Course Syllabus

JOHN CABOT UNIVERSITY

COURSE CODE: "PL 366"
COURSE NAME: "International Environmental Politics"
SEMESTER & YEAR: Summer Session II 2014

SYLLABUS

INSTRUCTOR: Elizabeth Lowham
EMAIL: [email protected]
HOURS: MTWTH 9:00 AM 10:45 AM
TOTAL NO. OF CONTACT HOURS: 45
CREDITS: 3
PREREQUISITES: Prerequisite: One introductory level Political Science course
OFFICE HOURS:

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course is an undergraduate course dealing with environmental topics and public policy within the international domain. International environmental issues require an understanding and respect of multiple values and value systems, the importance and limitations of science-based decision-making, and the ability and willingness to innovate amidst controversy and complexity. Issues such as climate change, sustainable development, protection of biodiversity/ecosystems/species, resource extraction, energy (just to name a few) involve conflicting value systems enmeshed in complex power relationships, drawing our attention to issues of scale, interconnectedness, boundaries, and the importance of creating solutions that are workable across and between jurisdictions.

This course engages these global challenges to emphasize the development of problem solving and communication skills as they apply to international environmental issues. In any given environmental policy area, adequate problem solving requires the analyst to understand and integrate policies/laws at different levels, the interests and goals of various participants, and be able to develop innovative solutions. The principal organizational scheme for the course focuses on developing students’ abilities to define international environmental problems by encouraging the critical reflection on what we value and how those values may differ in emphasis based on background and context, current performance in the environmental realm, and causes or drivers of that performance. By focusing on the nature and importance of how problems are defined, as opposed to taking those definitions as given or supplied by other institutions, this course encourages critical thinking about the links between goals and solutions. The approach in this course is intended to prepare students to more fully attain the skills and knowledge that will facilitate such policy work and understanding in the international arena.

SUMMARY OF COURSE CONTENT:
1. What is international environmental policy (30 June - 3 July)

30 June - 1 July : Kidney Exercise

1-2 July : Defining Policy Problems

2 -3 July : Environmental Values and the Common Interest

2. Trends in the Global Environment (7-14 July)

7 July : Model UN Introduction

8 July : Trends in Environmental Quality

9 July 2014: A Contrasting View?

10 July : Work Day - Model UN Preparation

14 July : Model UN

3. Causes of Environmental Concerns (15-17 July)

15 July : Tragedy of the Commons

16 July : Globalization, Consumerism and Development

17 July : Management and History

4. Climate Change Case (21-22 July)

5. Potential Solutions (23 - 31 July)

23 July : International Cooperation

24 July : Model UN Preparation

28 July: Model UN II

29 July: Promoting Democracy and Markets

30 July: Local Responses

31 July: Global Environmental Organizations

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this course, students should be able to:

· Define and understand the relevant policy frameworks and theories

· Understand and integrate “environmental values” with “other” value schemes

· Describe those factors which contribute to environmental problems

· Create, evaluate, and refine definitions of environmental policy problems

· Develop, support, and critique innovative solutions to environmental problems

· Critique professional policy analyses, with particular emphasis on what they include and omit

· Continue developing advanced level writing and communication skills, including, but not limited to, argumentation and writing style

TEXTBOOK:

NONE

REQUIRED RESERVED READING:

NONE

RECOMMENDED RESERVED READING:

NONE

GRADING POLICY
-ASSESSMENT METHODS:

