmental policy and the “terrain” on which policy debates unfold. What kind of political terrain does net zero create? What parallels do you see in the history of U.S. environmental policy?

To Discuss: Purdy, Prologue and Introduction (1-50)

To Discuss: The trouble with net zero: A conversation with Holly Jean Buck 🎧

Further reading on net net zero:

Thursday: Public Opinion:

  • How has public opinion on climate change shifted since 2017?
  • What kinds of questions do public opinion researchers ask? What don’t they seem to ask?

Background: Global Warming’s Six Americas, Fall 2023 (1 page) + Explore the data: climatecommunication.yale.edu

Background: “Which Republicans are worried about global warming?” By Matthew Ballew, Jennifer Carman, Seth Rosenthal, Marija Verner, John Kotcher, Edward Maibach, and Anthony Leiserowitz (5 pages)

Background: “Climate Change: U.S. Public Opinion” by Patrick J. Egan and Megan Mullin, Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 20, 2017 (14 pages)

To Discuss: Skim: Gaikwad, Nikhar, Federica Genovese, and Dustin Tingley. “Creating Climate Coalitions: Mass Preferences for Compensating Vulnerability in the World’s Two Largest Democracies.” American Political Science Review (2022): 1-19. via the library

To Discuss: Skim: Climate change belief systems across political groups in the United States by Sanguk Lee, Matthew H. Goldberg, Seth A. Rosenthal, Edward W. Maibach, John E. Kotcher, and Anthony Leiserowitz. PLOS ONE (2024)

In the news:

Further Reading:

Week 4: God and Nature

The religious, colonial, and mystic foundations of Western environmental law and politics:

“The Settlers of the nineteenth-century frontier, clearing and sowing a continental garden, took to heart John Locke’s insistence that”God wants us to do something” and that nature revealed the intended tasks
And for the Romantics who created the Sierra Club, nature’s beauty was evidence that awe and admiration, not just usefulness, were parts of the human purpose. God wanted us not just to do something, but also to stand there—and look.” (Purdy, p. 199)

Tuesday

Purdy, Chapter 1: An Unequal Terrain (51-70) and Chapter 2: God’s Avid Gardeners (70-95)

Thursday

Purdy, Chapter 4: Natural Utopias (116-152)

The black church as a site of modern climate advocacy:

All We Can Save: Greens Are Just as Good as Kale by Heather McTeer Toney

Further reading:

Week 5: Utilitarianism and Technology

“For the conservationists of the Progressive era, managing nature required a combination of civic spirit and administrative expertise.” (Purdy, p. 199)

  • How does utilitarian environmentalism differ from other kinds of environmentalism? On what assumptions do utilitarianism and managerialism rest? Under what circumstances are these assumptions more reasonable or less reasonable, in your opinion?
  • What kinds of politics do different technologies create? Who do they empower and disempower? What kinds of policy fights do they inspire?

Tuesday: Utilitarianism and managerialism

Purdy, Chapter 5: A Conservationist Empire (153-187)

Thursday: Technology

Learning curves:

Learning curves will lead to extremely cheap clean energy: Doyne Farmer discusses the explosive implications of his new research 🎧 (min 18-1:03) or Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition” by Rupert Way, Matthew C. Ives, Penny Mealy, J. Doyne Farmer. 2022 (pages 1-24)

Climate engineering:

To Discuss: After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration By Holly Jean Buck Introduction (pages 1-49, most importantly 24-28, 34-38, and 40-43)

To Discuss: All We Can Save: A Handful of Dust by Kate Marvel

Carbon removal:

Communicating carbon removal- Rob Bellamy and Kaitlin T. Raimi (Pages 1-4)

Further Reading:

Week 6: Justice

Tuesday: Global Justice

“Three faces of climate justice”, Annual Review of Political Science (2022) by Nives Dolơak and Aseem Prakash. Vol. 25:283-301 (14 pages)

The Fight for Climate Justice by Fernando Tormos-Aponte (SSN, 2020) (31 min) 🎧

People of color [raised] social justice concerns such as self-determination, sovereignty, human rights, social inequality, loss of land base, limited access to natural resources, and disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards and linked them with traditional working-class environmental concerns such as worker rights and worker health and safety to develop an environmental justice agenda. (Taylor, p. 1)

  • What are some of the different ways environmental justice is defined?
  • Where did these ideas come from?
  • How are policies addressing environmental justice consistent or inconsistent with different definitions?
  • How might past environmental justice activism be similar to different to future conflicts in the Anthropocene?

