IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i5p699-713..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experts and climate change politicisation. A case study of the Environmental Protection Agency (1983–2015)
[The Micro-Politics of Worthy Homelessness: Interactive Moments in Congressional Hearings]

Author

Listed:
  • Loredana Loy

Abstract

How did governmental experts respond publicly to the politicisation of climate change in the policy domain? Did they remain neutral to this process, resisted these efforts, or enabled them? Using longitudinal data derived from a content analysis of congressional testimonies provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between 1983 and 2015, I find that the proportion of climate-related advocacy statements increased over time, yet their prevalence varied with the political context. As the agency’s position-taking on the issue intensified over time, this intensity was conditional on the political context. Most importantly, the EPA experts never denied the scientific basis of climate change, not even under presidential administrations that did, and instead advocated for climate action. These findings complicate traditional conceptualisations of experts as either independent from or subservient to politics, suggesting a more complex relationship where experts attempt to respond to contentious politics while maintaining continuity in their mission.

Suggested Citation

  • Loredana Loy, 2022. "Experts and climate change politicisation. A case study of the Environmental Protection Agency (1983–2015) [The Micro-Politics of Worthy Homelessness: Interactive Moments in Congressional Hearings]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 699-713.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:699-713.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:699-713.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.