Assignment	Guidelines	Weight
Discussion Leader	Each student will serve as a discussion leader for part of one seminar session. I want this course to be both a general introduction to international environmental issues and an experience tailored to your interests. As such, depending on the size of the class, as individuals or in small groups, you will be responsible for the development of one case study focused on a specific international environmental issue. You will select a set of readings, develop a set of questions or short activities that will guide the class, and be responsible for the running of class. You should plan on developing a set of questions that can sustain class discussion for approximately 50 minutes and that relates to the theoretical readings for the day. Being a good discussion leader can be a difficult task, as it requires you to be well versed in the readings for your chosen class/topic and to be able to manage a group discussion.	25
Model UN I	For each Model UN, you will represent a different country and be responsible for understanding that country’s policy and political goals. Of the twenty possible points for each debate, 10 will go toward your initial position paper, 10 will go toward the negotiations and resolution participation, and 5 will go individual response papers after the debates. Although I won’t formally require you to evaluate your group members, if members of your group come to me with concerns about your participation, I may lower your individual grade on the debate.	25
Model UN II	For each Model UN, you will represent a different country and be responsible for understanding that country’s policy and political goals. Of the twenty possible points for each debate, 10 will go toward your initial position paper, 10 will go toward the negotiations and resolution participation, and 5 will go individual response papers after the debates. Although I won’t formally require you to evaluate your group members, if members of your group come to me with concerns about your participation, I may lower your individual grade on the debate.	25
Final Exam		15
Participation	Your engagement in class activities in a positive and sincere way is crucial for the success of collaborative learning. You share responsibility for in-class learning with me and your colleagues; this involves creating a collaborative and active learning context, and engaging the material. Each of you has something to share based on your experiences and insights. I expect you to share and to create an environment where that sharing is integrated, respected, and expected. At a minimum, A level participation in this course requires that you: (1) Attend class (2) Come to class prepared, attentive and willing to participate (3) Make connections and integrate information from class readings, class activities, and personal experience (4) Practice effective dialogue practices, including listening to others, asking good questions, and respectfully addressing/challenging other students (and me) (5) Move conversations forward.	10

-ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:
AWork of this quality directly addresses the question or problem raised and provides a coherent argument displaying an extensive knowledge of relevant information or content. This type of work demonstrates the ability to critically evaluate concepts and theory and has an element of novelty and originality. There is clear evidence of a significant amount of reading beyond that required for the course. Communication is clear, effective and of high-quality.
BThis is highly competent level of performance and directly addresses the question or problem raised. There is a demonstration of some ability to critically evaluate theory and concepts and relate them to practice. Discussions reflect the student’s own arguments and are not simply a repetition of standard lecture and reference material. The work does not suffer from any major errors or omissions and provides evidence of reading beyond the required assignments. Communication is reasonably clear, effective and contains few errors.
CThis is an acceptable level of performance and provides answers that are clear but limited, reflecting the information offered in the lectures and reference readings. Communication is frequently unclear or ineffective and contains several errors.
DThis level of performances demonstrates that the student lacks a coherent grasp of the material.Important information is omitted and irrelevant points included.In effect, the student has barely done enough to persuade the instructor that s/he should not fail.
FThis work fails to show any knowledge or understanding of the issues raised in the question. Most of the material in the answer is irrelevant.

-ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS:
Class participation is a required component of your grade. Attendance is one of the basic components of quality participation. After one unexcused absence, your participation grade will suffer. Unexcused absences on Model UN days are not allowed.

ACADEMIC HONESTY
As stated in the university catalog, any student who commits an act of academic dishonesty will receive a failing grade on the work in which the dishonesty occurred. In addition, acts of academic dishonesty, irrespective of the weight of the assignment, may result in the student receiving a failing grade in the course. Instances of academic dishonesty will be reported to the Dean of Academic Affairs. A student who is reported twice for academic dishonesty is subject to summary dismissal from the University. In such a case, the Academic Council will then make a recommendation to the President, who will make the final decision.

STUDENTS WITH LEARNING OR OTHER DISABILITIES
John Cabot University does not discriminate on the basis of disability or handicap. Students with approved accommodations must inform their professors at the beginning of the term. Please see the website for the complete policy.

SCHEDULE

Seminar Schedule (Tentative)

1. What is international environmental policy? (30 June-3 July)

30 June - 1 July: Introduction to the Course and to the Practical Problem of Policy - The Kidney Exercise

The objective of your first meeting is to provide a direct and common experience with the complexities inherent in any public policy context. The Kidney Problem is appealing for several reasons; it involves both technical and normative concerns, both of which are prevalent across several types of policy problems and questions – particularly those in the environmental and international arena. It presents these issues and concerns in a direct and dramatic fashion. The Kidney Problem also allows for a limited amount of time and information, thus providing a practical constraint on analysis and decision making.

