Interlinkages between Climate Change Impacts, Public Attitudes, and Climate Action—Exploring Trends before and after the Paris Agreement in the EU

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a good article, in my opinion, it can be published in the same way

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, thorough, and constructive feedback. Please see attached the response to reviewers, with each comment referenced and responded to, with the corresponding change to the manuscript described in the far right column. Additional references have been added according to the reviewers' recommendations. All changes have been made to the manuscript in track changes referencing the reviewer's comment again. We believe the changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript - Many sincere thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a highly interesting, timely, and well-written article that touches upon a critical aspect of climate policy implementation at the European level (and, by extension, at the broader global level).

It compellingly shows that, while the impact of the climate crisis is worsening, climate policies in European states are "not gaining the nec­essary momentum to meet the level and urgency of the threat, nor are they (offering) an adequate response to the increased public awareness and concern."

The authors demonstrate this knowledge-action gap with a great deal of detail. 

 

Even though the article needs some improvements, I strongly support its publication, once a few weaknesses are addressed. In this commentary I will not comment on data and methodology, only on conceptual linkages to be further expanded — thus, I believe, potentially leading to more fruitful interdisciplinary liaisons in the article.

 

 The idea that national-level policies are at least one step below European-level policies and commitments is a very important one, but certainly, it is not entirely new. Similar crucial dimensions have been explored via different linkages and concepts. 

 

It is therefore essential that the authors reinforce and amplify their brief literature review at the beginning of the article. This needs to be in turn connected with a few key questions:

What do the authors mean by national-level politics? Could or should they explicitly refer to the nation-state level? How is the nation-state therefore conceptualized? If nationalism is the main ideological engine and legitimacy tool for political elites in each nation-state, as currently recognized in most of the literature, which role does it play here? These are not irrelevant questions, because whenever European policies are opposed to national-level policies they encounter the usual obstacle of nationalism (or "resource nationalism", as in the Polish case). 

 

It may nevertheless be surprising that this set of relationships has only recently been explored. The first article Investigating these liaisons dates back to 2020 (“The ultimate challenge. Nationalism and climate change", nationality Papers, 2020). From here onwards, a new field of research has rapidly developed investigating whether nation-state-level nationalism is essentially or really an obstacle: in the name of defending "national interests" national-level policies lag far behind European Union policies.

 

It has also been argued that European Union policies are nearest to the type of "survival cosmopolitanism "which has been conceptualized as necessary for the development of the broader supranational policies needed to address climate change.

 

Concepts such as "green nationalism" and "reflexive green nationalism" (Posocco and Watson 2022, Posocco and McNeil 2023) have greatly contributed to explaining the various differences between specific nation-states within Europe, particularly the  East/West and North/South divides that the article also addresses: some references to the broader framework and more specific comparative case studies may be helpful. In this respect, it would be sufficient to consider those studies which follow parallel lines of research, such as "Which nationalism for the Anthropocene’”, Frontiers in Political Science, 2022.

 

Besides these practical and conceptual weaknesses, which can easily be corrected by incorporating and discussing some of the indicated suggestions, I find the article potentially stimulating and worth publishing. However, it needs a deeper level of reflection and the adoption of higher standards of conceptual clarity.

 

I think that the authors could/should more ambitiously restate some broader concerns which affect all disciplines considered: the idea that existing nation-states are built around recently constructed boundaries largely based on oppositional politics, and thus quite rarely they lend themselves to the levels of coordination needed to tackle a global threat like the climate emergency, which ignores all human-made boundaries. This kind of reflection would easily pose a more compelling case for expanding research in the direction envisioned by the authors.

 

Generally, I find the argument for adaptation less compelling than the case for urgent mitigation. The authors are right to stress the urgency and complexity of tackling climate change. This is a matter of human survival that requires drastic, immediate, and radical action and a shift in the way of thought which is unprecedented in human history. The geopolitical division into nation-states, therefore, poses a major obstacle for any required global action - reflected in the granularity of disparities in political responses. 

 

The authors convincingly address a central theme in contemporary climate mitigation policies: Particularly, when mentioning that "Eu­ropean states have high emission reduction potential, they send a strong signal to the rest of the world with their action or inaction on climate change. " The authors touch a critical point here, which has been synthesized in the existing literature with concepts such as "exemplary ethical communities " or, even better, "exemplary nation-states ", which are in turn opposed to "top polluting nation-states"(see the recent article by John McNeil, 2023, frontiers).

