American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy

Energy Policy ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 4555-4573 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Byrne ◽  
Kristen Hughes ◽  
Wilson Rickerson ◽  
Lado Kurdgelashvili
Author(s):  
Priya Sreedharan ◽  
Alan H. Sanstad ◽  
Joe Bryson

Energy “sustainability” and energy supply have again emerged as central public policy issues and are at the intersection of the economic, environmental, and security challenges facing the nation and the world. The goal of significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with energy production and consumption, while maintaining affordable and reliable energy supplies, is one of the most important issues. Among the strategies for achieving this goal, increasing the efficiency of energy consumption in buildings is being emphasized to a degree not seen since the 1970s. “End-use” efficiency is the core of the State of California’s landmark effort to reduce its GHG emissions, of other state and local climate-change initiatives, and is emphasized in emerging federal GHG abatement legislation. Both economic and engineering methods are used to analyze energy efficiency, but the two paradigms provide different perspectives on the market and technological factors that affect the diffusion of energy efficiency. These disparate perspectives influence what is considered the appropriate role and design of public policy for leveraging not just efficient end-use technology, but other sustainable energy technologies. We review the two approaches and their current roles in the GHG policy process by describing, for illustrative purposes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of energy efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft. We highlight opportunities and needs for improved coordination between the engineering, economic and policy communities. Our view is that a better understanding of disciplinary differences and complementarities in perspectives and analytical methods between these communities will benefit the climate change policy process.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Lee ◽  
Dominik Stecula

While the U.S. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass national legislation to address climate change over the years, there has been much more progress among state and local governments. But is this progress on climate change policy at the subnational level merely a reflection of the dominance of the Democratic party in certain regions of the country, or does it reflect successful bipartisan action? In this essay, we present novel evidence from two surveys of subnational policymakers, conducted in 2015 and 2017, to demonstrate that there is widespread bipartisan agreement among Republican and Democrat policymakers at the subnational level about (1) the existence of global warming and (2) what to do about it. Specifically, a majority in both parties believe global warming is happening and support the use of renewable energy mandates—rather than cap-and-trade, carbon tax, or emissions standards—to address the problem.


Author(s):  
Michael Jones ◽  
Elizabeth A. Shanahan ◽  
Lisa J. Hammer

In this chapter the authors examine state and local environmental policy. They provide a brief historical but policy-centered background, which pays special attention to the role of federalism in environmental policy. Next they summarize the state of academic and scientific research on state and local environmental policy. The next two sections give the reader an aggregate sense of what substantive environmental policy areas are being studied by reporting the aggregated peer-reviewed publications reported in three databases between 1980 and 2011. In addition, the authors focus on two areas highlighted in the literature: public participation in environmental policy making and climate change policy. Finally, the authors provide a summary of the state of existing literature and offer directions for future research.


2010 ◽  
pp. 115-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Agibalov ◽  
A. Kokorin

Copenhagen summit results could be called a failure. This is the failure of UN climate change policy management, but definitely the first step to a new order as well. The article reviews main characteristics of climate policy paradigm shifts. Russian interests in climate change policy and main threats are analyzed. Successful development and implementation of energy savings and energy efficiency policy are necessary and would sufficiently help solving the global climate change problem.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Godínez-Zamora ◽  
Luis Victor-Gallardo ◽  
Jam Angulo-Paniagua ◽  
Eunice Ramos ◽  
Mark Howells ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Gittell ◽  
Josh Stillwagon

<p>This paper explores the influence of US state-level policies meant to address climate change on clean technology industry development. The largest influence of climate change policies is identified as being on energy research employment. Only some policies seem to contribute positively to clean tech employment while other policies appear to discourage employment growth. The magnitudes of the short term effects, even when statistically significant, are modest. Negative impacts on employment are identified for several mandate-oriented, so called command and control, policies including vehicle greenhouse gas standards, energy efficiency resource standards, and renewable portfolio standards with the former two having increasing negative effects over time. The findings suggest that climate change policy advocates should be careful to not assume that there will be positive clean tech employment benefits from state-level energy and environmental policies. Instead, the benefits from these policies may derive primarily from other considerations beyond the scope of this paper, including health and environmental benefits and reduction of dependence on foreign energy sources.</p>


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky

After four years of not simply inaction but significant retrogression in U.S. climate change policy, the Biden administration has its work cut out. As a start, it needs to undo what Trump did. The Biden administration took a step in that direction on Day 1 by rejoining the Paris Agreement. But simply restoring the pre-Trump status quo ante is not enough. The United States also needs to push for more ambitious global action. In part, this will require strengthening parties’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement; but it will also require actions by what Sue Biniaz, the former State Department climate change lawyer, likes to call the Greater Metropolitan Paris Agreement—that is, the array of other international actors that help advance the Paris Agreement's goals, including global institutions such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Montreal Protocol, and the World Bank, as well as regional organizations and non-state actors. Although the Biden administration can pursue some of these international initiatives directly through executive action, new regulatory initiatives will face an uncertain fate in the Supreme Court. So how much the Biden Administration is able to achieve will likely depend significantly on how much a nearly evenly-divided Congress is willing to support.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Kammerer ◽  
Paul M. Wagner ◽  
Antti Gronow ◽  
Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila ◽  
Dana R. Fisher ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document