Across a broad range of policy problems, a good analyst will consider the following types of questions:

What values are important?
What do those abstract values mean in this context?
Who are the potential winners and losers?
What are the costs and benefits? How are they distributed?
How and why do we choose among competing claims of values?

During the seminar, each of you will be provided with the personal files of all eleven patients with end-stage kidney failure, all of whom have requested transplants. The demand for transplants exceeds the available supply. As a group, you must report a single, unambiguous rank ordering of all eleven patients in the order of priority for transplant. Those patients near the top of your list will likely receive a transplanted kidney; those near the bottom of your list will probably never receive a transplant.

Prior to your meeting, each member of the group should have completed the attached readings about renal failure, dialysis and transplants. These readings provide some background on some of the crucial issues. You can use these readings to help define criteria for transplant rankings.

For the sake of the exercise, keep in mind that regardless of the information in the personal file, assume that there are no available donors in the patient’s family. All of the patients, including those that have had a previous transplant, are now experiencing renal failure and all have requested a transplant. Immunological matching of donor to done is not a factor in your decision-making. The technical information in these files and the readings that accompany them are outdated; however, the technological changes are not relevant for the purpose of the exercise.

You have the entire class period to read the provided materials, discuss patients and rank them according to priority for transplant. You will then report your ranking as well as the justification for and factors which went into your decision. We will then debrief the exercise, focusing on different rankings, the importance of values in decision-making, and the role of the analyst in policy making. This exercise is courtesy of Ron Brunner and J. Samuel Fitch, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Kidney Exercise Readings

Patient Files.

Group 1. Simmons, R. (1987). The social and psychological impact of organ transplantation (Ch. 3). In R.G. Simmons, S.K. Marine & R.L. Simmons (eds) Gift of life: The effect of organ transplantation on individual, family, and societal dynamics. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Group 2. Whalen, J.E. & Freeman, R.H. (1978). Home hemodialysis review in Iowa: 1970-1977. Archives of Internal Medicine, 138, 1787-1790.

Group 3. Kemph, J. P. (1978). The kidney or the machine? and reply by Howard, et al. Journal of the American Medical Association, 239(9).

Group 4. Advisory Committee to the Renal Transplant Registry (1975). The 12^th report of the Human Renal Transplant Registry. Journal of the American Medical Association, 233(7), 787-796.

1 – 2 July: Public Policy Problems

Required Readings

Clark, S.G. (2011). Excerpts from The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bardach, E. (1988). Things governments do. Appendix B in A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

2 - 3 July: Environmental Values and The Common Interest

Required Readings

Hunter, D., Salzman, J., & Zaelke, D. (2007). A brief history from Stockholm to Johannesburg (Chapter 4). International environmental law and policy (4^th edition). New York, NY: Foundation Press.

Okereke, C. (2008). Excerpt from Equity norms in global environmental governance (pp. 30-44). Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 25-50.

2. Trends in the Global Environment (7 – 14 July)

7 July: Model UN Introduction

Required Readings

National Collegiate Conference Association. (2013). Delegate preparation guide: National Model United Nations (nmun.org).

8 July: Trends in Environmental Quality

Required Readings

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J.M. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 227(5325), 494-499.

United Nations Environment Programme (2013). Excerpts from Year in review. UNEP year book 2013: Emerging issues in our global environment. http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2013/

United Nations Environment Programme (2013). Excerpts from Key environmental indicators. UNEP year book 2013: Emerging issues in our global environment. www.unep.org/yearbook/2013/pdf/Environmental_indicators.pdf

9 July: A Contrasting View?

Required Readings

Lomborg, B. (2001). Things are getting better (Chapter 1). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, S., Holdren, J., Bongaarts, J. & Lovejoy, T. (2002). Misleading math. Scientific American, January.