Thursday: U.S. Movements and Policy

To Discuss: “Race, Class, Gender, and American Environmentalism. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-534” (2002) by Dorceta Taylor (1-41)

To Discuss: Executive Order on Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

Further reading:

Week 7: Ecological Critique

“The Wilderness Society is, philosophically, a disclaimer of the biotic arrogance of homo americanus.” (Leopold, cited in Purdy, p. 192)

“It is a curious feature of environmental politics
that its rhetorical fidelity to the past can trick an observer into overlooking how innovative it is
In this respect, environmental politics resembles many religious traditions and the constitutional politics of the United States.” (Purdy, p. 194)

“Environmental policymaking is a choice among futures.” (Purdy, p. 264)

“Politics is the fulcrum, not because it is attractive or easy, but because the questions about what kind of world to make cannot be answered without collective choice.” (Purdy, p. 266)

Tuesday

Purdy, Chapter 6: A Wilderness Passage into Ecology (188-227)

Further reading:

Thursday

Purdy, Chapter 7: Environmental Law in the Anthropocene (228-255), and Chapter 8: What Kind of Democracy (256-288). You can skip 271-281 if you are not interested in humanist vs. post-humanist debates (e.g., animal rights)

Week 8: Ecofeminist Critique

Tuesday: TBD

Thursday: Ecofeminist Critique

Battistoni asks if it is possible to increase people’s quality of life while decreasing our impact on the environment (i.e., producing and consuming less material stuff). She finds answers in the feminist concept of care work. Her argument has many clear policy implications.

“Capitalism depends on the socially reproductive labor of the household, and by calling that work an act of love, makes it free
As with Wages for Housework, in which the concrete demand for payment acted as a provocative starting point, the demand for payment for work done to and by ecosystems was originally meant as an unsettling metaphor.” (Battistoni, Alive in the Sunshine)

  • What is the ecofeminist critique? Specifically, what is the argument about reproductive work? What are the implications of this argument for climate policy?
  • In “A Green New Deal for Care,” what does Battistoni mean when she says that “pink-collar jobs are green jobs?”
  • In “Alive in the Sunshine,” Battistoni presents two ways of seeing the movement for Payment for Ecosystem Services. What are their ideological roots? What are the implications of each for climate policy?

Background on ecofeminism:

Policy implications of valuing care work:

To Discuss: “A Green New Deal for Care: Revaluing the Work of Social and Ecological Reproduction” OR “Alive in the Sunshine” by Alyssa Battistoni

Further reading:

A marketing professor critiquing the War Mobilization rhetoric around climate change:

Ecofeminism as a critique of scientific rationality:

Recent policy efforts:

Week 9: Political Economy


as a force explaining action and inaction.

  • Why are groups effective at shaping policy?
  • Which industries will lose from which climate policies? Could they pivot?
  • What industries have most effectively obstructed policy? How do they work with/against political actors?

Tuesday: The global political economy of climate policy:

To Discuss: Opinion: Why vilify the oil and gas industry? - Emily Atkin (5 pages) (Canvas)

To Discuss: Research: Skim Colgan, Jeff D., Jessica F. Green, and Thomas N. Hale. 2020. “Asset Revaluation and the Existential Politics of Climate Change.” International Organization

To Discuss: Research: Skim Aklin, M. and Mildenberger, M. 2020. “Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: Why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change.” Global Environmental Politics 20(4): 4-27.

Further reading:

Thursday: U.S. political economy of climate policy:

Guest speaker: Geoffrey Henderson

Background News: Coal power plants cost Americans millions when they didn’t have to

To Discuss: Research: Building a Bigger Team: Explaining Organized Labor’s Advocacy for Climate Policy in Washington State.” by Geoffrey Henderson (Canvas)

To Discuss: Research: Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics, Chapter 2: The Logic of Double Representation by Matto Mildenberger

To Discuss: Research: Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States, Chapter 3 An Institutional History of Electricity Politics and Climate Inaction - Leah Stokes

To Discuss: Research: Skim: “Power Flows: Transmission Lines and Corporate Profits” by Catherine Hausman

Further Reading:

Week 10: Indigenous Critique

  • What is the indigenous critique?
  • In the context of renewable energy siting?
  • In the context of adaptation?
  • In the context of greenhouse gas emissions?
  • Whyte mainly discusses decisions affecting Indigenous lands, while Tunks focuses on Indigenous voice in settler policy processes (including international policymaking). What is the main argument for these two situations?
  • What are the implications of expanding or shrinking Indigenous governance for addressing climate change?
  • Conversely, what are the implications of various climate policies for indigenous governance?

