Science and Global Environmental Policymaking: A Review of Institutional and Political Barriers

Zongheng Li

doi:10.54097/ngfp0n29

Authors

Zongheng Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ngfp0n29

Keywords:

Scientific knowledge, international policymaking, international environmental policies, policy discussions, geopolitical interests, institutional inertia.

Abstract

As global environmental challenges escalate, the integration of scientific knowledge into international policymaking has become increasingly crucial. Nevertheless, a significant gap remains between scientific recommendations and the actual implementation of international environmental agreements. This review examines how science has been incorporated into global environmental governance. Key findings suggest that while international bodies like the IPCC have shaped policy discussions, geopolitical interests, institutional inertia, and power imbalances often impede the adoption of science-based decision-making. Most studies employ qualitative approaches, such as case studies and discourse analysis, with few engaging in cross-national or quantitative comparisons. By synthesizing current research trends and identifying gaps in both methodology and theory, this review provides valuable insights into how scientific evidence can be more effectively utilized to inform international environmental policies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Pörtner, H.-O., Scholes, R. J., Arneth, A., Barnes, D. K. A., Burrows, M. T., et al., "Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts," Science, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4881.

[2] Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., Boyack, K. W., Marx, W., & Minx, J. C., "How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data," Environmental Research Letters, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5b7e.

[3] Rogelj, J., et al., "Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C," Nature Climate Change, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3.

[4] Chasek, P. S., Wagner, L. E., & Chasek, P. A., "Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Environmental Science & Policy, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.04.003.

[5] Pörtner, H.-O., Scholes, R. J., Arneth, A., Barnes, D. K. A., Burrows, M. T., et al., "Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts," Science, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4881.

[6] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), "Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," IPBES Secretariat, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673.

[7] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), "Triple planetary crisis: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution," UNEP, 2022. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/triple-planetary-crisis-climate-change-biodiversity-loss-and-pollution.

[8] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), "The Paris Agreement: What is the Paris Agreement?", UNFCCC, Bonn, 2023. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.

[9] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), "Linkages Between Biodiversity and Climate Change and the Role of Science-Policy-Practice Interfaces for Ensuring Coherent Policy Approaches," 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Thematic_Paper_2_Linkages_Between_Biodiversity_and_Climate_Change_and_the_Role_of_Science-Policy-Practice_Interfaces_for_Ensuring_Coherent_Po.pdf.

[10] Ambrožič, K., & Snoj, L., "Characterization of gamma field in the JSI TRIGA reactor," Ph.D. thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, 2020.