OECD Environment Directorate. (2008). OECD key environment indicators. Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/37551205.pdf

10 July: Work Day – Model UN Preparation

14 July: Model UN

Assignment: Position Paper I Due.

3. Causes of Environmental Concerns (15 – 17 July)

15 July: Tragedy of The Commons

Required Readings

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278-282.

Assignment: Discussion Leader I.

16 July: Globalization, Consumerism, and Development

Required Readings

Lipschutz, R.D. (2004). Capitalism, globalization and the environment (Chapter 3). Global environmental politics: Power, perspectives and practice. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Flavin, C. (2001). Rich planet, poor planet (Chapter 1). In Brown, L.R., Flavin, C. & French, H. (Eds), State of the world 2001. New York, NY: WW Norton.

Assignment: (1) Discussion Leader II.

(2) Model UN I Reflection.

17 July: The Influence of Management and History

Required Readings

White Jr., L.J. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207.

Taylor, F. (1911). Fundamentals of scientific management (Chapter 1). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Cosimo Classics.

Brunner, R.D. & Steelman, T.A. (2005). Beyond scientific management (Chapter 1). In Brunner, R.D., Steelman, T.A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. Edwards, C. & Tucker D. (Eds). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision making. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Assignment: Discussion Leader III.

4. Case Study: Climate Change (21 - 22 July)

21 July: Climate Change Case

Required Readings

Dessler, A.E., & Parson, E.A. (2008). Global climate change: A new type of environmental problem. Science, politics and science in politics. (Chapters 1 and 2). The science and politics of global climate change: A guide to the debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

MacFarquhar, N. (2010). Review finds flaws in U.N. climate panel structure. The New York Times.

22 July: Climate Change Case

Required Readings

Schelling, T.C. (2002). What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, 81(3), 1-9.

Sarewitz, D. & Pielke Jr., R.A. (2000). Breaking the global-warming gridlock. The Atlantic, 286(1), 54-64.

Khor, M. (2010). The real tragedy of Copenhagen. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(1), 10-13.

5. Solutions (23 – 31 July)

23 July: International Cooperation as a Solution?

Required Readings

Sand, P.H. (1997). Commodity or taboo? International regulation of trade in endangered species. In Green globe yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.fni.no/ybiced/97_01_sand.pdf

Levy, M.A. (1996). European acid rain: The power of tote-board diplomacy. In Keohand, R.O. and Levy, M. (Eds), Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Assignment: Discussion Leader V.

24 July: Model UN II Preparation

28 July: Model UN II

Assignment: Position Paper II Due.

29 July: Promoting Democracy and Markets as Solutions?

Required Readings

Farzin, Y.H. & Bond, C.A. (2006). Democracy and environmental quality. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v9n4_2.pdf

Prugh, R., Costanza, R. & Daly, H.E. (2000). Sustainability and strong democracy (Chapter 7). The local politics of global sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Bernhagen, P. (2008). Business and international environmental agreements: Domestic sources of participation and compliance by advanced industrialized democracies. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 78-110.

Assignment: (1) Discussion Leader VI.

(2) Model UN II Reflection Due.

30 July: Are All Solutions Local?

Required Readings

Sabel, C. Fung, A. & Karkkainen, B. (2005) Beyond backyard environmentalism: How communities are quietly refashioning environmental regulation. In Dryzek, J.S. and Schlosberg, D. (Eds), Debating the earth: The environmental politics reader. New York. NY: Oxford University Press, USA.

Maniates, M.F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world. Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31.

Assignment: Discussion Leader VII.

31 July: Global Environmental Organization as a Solution?

Required Readings

Beirman, F. (2000). The case for a world environmental organization. Environment, 42(9).

Najam, A. (2003). The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9, 367-384.

United Nations. (2008). Management review of environmental governance within the United Nations system. Retrieved from http:www.unjiu.org/data/reports/2008/en2008_3.pdf.

Assignment: Discussion Leader VIII.

Aug 1: Final Exam Due.