首页> 外文会议>European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics Conference >World wide views on global warming: evaluation of a public debate
【24h】

World wide views on global warming: evaluation of a public debate

机译:全球变暖观点:公开辩论的评估

获取原文

摘要

On 26 September 2009 a public debate was held simultaneously in 38 different countries about global warming, in preparation for the climate negotiations that were to be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen (the COP 15). This was the first time that aninternational public debate of this size was organised. In this experiment - on initiative of the Danish Minister of the Environment (host of COP15) - an effort was made to include popular voices from all over the world in the political debate on climatepolicy. Such a debate needs close scrutiny in order to develop lessons for new steps in global citizen participation. In this paper we want to sketch some of these lessons. We will first briefly argue that a public debate regarding global warming is necessary because of the different dimensions of uncertainty and controversy that surround this topic; global warming is a paradigmatic case of a so-called unstructured problem. Next, we will set out a number of criteria for the evaluation of debates aboutunstructured problems, such as 'inclusivity' and 'the absence of power differences'. Finally, we will evaluate the debate. In the debate form that was used, resembling that of the 'deliberative poll', information has to be offered in a structured mannerand this leaves little room to stimulate an interaction between experts and lay people. For example, open expert controversy could have been emphasised more. This evaluation should gives us an indication of what needs to be improved in future exercises with public debate.
机译:2009年9月26日,在38个不同国家同时举行了一个关于全球变暖的公开辩论,以准备在哥本哈根(COP 15)的2009年12月举行的气候谈判。这是第一次举办了第一次这一规模的公共辩论。在这个实验中,关于丹麦环境院的倡议(COP15的主机) - 在关于世界各地的政治辩论中包括来自世界各地的流行声音。这种辩论需要紧密审查,以便为全球公民参与开发新步骤的教训。在本文中,我们想绘制一些这些课程。首先,我们将首先概述有关全球变暖的公开辩论是必要的,因为围绕本主题的不确定性和争议的不同方面是必要的;全球变暖是一个所谓的非结构化问题的范式案例。接下来,我们将列出许多标准,用于评估关于对讲问题的辩论,例如“包含性”和“没有权力差异”。最后,我们将评估辩论。在使用的辩论形式,类似于“审议民意调查”的形式,必须以结构化的曼德提供信息,这使得小空间刺激专家之间的互动并奠定人们。例如,打开专家争议可能会更加强调。该评估应给人指示未来在未来的练习中需要改进的内容。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号