Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking and Multilevel Governance Henrik Selin, Department of International Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University and the Centre for Relations, Boston University and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University University & & Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Hampshire and the Science, University of New Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University Linköping University The Institute for European Environmental Policy The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the and the Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Institute for European Studies at the Vrije
28
Embed
Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking and Multilevel Governance Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions,
Policymaking and Multilevel Governance
Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping
University University & &
Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research,
Linköping University Linköping University
The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit BrusselInstitute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel
May 25, 2009May 25, 2009
North American Federal SystemsNorth American Federal Systems
All three North American countries have a All three North American countries have a federal structure giving policy making and federal structure giving policy making and regulatory authority to sub-national entitiesregulatory authority to sub-national entities
Many federal divisions of authority on climate Many federal divisions of authority on climate change policy making remain unsettled in change policy making remain unsettled in Canada, the United States and MexicoCanada, the United States and Mexico
Climate change policy initiatives are discussed Climate change policy initiatives are discussed and developed in a multitude of states, and developed in a multitude of states, provinces, municipalities and firmsprovinces, municipalities and firms
Four Research QuestionsFour Research Questions 1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies, 1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies,
and practices in the area of climate change governance and practices in the area of climate change governance under development in North America? under development in North America?
2.2. What roles do major public, private, and civil society What roles do major public, private, and civil society actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and governance? governance?
3. Through which pathways are climate change policies 3. Through which pathways are climate change policies and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North America? America?
4. To what extent can North American climate change 4. To what extent can North American climate change action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel governance, and are local and federal institutions across governance, and are local and federal institutions across the continent facilitating or impeding this process of the continent facilitating or impeding this process of change?change?
Q #1. Emerging Institutions, Q #1. Emerging Institutions, Policies and PracticesPolicies and Practices
National governments and policy makers in Canada, the United States and Mexico are engaged in building limited domestic and transnational institutions for GHG mitigation and climate change research
Much of the most significant North American institutional innovation in the post-Kyoto decade has taken place below federal organizations
It is necessary to look to states, provinces and municipalities to find the most ambitious policy developments in North America
Sets of Policy ChoicesSets of Policy Choices Regulating emission sources, energy production Regulating emission sources, energy production
and goods and goods Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of
energy and goodsenergy and goods Creating new markets and market based Creating new markets and market based
instruments including cap and trade schemesinstruments including cap and trade schemes Using subsidies to support research and Using subsidies to support research and
development, renewable energy generation and development, renewable energy generation and the purchase of greener productsthe purchase of greener products
Q #2. Roles of Public, Private Q #2. Roles of Public, Private and Civil Society Actorsand Civil Society Actors
Networked collaboration between a growing number of private- and public-sector actors significantly influences policy developments
Much climate change action is driven by networked actors as new institutions help to form and maintain new and expanded networks
Social interaction serves to identify and shape interests and preferences of actors across public, private, and civil society sectors
Networks and OrganizationsNetworks and Organizations There are a host of important local, regional, There are a host of important local, regional,
national and continental networksnational and continental networks Networks use old and new organizations to Networks use old and new organizations to
facilitate interaction, including:facilitate interaction, including: NEG-ECPNEG-ECP ICLEIICLEI U.S. Conference of MayorsU.S. Conference of Mayors Federation of Canadian Municipalities Federation of Canadian Municipalities The Climate RegistryThe Climate Registry
Expansions of Regional EffortsExpansions of Regional Efforts
Six New England states and five Eastern Six New England states and five Eastern Canadian provincesCanadian provinces
RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to MaineMaine
Western Climate Initiative (also including Western Climate Initiative (also including Canadian provinces)Canadian provinces)
Q #3. Pathways of Policy ChangeQ #3. Pathways of Policy Change
Climate change networks influence policy developments at various levels of authority through four pathways of policy change:
(1) Strategic demonstration of action feasibility
(2) Market creation and expansion
(3) Policy diffusion and learning
(4) Norm creation and promulgation
Importance of Bottom-Up Importance of Bottom-Up PressurePressure
Networked actors exercise influence within and across different levels of political authority
Local level policy making is likely to have an impact on future federal policy
RGGI setting important precedents for GHG RGGI setting important precedents for GHG emissions tradingemissions trading
California developing a portfolio of policy California developing a portfolio of policy responses, including for energy and vehiclesresponses, including for energy and vehicles
Q #4. Status of Multilevel Q #4. Status of Multilevel GovernanceGovernance
Multilevel climate change governance is developing in North America
Policy making efforts at multiple governance levels are becoming more ambitious in terms of scope and mitigation goals
Four possible scenarios for developing multilevel governance based on high/low combination of federal and sub-national policy making
The fourth scenario – complex multilevel coordination – is most likely
Federal governments set mandatory policy floors of minimum regulations and standards, allowing actors and jurisdictions to exceed federal policies in some areas
Sub-national policy making continues apace among leaders who exceed federal requirements
Continental climate change governance is characterized by debates about appropriate levels of policymaking and implementation
II. Policy Options, BroadlyII. Policy Options, Broadly
II. Policy Goals, BroadlyII. Policy Goals, Broadly
Reduce EmissionsReduce Emissions Increase Energy EfficiencyIncrease Energy Efficiency Push TechnologyPush Technology
Energy SecurityEnergy Security Environmental & Human Health ProtectionEnvironmental & Human Health Protection Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.
