2. Three Types of Claims and Inferences Normative claims: Claims about how the world SHOULD be Descriptive claims / inferences: Claims about how the world IS Inferences about the past which can’t observe Causal claims / inferences: Claims about WHY the world is as it is Inferences about causes which we can’t observe

3. How environmental problems differ “Problem structures” differ Differences matter for: Difficulty of resolving Types of solutions that are politically possible Types of solutions that are effective Not all problems look alike

4. Structure vs. Agency Structural factors impose constraints Intentions don’t always produce outcomes Political, economic, social, technological factors are “structures” Certain options not available Other options not seriously considered Agency still matters Within constraints, human choices matter “Free will vs. determinism” revisited

5. Why environmental problems more common at international level? Demand side – need for governance More types of demands on resources Larger amounts of demands on resources Supply side – supply of governance Ability to supply rules is more challenging Interstate rivalry, nationalism, relative gains concerns Ability to supply enforcement is more challenging

6. Upstream/Downstream Problems e.g. Rhine.` Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute Downstream State Upstream States

7. Upstream/Downstream Problems e.g. Rhine. Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute; OTHERS are harmed Downstream State Upstream States

8. Direct Tragedy of the Commons e.g. fisheries. Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it

9. Direct Tragedy of the Commons e.g. fisheries. Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it

10. Indirect Tragedy of the Commons Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Everybody contributes; Environmental Impacts

11. Indirect Tragedy of the Commons Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed Environmental Impacts

12. Indirect Tragedy of the Commons e.g. climate Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed BUT behaviors that resolve problem DIFFER from those that cause it Environmental Impacts

13. Other forms of variation in problem structure Transparency of behaviors Capacities To engage in “good” behaviors To engage in “bad” behaviors Degree of value conflict Distribution of power among actors Contextual factors (e.g. Cold War, War on Terror)

14. Variation in solutions How to address climate change Broad or deep first? Intergovernmental, unilateral, local, NGO, MNC Stringent with high noncompliance or loose with high compliance All gases or just some Mechanisms of influence on behavior: sticks, carrots, locks, opportunities, labels, sermons