Political Economy

G15 - Environmental and Political Risks

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Sarah Martin (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Sarah Martin (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Pathways to Keeping Fossil Fuels in the Ground: Insights from First-mover Cases (France, Ireland, New Zealand): Angela Carter (University of Waterloo), Janetta McKenzie (University of Waterloo), Justine Salam (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: Restricting fossil fuel extraction is emerging as an important “supply-side” policy approach to avoid worst-case climate crises. In rapid succession since 2017, multiple countries have begun to propose moratoria on fossil fuel extraction as part of the global effort to reduce emissions dramatically. These bans are historic, ambitious policies that are opening a new avenue for confronting the climate crisis—and signaling the beginning of a global fossil fuel phaseout. In this paper, we seek to provide empirical support for our previous theoretical contributions focused on isolating key factors in the implementation of “keep it in the ground” (KIIG) policies enacted by national governments. Based on fieldwork conducted in three front-running countries, we compare the development of KIIG policies in France, Ireland, and New Zealand, from their origins in citizen-led social movements, culminating in proposals for legislated bans. We focus on the development of broad-based KIIG-constituencies, vertically connected grassroots campaigns, leverage created by the introduction of provocative new ideas into the climate policy debate, and the support of well-placed norm entrepreneurs. The paper identifies both cross-case as well as context-specific conditions that enabled (and hindered) KIIG policy in these three first-mover cases. It contributes to our understanding of the interacting political-economic and socio-cultural elements that are motivating states to adopt these policies, drawing out trends that will be useful in extending KIIG policy in other fossil fuel-producing states.

NGOs as Issue Entrepreneurs? Evidence form Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany: Takumi Shibaike (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Environmental issues have become so salient in the public discourse that there is now a great variety of environmental issues that one could focus on. How does a new environmental issue emerge in this crowded issue area and gain public attention? Existing research argues that NGOs serve as “issue entrepreneurs,” who bring public attention to new issues, but it overlooks the variety of NGOs within civil society. Some NGOs are international, large and well-known, but others are local, small and obscure. The difference in size and reputation among NGOs does not necessarily mean that large and well-known international NGOs, or “leading” INGOs, can decide what “important” issues are. Small NGOs tend to be more locally grounded and may appear to be the experts of particular issues, and leading INGOs often suffer from scandals and criticisms by environmental experts. In this manuscript, I investigate the effect of NGO cues, that is, who projects the environmental message, affect the way respondents react to that intervention. I use the original data I obtained from survey experiments in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, which were fielded in the fall of 2018. The result suggests that leading INGOs do better among those who are not very informed about the environment. By contrast, the advantage of leading INGOs is not supported among informed members of the public. Given that informed members express their opinions frequently, the finding illuminates the important of small NGOs in civil society and environmental governance more broadly.

On the Precipice of Change: Political Risk and the 2019 Canadian Elections: Julian Campisi (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Traditional understandings of political risks to investments in the forms of expropriation or harm to foreign enterprises, political violence, or contract frustration, have taken on expanded meanings in recent years. At the same time, a rise in anti-trade rhetoric, anti-establishment forces, separatism, and distrust in national governments and multilateralism have upended established norms and the economic status quo vis-à-vis the relationship between foreign investments and politics. The recent Canadian federal election of 2019 highlighted a number of divisive political-economic trends that have re-emerged across the country, that can be best analyzed in a framework of risk. This paper proposes that as the focus of political risk analysis has expanded to assess factors in developed economic as well, that particular aspects of the Canadian case provide evidence for the multi-faceted nature of the contemporary political and economic realities that drive risk. The increased support for Western ‘separatism’ aided and abetted by the Prairie Premiers, the troubling future for Canadian natural resource extraction and the evolving energy sector, coupled with the urban-rural electoral and economic divisions, and the fight for real action on climate change nation-wide, together speak to the complex nature of risk factors. As this trend continues, governments and firms will be compelled to build new strategies and partnerships in order to navigate these newfound sources of political risk in Canada.

Catastrophic Risk in Canada: Divided Politics and Disasters: Korey Pasch (Queen's University)
Abstract: The 2020 CPSA Annual Conference highlights the role of political divisions in our contemporary politics. Specifically, this year’s conference seeks to better understand the relationship between these divides and various issue areas affecting Canada and the broader global community. Climate change, and its multifarious impacts, is perhaps the most pressing issue which is affecting and affected by political division in Canada. The recent federal election demonstrated, on the national stage, a deep divide between parties, regions, and peoples on how to address the climate crisis or whether it should be addressed at all. Climate change is increasing the strength of natural hazards and altering the types and severity of catastrophic risks faced in Canada. Mounting risks due to climate change means that improving coordination will be of paramount importance. Yet, political divides are manifesting themselves in the disjointed attempts to confront catastrophic risk in Canada. Furthermore, there has been a strong push towards the better integration of new financial technologies such as private flood insurance products and new hybrid insurance-finance instruments known as insurance-linked securities (ILS). Yet, Canada still lacks important coordination between various stakeholders in this area of governance. In this paper I explore the interconnections between the climate crisis and the governance of catastrophic risk in Canada. I seek to provide a framing of why, when political division over the governance of catastrophic risk through public policy is evident, market-based solutions such as new forms of insurance and ILS are being implemented with little awareness, debate, or discussion.