Background:

Tuesday

To Discuss: Research: Indigenous Environmental Justice, Renewable Energy Transition, and the Infrastructure of Sovereignty by Kyle Whyte in Environmental Justice in North America

Thursday

To Discuss: Andrea Tunks, “Tangata Whenua Ethics and Climate Change”

Week 11: Nationalist Critique

Tuesday: Power and population

Great power competition v. cooperation:

To Discuss: Opinion: “Climate-Trap Diplomacy: The desire for climate cooperation with China undermines American strategic objectives.” by Jordan McGillis, City Journal (1 page)

To Discuss: Opinion: “The case for U.S. cooperation with India on a just transition away from coal” by Joshua W. Busby, Sarang Shidore, Johannes Urpelainen, and Morgan D. Bazilian (Brookings 2021)

Neo-Malthusian:

To Discuss: “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin in Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (1968), p. 1243-1248 (6 pages)

To Discuss: Opinion: “The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons” by Matto Mildernberger in Scientific American

To Discuss: “The Malthusians Are Back: Climate activists who worry that the world has too many people are joining an ugly tradition” by Alex Trembath and Vijaya Ramachandran in The Atlantic (Canvas)

Thursday: Immigration and ethno-nationalist critique

To Discuss: U.S. Immigration and the Environment from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (30 pages)

Warning

The Southern Poverty Law Center designates FAIR as a Hate Group and Hardin as an Extreamist White Nationalist. While all assigned readings have a perspective, these views most starkly contrast the University of Michigan’s stated goals and policies. And yet, these views are increasingly prominent in climate policy discourse, so it is important to understand them.

Also note that some factual claims in U.S. Immigration and the Environment contradict data from other sources like the Congressional Budget Office and the PEW research center.

Critique of the nationalist critique:

To Discuss: News: Climate denial is waning on the right. What’s replacing it might be just as scary

To Discuss: Opinion/Art: The Welcome Table (minute 0-3:20)

Further reading on climate migration:

Further critique of neo-Malthusian ideas:

Further Research:

Week 12: Institutions

  • What kinds of institutions do you see as most and least responsive to demands to address climate change? Why?

Tuesday: Governance

Governing institutions:

To Discuss: Politics: The Central Texts by Roberto Mangabeira Unger: Introduction (V-XVI) and Chapter 1 (1-18) (Canvas)

  • What is Unger’s critique of deep structure theorists (e.g., Marx)?
  • What is Unger’s critique of modern social science?
  • Why does Unger think that debates among critics and defenders of capitalism are incoherent?
  • What does Unger mean by the “plasticity” of institutions?

To Discuss: Research: Skim: “The Climate Movement’s Impact on Technocratic Policymaking” by Devin Judge-Lord

Further reading:

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Thursday: Regulation and Electoral Institutions

  • As discussed by Rahman, the Biden administration attempted to affect how agencies make and evaluate policy (e.g., through circular A4). How is the Heritage Foundation’s plan similar or different?

To Discuss: The wonky but incredibly important changes Biden just made to regulatory policy: A conversation with Sabeel Rahman 🎧

To Discuss: What Happens Next? The administrative state under a second Trump term

To Discuss: Read carefully Project 2025 Climate Sections (short) (8 pages) and skim the longer climate-related sections of The The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Canvas)

To Discuss: How bad could Trump be for renewables? A previously unreported study predicts a massive decrease in solar, wind, and battery development if Trump adopts just one proposal in Project 2025.

  • As discussed by Rahman, the Biden administration attempted to affect how agencies make and evaluate policy (e.g., through circular A4). How is the Heritage Foundation’s plan similar or different?

Electoral institutions:

To Discuss: Skim: “Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress” by Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander; Mildenberger, Matto; Stokes, Leah C. The American Political Science Review;

To Discuss: Skim: “Institutions, Climate Change, and the Foundations of Long-term Policymaking.” Finnegan, Jared, 2022 Comparative Political Studies.

Further reading:

Week 13: Movements

  • To what extent have climate movements been effective, and why?
  • To what extent are the underlying features of U.S. climate politics outlined by McAdam in 2017 still true?

