I explained recently (here & here) why it is a mistake to conclude that cultural cognition implies that trying to resolve the climate change conflict is "futile" (not to mention a fallacious reason for rejecting the evidence that the cultural cognition explains the conflict).
Today I came across a great paper that extends the theme "good social science explanations of climate change conflict are not depressing":
Abstract: Over the past 30 years, the influence of economics over environmental law and policy has expanded considerably. Whereas politicians and commentators once seriously questioned whether tradable emissions permits confer a morally illicit “right to pollute,” today even environmental advocacy organizations speak freely and predominantly in terms of market instruments and economic efficiency when they address climate change and other pressing environmental concerns. This review seeks to counterbalance the expansion of economic reasoning and methodology within environmental law and policy by highlighting insights to be gleaned from various “non-dismal” social sciences. In particular, three areas of inquiry are highlighted as illustrative of interdisciplinary work that might help to complement law and economics and, in some cases, compensate for it: the study of how human individuals perceive, judge, and decide; the observation and interpretation of how knowledge schemes are created, used, and regulated; and the analysis of how states and other actors coordinate through international and global regulatory regimes. The hope is to provide some examples of how environmental law and policy can be improved by deeper and more diverse engagement with social science and to highlight avenues for future research.
Boyd, William, Univ. Colorado Law SchoolKysar, Douglas A., Yale Law SchoolRachlinski, Jeffrey J., Cornell Law School