Different Frames in Different States Different Frames in Different States and for Different Political Actorsand for Different Political Actors
Rationales for state actionRationales for state action GHG reductionsGHG reductions Environmental co-benefitsEnvironmental co-benefits Job creation/investment driverJob creation/investment driver Domestic/secure energyDomestic/secure energy Energy diversificationEnergy diversification
Combinations of strategic and moral logicsCombinations of strategic and moral logics
The Climate Registry ParticipantsThe Climate Registry Participants
What Difference Could What Difference Could one Small Region Make?one Small Region Make?
If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was classified as a country, it would be the 12classified as a country, it would be the 12thth largest largest emitter of GHG in the world. emitter of GHG in the world.
+ NY, NJ and DE = 8th+ NY, NJ and DE = 8ththth largest emitter worldwide largest emitter worldwide + CA breaks into the top 5, globally…+ CA breaks into the top 5, globally… MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US
emissions but still are comparable to the total emissions but still are comparable to the total emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt, emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt, Austria, or Greece). Austria, or Greece).
REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
Initiated with leadership of NY Initiated with leadership of NY Gov. Pataki to Northeast and Gov. Pataki to Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states Governors. Mid-Atlantic states Governors.
Signed by 7 Governors on Signed by 7 Governors on December 20, 2005December 20, 2005
7 states “in” plus addition of 7 states “in” plus addition of Maryland and 2 states (MA, Maryland and 2 states (MA, RI) “observing” RI) “observing”
States committed to links (CA)States committed to links (CA) Other states encouraged to Other states encouraged to
join and program is designed join and program is designed to be expandableto be expandable
Purpose: power sector GHG “Cap-and-Trade” system
• Environment and energy officials from each state• Not a voluntary program – by regulation in each state• Reduce CO2 with flexible, market-based program for
least cost reductions• Build on successful NOx and SOx programs• Create a model for a federal program• Maintain electricity affordability, reliability and fuel
diversity
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)(RGGI)
• Cover sources 25 Megawatts+• Two-Phase Cap—stabilization through 2015; 10%
reduction by 2019.• Start Date of 2009.• Built-in Review of Program in 2015.• Allocations:
25% for state to use for consumer benefit Allocation 75% of the allocations left to each state to decide
RGGI Package
RGGI – 2009 StatusRGGI – 2009 Status
Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09)Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09) Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010 Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010
contracts) – too low to influence much investmentcontracts) – too low to influence much investment NY Gov Paterson commitment in questionNY Gov Paterson commitment in question Early fears of over allocation multiplyingEarly fears of over allocation multiplying Current GHG emission est.: Current GHG emission est.:
9% below ’07; 17% below cap9% below ’07; 17% below cap Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be
nationally tradablenationally tradable
US Federal – Status May 2009US Federal – Status May 2009
New Auto CAFE standardsNew Auto CAFE standards National RPS still in discussion/debateNational RPS still in discussion/debate Waxman/Markey (US House) out of CtteWaxman/Markey (US House) out of Ctte
Economy wide & power sectorEconomy wide & power sector Power sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auctionPower sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auction -3 % (of 2005) by 2012-3 % (of 2005) by 2012 -17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels)-17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels) -42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990)-42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990) -83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990)-83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990) A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)
Little auctioning means little revenueLittle auctioning means little revenue For domestic budgets (healthcare) or For domestic budgets (healthcare) or international Copenhagen commitmentsinternational Copenhagen commitments
US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious)US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious) Copenhagen negotiating constraints & Copenhagen negotiating constraints &