In my opinion, all these points to potential interlinkages need to be further explored in order to strengthen the article's important argument, so that it can reach a level of excellence by constructing a more compelling, cohesive, robust, and conceptually clear argument.

 

Discussion 

Here is where some new directions can be explored and the argument reinforced: Why isn't climate change policy "not improving at a national level across the  EU since the adoption of the Paris Agreement"? 

. Why is climate action performance in some specific countries poorer than in others? Aren't these the same countries where nationalist parties are in power or exert more influence?

 

It is also important to remember the landmark cases of Urgenda v. The 468 State of the Netherlands, 2019, and Friends of the Irish 469 Environment v. The Government of Ireland, 2020 as cases where grassroots pressures have led to ambitious climate legislation. Here is also where the notion of "survival cosmopolitanism "could also be useful.

 

427 "Unless deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occur in the next years, global warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C will be exceeded during the 21st  century." Rightly put.

 

Very good point when stating: "Lacking performance on climate action could lead humanity to breach tipping points that would close the mitigation window forever and lead to devastating consequences for people worldwide, especially in countries least responsible and most vulnerable". This is quite well put. The notion of "omnicide" has been aptly advanced in this context by historian Mark Levene (2014, 2022).

Interdisciplinarity is essential here, and I think the authors have done very well to share some watershed works (IPCC, 2021b; Lenton, 2011; Lenton et al., 2019). 

 

433 "The EU plays a pivotal role in trail-blazing the way towards climate neutrality due to its comparatively strong economy and its influence on other states ..." Again, the role of some trendsetting, pathbreaking initiatives, including at the nation-state level, could possibly be mentioned in a footnote (Posocco).

 

Conclusion 

The article finally concludes that the possible lack of appropriate implementation of mitigation measures "will have consequences for populations worldwide, especially the most vulnerable. Since Eu­ropean states have high emission reduction potential, they send a strong signal to the rest of the world with their action or inaction on climate change", suggesting the need to expand the study of the granularity of existing disparities and discrepancies between nation-states and macro­regions. 

 

The conclusion may also be strengthened in this respect by incorporating what has been noted above.

 

The article concludes with an appropriate call for further research on the barriers and enablers that differentially influence climate policies in several nation-states and macro-regions. 

 

A final suggestion: There are a few repetitions in the article, but these can be easily addressed by incorporating the right passages and developing the argument a bit further along the lines suggested.

English is generally fine, but it can be improved. Avoid repetitions.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, thorough, and constructive feedback. Please see attached the response to reviewers, with each comment referenced and responded to, with the corresponding change to the manuscript described in the far right column. Additional references have been added according to the reviewers' recommendations. All changes have been made to the manuscript in track changes referencing the reviewer's comment again. We believe the changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript - Many sincere thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-designed, well-executed, and well-written analysis of a subject of considerable interest. I have no hesitation in recommending the paper for publication.

That said, I do have a few thoughts the authors may wish to consider in preparing a final text for publication:

1. Although adaptation is mentioned in passing, the emphasis is on mitigation at the policy level. It may be worth emphasizing at the outset the differences between mitigation and adaptation as policy issues in the realm of climate change.

2. The weak links between climate impacts and public attitudes on the one hand and climate policies on the other are documented clearly. But the discussion of possible explanations is rather rudimentary. One thing that strikes me as worth mentioning is that while the weak links may be common across countries, the explanations may be more country specific. There is no need to expand the analysis greatly to address this concern. But it may be worthy of some additional commentary.

3. As the paper acknowledges in passing (line 565), there are strong assumptions of linearity in this analysis. One thing that may be worth noting is that public policies often evolve in nonlinear patterns. That is, they show little change most of the time but occasionally feature dramatic shifts. A striking current example is the applications of Finland and Sweden to join NATO in response to the Ukraine crisis.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, thorough, and constructive feedback. Please see attached the response to reviewers, with each comment referenced and responded to, with the corresponding change to the manuscript described in the far right column. Additional references have been added according to the reviewers' recommendations. All changes have been made to the manuscript in track changes referencing the reviewer's comment again. We believe the changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript - Many sincere thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf