Chat Session with prof. Ron Mitchell (IDL 102) on Tuesday Oct. 29

Andrei: Hello everybody! We should probably start now.

Sidorenko: There is a scientific uncertainty about the problem of climate change: one group of scientists considers the human activity to be the reason of it and the other one thinks that the climate changing is a natural process. What point of view do you espouse?

Zakharova: Hello, Pofessor Mitchell.

mitchell: In response to Sidorenko, my sense of it is that there is considerable consensus that humans are influencing the global climate ... (I will use ... to signify that I will continue in the next message during the chat)

mitchell: The nature of human influence on climate is such that we will not be able to be sure of our influence until it is too late to stop having a bad influence, so we should adopt a precautionary approach...

Andrei: Ok, now the question from Ural SU, please.

mitchell: But one last point on that is that a consensus does not mean the scientists in the majority are necessarily right - Copernicus was the only person who thought the earth revolved around the sun. Now a question from Ural SU?

Andrei: Ok no response from USU, Yarslavl is next then.

Andrei: Ok, let's abandon the usual order. I am asking any students to send their questions to prof. Mitchell. Please, who has questions?

MikhailovaKs: Professor Mitchell.How you consider, how the new attacks of terrorism will affect the ecological agreements?

mitchell: Interesting question - I think the biggest influence is that it leads to environmental concerns moving back down the policy agenda...

Chernyshey: USU is here.We are really sorry for being late. We just had some technical problems. We are ready.

mitchell: just as the end of the Cold War between Soviets and US lead to environmental issues gaining more attention, now they will lose attention again.

Andrei: Ok, USU, your question now.

mitchell: This, I think, is too bad for environmental issues, yet I understand the need to place other issues higher on the agenda - but as an environmentalist, it frustrates me.

Chupina: What made you create such a programm?

mitchell: I am sorry - I don't understand the question - could you clarify please?

Andrei: Alright, any questions from Petrozavodsk?

mitchell: And also if Chupina can clarify the question, I will be happy to respond.

Andrei: Dear students, even though this is our first chat in this course, please don't be shy to ask Prof. Mitchell your questions. Please!

Malysheva: Prof. Mitchell. Please, describe what do you do as a sientist in the environmental field or the field of environmental policy?

mitchell: Yes, please, any questions are fine.

Andrei: without any particular order! Just formulate them clearly, please.

mitchell: Actually, I am a political scientist and do research mainly on why some environmental treaties are effective and some are not. I am doing research to determine what factors lead to high levels of compliance with some treaties and not with others.

mitchell: Some of what I am interested in also, is how changes in the broader international context make it easier or harder for countries to comply with treaties, for example, with the terrorist attacks I would expect countries to comply somewhat less often.

mitchell: I am also just finishing a project that looks at environmental science assessments (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to see what effect they have on the policy process. We have just finished a book on that subject.

Andrei: any other questions, please?

mitchell: Next question?

Fritsler: Professor Mitchell?, Do you think social unequaty affects environmental policy? If yes in what way?

Malysheva: Prof. Mitchell. Which achievment do you have in your practic investidation?

mitchell: Good question. Social inequity has various effects in my view. The first is that how much pollution a person creates depends, in part, on how rich they are. ...

Chupina: No matter about the previous question.(USU)

Chernyshey: We know that Rein river in Germany was called "the dirtiest place" just a few years ago, but after it was cleared and purified. And now it is a resort area. Could the same program be applied to Russian rivers and lakes ( for example Baikal )? USU

mitchell: Poverty can cause people to do considerable harm to the environment, too, however, as when people have no alternatives but to cut down trees to provide firewood to cook with.

Demidova: Dr.Mitchell. Is this course mostly for biologists or political researchers?

mitchell: On the question of cleaning up Russian rivers from Chernyshey, I think it is a good approach to evaluate whether the policies to clean up the Rhine were responsible for its getting cleaner (see my lectures on causality later in the course) and then to see whether the same policies seem likely to work on Baikal or the Aral Sea. If conditions are not the same, a given policy may have quite different effects.

mitchell: As for Demidova's question, I hope the course is useful for both biologists and political scientists. Biologists may learn how to apply their scientific knowledge to helping fix environmental problems and political scientists can learn more about how to work with biologists to also achieve environmental goals .

mitchell: Next question?

Andrei: Any questions from Yaroslavlor Petrozavodsk?

Savin: Prof. Mitchell. You often illustrate your ideas by the examples. What is your favaurite example? Why?

mitchell: It depends for what, of course. That said, I think an important example is the difference between pollution of a lake and pollution of a river - many people think all problems are Tragedies of the Commons in which everyone is a polluter and everyone is also a victim - as in a lake where all people who live on the lake throw their garbage into it and also get water from it. That is true for some problems. But other problems are like on a river where the upstream people use the water and pollute but their pollution only affects the downstream people. That is a very different kind of problem and I think the difference is important for political analysis and undersstanding.

mitchell: Next question?

Zakharova: Professor Mitchell, how you think, in country with big amount of the population,ecological situation, more sloppy?

mitchell: Let me see if I have the question correct. I think that countries with large populations are likely to have large environmental problems simply because of the population, but going back to the earlier question about inequity, the more important issues probably have to do with the level of economic development and the culture of environmental protection. Thus, the has only about 20% of the people in Chinabut creates far more pollution than China does in almost every category of pollution.

mitchell: So, I think there are many factors that influence the level of pollution that a country creates. Next question?

Sidorenko: Prof.Mitchell, do you think that the growth of women among policy-makers would lead to more effective ecological measures?

