A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2016; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/65/3/osofsky-peel.pdf">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
<i title="Elsevier BV">
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/container/tol7woxlqjeg5bmzadeg6qrg3e" style="color: black;">Social Science Research Network</a>
Whether the topic is the Paris Agreement on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the Keystone XL pipeline, hydraulic fracturing, offshore drilling, or renewable energy, much of the U.S. policy dialogue about energy and climate change is deeply partisan. Republicans and Democrats debate individual issues in vitriolic sound bites that indicate minimal common ground. For example, officials favoring robust action on climate change are charged with engaging in a "War on Coal."<span class="external-identifiers"> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2523911">doi:10.2139/ssrn.2523911</a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/kpjhhlb6d5dcnb4oodtpxzpeuq">fatcat:kpjhhlb6d5dcnb4oodtpxzpeuq</a> </span>
more »... Those opposed are labeled "members of the Flat Earth Society." Set against these dysfunctional climate and energy politics, how can progress be made? For people who accept the science of climate change, this has become a critical question. An emerging body of psychological research indicates that strategies attempting to persuade those with opposing views with additional scientific evidence have limited effectiveness. Providing more information does not change minds because (1) it does not take moral and cultural worldview differences into account, or (2) it is presented in ways that do not adequately acknowledge how people's perceptions of the relatability and trustworthiness of communicators shape their acceptance of that information. This Article provides a novel analysis of how to make progress on energy and climate change issues by translating this emerging psychological research into a framework for action. It proposes two interconnected strategiessubstantive and structural-for moving past imbedded partisanship and political dysfunction. Substantively, the Article argues for refocusing regulatory efforts on areas where a greater degree of consensus may be possible, such as economic development and disaster resilience. Structurally, it proposes a shift to arenas that are less gridlocked by energy partisanship than the legislative branch of the federal government, such as other branches of the federal government, state and local levels, and corporate and private sector actors. By drawing on case studies and empirical data, including interviews with key stakeholders, the Article illustrates possibilities for progress under this framework. 2016] ENERGY PARTISANSHIP 697
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160415224622/http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/65/3/osofsky-peel.pdf" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext"> <button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="icon ia-icon"></i> Web Archive [PDF] <div class="menu fulltext-thumbnail"> <img src="https://blobs.fatcat.wiki/thumbnail/pdf/ee/65/ee655dca57390c35f22d85de5d245930b6509482.180px.jpg" alt="fulltext thumbnail" loading="lazy"> </div> </button> </a> <a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2523911"> <button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button"> <i class="external alternate icon"></i> ssrn.com </button> </a>