Tuesday: Opportunity Structure and Mobilizing Structures

To Discuss: Research:McAdam, Doug. 2017. “Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 20:189–2008 (189-199)

To Discuss: Building a movement that can take full advantage of the IRA 🎧

To Discuss: News: What the Hell Is Going On at the Sierra Club? by Kate Aronoff

Thursday: Issue framing

To Discuss: Research: Chapter 1. Deva Woodly. 2015. The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptance, Oxford University Press. (Canvas)

Further reading:

Week 14: Efficiency & Markets

Tuesday:

Elizabeth Popp Berman on the “economic style of thinking” that consumed U.S. policy 🎧

Thursday: New Keynesian, neoliberal, and libertarian economics:

  • What would Hayek say about

    1. A central plan for apartment building heating?
    2. A fee for high-polluters? (the current policy)
    3. Tradable emissions credits? (as Ketcham & McGillis propose)

  • What information would city officials and building managers need in each scenario?

    1. ESG disclosure rules?
    1. Shareholder activism?

To Discuss: “The Use of Knowledge in Society” By Friedrich A. Hayek in American Economic Review (11 pages)

To Discuss: Opinion: Gotham’s Airheaded Carbon Law (9 pages)

To Discuss: Listen: The Coordinated Attack on Shareholder Activism - Damages 🎧

The backlash against ESG is continuing, with a string of lawsuits aimed at shutting down shareholder activism. We don’t often talk about shareholder activism in the vein of protecting protest, but it’s absolutely part of the story. Andrew Behar, CEO of shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, joins Damages to explain what’s going on.

Further reading:

Market critics:

Criticism of the critics:

Week 15: Planning for Change

Tuesday

To Discuss: Preparing our cities for the climate crisis: Geophysicist Klaus Jacob on how we can adapt our cities to live with rising seas and heavier rains. 🎧 at 34:00-57:00

To Discuss: Minnesota forces transportation planners to take climate change seriously 🎧

To Discuss: Charleston: Race, Water, and the Coming Storm by Susan Crawford (Chapters 1 and 10) (Canvas)

Further reading:

Thursday: Wrap-up

  • How has your understanding of the politics of policymaking changed since the start of the semester?
  • Which reading stands out to us most and why?
  • What connections do you see between your op-eds and the readings?

Ammendments

Because many topics we cover are subjects of ongoing discussion, I may make occasional changes to the course readings over the semester. I will notify you of any substantive changes. The full revision history is on github.

More Information on Student Instructor Best Practices

We will conduct office hours with my door open unless you request otherwise.

Students who wish to have confidential conversations with me may schedule a private meeting via Zoom or may ask to have a closed-door meeting. But this closed-door meeting must be made on your request in writing, even on the spot. I will never suggest a closed-door meeting myself because of the power dynamic.

We will document all pre-scheduled meetings between the instructor and the student via Google Calendar (or other software) and/or university email.

Students who email to request an office hour appointment should expect to receive an email confirmation or a Google Calendar (or other software) invitation from me, or, upon my email confirmation and request, may send me a Google Calendar (or other software) invitation for this meeting. The purpose is to provide a permanent record of the meeting and to ensure that all class activities are documented and transparent. Students who choose to drop by for informal meetings are welcome to do so, but there will be no documentation provided. (See above for open-door policy.)

We will choose meeting locations and conduct meetings with student and instructor safety in mind.

We will ensure that all individual meetings between instructor/student will take place at university venues.

We will ensure that all off-campus meetings, trips, or events must engage with course material.

Off-campus meetings will not involve alcohol or take place at locations that serve alcohol. If the class goes out for a meal, it will be at a cafe or restaurant that does not serve alcohol. The location/day/time of any off-campus meetings between the instructor and students will be documented in Google Calendar (or other software).

We, the instructors, will conduct all individual communications using the University platforms of email, Canvas, Slack, or Piazza, with the caveat that we may use non-university platforms set up by students (such as GroupMe) only if they include all students in the class.

There will be no instructor-student private communications on any non-University platforms, such as social media, GroupMe, WhatsApp, etc.

For more information on resources for reporting sexual misconduct, please see the faculty senate best practices for faculty interactions and U-M’s page on Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct.

Footnotes

  1. OK, sure, cyanobacteria were similarly tranfromative, but that was billions of years ago, and cyanobacteria cannot reflect on their actions. They make oxygen, but neither politics nor policy.↩

  2. Most organizations have an email list—I suggest signing up, both for the assignments in this class and your future career.↩