Rizhikova: Dear Dr. Mitchell, what do you think about recent notes that ozone hole became smaller. what is the reason of these changes: natural or induced by the protecting activities?

mitchell: Interesting question from Sidorenko. I think what matters more than whether women or men are the policy makers is what the perspective of the policy makers are. I do think that a feminist perspective (whether held by a man or woman) is likely to be more sensitive to environmental issues. But I think a man can hold that view as well as a woman.

Malysheva: Prof. Mitchell. Please, cleare up what's the difference between the success and the effectivness?

mitchell: As for Rizhikova's question, again, I point you to my lectures on causal thinking and causal analysis. As you point out the hard question is to figure out what is causing the hole to get smaller. That is good news, of course, but determining whether it is natural variation or caused by the success of the Montreal Protocol is harder. But, to be clear, it is a question for which one needs to gather evidence and do analysis, and is not simply something one can have an opinion about without doing research. Research and careful analysis are crucial to answering these kind of hard questions well.

Chernyshey: What to your mind is more important to give priorities to solving environmental problems damaging some sheres of economy or to sound state of industry harming our environment ( these two things are interwoven )?

mitchell: As for Malysheva's question, I tend to think of success and effectiveness as similar terms. But the key issue when using either one is to be clear about what you mean. A treaty may be successful (or effective) in many different ways. The main thing to remember is that you can compare the treaty outcome to both what would have happened if the treaty wasn't there (counterfactual) and also to what the treaty was trying to achieve (goal achievement).

mitchell: On Chernyshey's question, could you please restate it? I am not sure I understand it fully.

mitchell: Next question perhaps?

MikhailovaKs: Professor Mitchell.How you consider in the countries with a high level of collectivism ecological issues are solved more effectively?

Chernyshey: I meant what is your point of view on the problems that have benefits exceeding costs.

mitchell: Let me respond to Chernyshey first. I think an important issue is not only whether benefits exceed costs, but how both benefits and costs are calculated. Clearly, we do not charge enough for certain goods - for example, in the US, gasoline is so cheap that people drive in excess of what is good environmentally. Likewise with respect to industry we have to ask how to make tradeoffs between the goods an industry produces (and the jobs it creates) against the environmental damage that is done.

Chashkina: What do you think, why in the early stage of negotiations many countries (even developed ones)are bystanders? USU

mitchell: As for MikhailovaKs question, I do not know much about differences in the environmental damage of collectivist societies vs. non-collectivist ones, but I think it would be an interesting research question to see whether collectivist societies pollute more, less, or the same amount as non-collectivist ones. You could collect data on this for countries of both types and see what you find.

MikhailovaKs: Thank you I will think about it.

Andrei: next question?

Malysheva: Prof. Mitchell. Do you make international investigations?

mitchell: As for Chashkina's question, I think many countries are not "leaders" because for many countries, they take positions because their people demand it. But most populations have either more pressing concerns than environment (such as economic well-being) or are not well-enough informed about new environmental risks. Also, it takes some time for science regarding new problems to filter into the political system so that people think there is a problem. That must happen before states come to negotiations.

mitchell: As for Malysheva'a question, I do research on international treaties but do not do much research on the behavior of particular countries. Thus, I have not done any research on the particular environmental policies of any given countries. I am, of course, interested in learning about environmental issues in other countries, including Russia (Baikal and Aral Sea, to name a few) but do not do research on any of that.

mitchell: Next question?

Savin: What do you think about threat of nuclear war?

Borisova: In what way do you think tourism affects environment?

mitchell: As for nuclear war, I think the threat has changed recently. I think the US-Russia threat is much lower and also the threat of global nuclear war is lower. But the threat of one or two nuclear weapons exploding has increased over the last ten years, I think, between terrorists and the India-Pakistan conflict.

mitchell: As for Borisova's question, tourism has multiple impacts. I think that much of it is negative (consider the fuel used to fly airplanes from one place to another for starters). That said, tourism is likely to continue and increase, so I think it is good to try to make tourism as environmentally friendly as possible. That is difficult but can be achieved I think.

mitchell: Perhaps we have time for one last question?

Romanova: Professor Mitchell.What is the future of the Kyotoprotocol?

Zakharova: Thank you for interesting chat.

Savin: Thank you very mach for your answers, prof. Mitchell.

Voronina: Prof. Mitchell. I'm really sorry, but we have to leave this chat. Thank you for your time and consideration. (USU)

Malysheva: Thank all members of chat.

mitchell: As for the Kyoto Protocol, I think it is unlikely the US will support it any more, unfortunately from my view. That said, I think there is not really "any other game in town" - and that over the next ten to twenty years most countries in the world, including the US, will begin to make steps to reduce climate gas emissions. I wish the US were taking more of the lead rather than following, however.

Sidorenko: Thank you, Prof. Michell! That was a very interesting chat thouch we still have some questions. but we'll try to ask them next time. Bye, thanks a lot!

Fritsler: Proffesor Mitchell, this chat was very interesting. Thank you and good bye.

MikhailovaKs: Thank you Professor Mitchell. Interesting discussion.

Yamineva: thank you for chat, Prof. Mitchell, colleagues and students! Bye for all.

mitchell: Indeed, thank you all for very interesting questions and a provocative discussion. Best of luck with the course. Please feel free to email any additional questions to me if you like at rmitchel@oregon.uoregon.edu

Andrei: Alright, prof. Mitchell, thank you very much for your participation in this first chat.

Borisova: Thank for the intrestet chat.

mitchell: It was a pleasure. Goodbye.

Romanova: Thank you,Professor Mitchell fpr the interesting chat!

Back to other news