Increasingly, the social sciences
frame policy problems from the financial system to the food system as complex adaptive systems (CAS) and urge policy - makers to design legal solutions with CAS properties in mind.
Not exact matches
It seems to me that what needs to be reassessed are the goals of UK's immigration
policy and that yet another restructuring of the UKBA can do little to solve the
problems that political parties are creating by failing to understand and approach international human mobility outside the limited
frame of securitisation and under the duress of looming (tabloid - fed) moral panic.
While
framing the
problem as a question of terrorist financing has helped to garner additional
policy resources and international attention, it has been sold as a win - win for environmentalists and counter-terrorists alike.
Our point is that the IPCC has bought into a very specific
framing of «the
problem» that has rendered climate
policy ineffective and has foreclosed the possibility of public consent.
However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical
problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful
framing by the opponents of climate change
policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.
Common to these arguments is that they have successfully
framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate
policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral
problems with these arguments.
I don't have any
problem with the fact that there are many time
frames over which atmospheric CO2 would respond if emissions were to stop, though I think there is far more uncertainty in the estimates of response over time than is usually acknowledged, and that people with «agendas» consistently discount the response times that do not support their
policy positions.
Scientific and economic reasoning is an adequate way to
frame the climate
problem — but it is by no means the only way, says Matthew Nisbet, a communication and
policy specialist at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.
This talk will address the
problem of how evidence is excluded in science
policy debates and the difficulty that arguments from outside the conventional
framing of issues have in being «heard» in a
policy context.
The
framing of the climate change
problem by the UNFCCC / IPCC and the early articulation of a preferred
policy option by the UNFCCC has arguably marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change, resulting in an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change and stifling the development of a broader range of
policy options.
If you have had legal
problems and can not qualify for life insurance, for a certain time
frame, then an Accidental Death
Policy would also be a good consideration until such time when you can qualify for a standard life insurance plan.