Search

U.S. global environmental policy during the Bush administration was widely considered to have fallen short of both global and national needs. Among other actions, critics faulted the administration's disparagement of scientific consensus on climate change and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, its ideological opposition to multilateral population assistance, its failure to exercise leadership on global sustainability initiatives, and a diversity of foreign policy decisions that have cost the United States much needed political support in critical regions of the world. This paper reviews some of the most important of these policy actions and looks ahead to the challenges Barack Obama will face as the 44th U.S. president. In particular, the paper examines the unique opportunities in 2009 and over the next several years for policy reassessment in energy use and climate change, population and development assistance, and sustainable development initiatives. It also considers the key policy actors who will likely play significant roles in the design, adoption, and implementation of a new generation of policies that can better address existing and emerging global environmental and resource problems. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at how sub-national policies in the United States are interacting with policymaking at the national level to address the issue of global climate change by focusing on a coordinated effort to get the national government to fund U.S. cities' efforts to address this issue. It reviews how research has looked at climate change policymaking in the United States, paying particular attention to the ways scholars have looked at climate change policymaking at different scales of governance. On the one hand, there is a large and growing literature that analyzes U.S. climate change politics at the national level, challenges to policymaking at this level, and how national politics contribute to the American position in international negotiations. On the other hand, a smaller literature analyzes climate change policies coming from the local, or sub-national, level. In contrast, I consider how policies at different levels of government interact by presenting research on national legislation to support local efforts to address climate change. Although local climate politics in the U.S. have the potential to scale-up to a meaningful national policy, I argue that a federal U.S. climate policy that has successfully passed through both houses of the U.S. Congress is not imminent. Moreover, without implementing legislation passed by the Congress, the U.S. is unable to be a party on any binding climate change treaty. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the theory of two-level games, negotiators will tailor the agreement at level I so as to be ratifiable at level II in all major countries. This did not happen in the Kyoto negotiations as far as the United States is concerned. We interviewed 27 German, Norwegian, and U.S. participants in and observers to the climate change negotiations regarding their views on three explanations of why the United States did not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol. Explanation 1 argues that delegations in Kyoto mistakenly thought the U.S. Senate was bluffing when adopting the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Explanation 2 contends that the Europeans preferred a more ambitious agreement without the United States to a less ambitious agreement with the United States included. Finally, explanation 3 suggests that in Kyoto the Clinton-Gore administration had already given up on achieving ratification by the Senate, and essentially pushed for an agreement that would provide them with a climate-friendly face. All three explanations received at least some support from people we interviewed. However, explanations 1 and 3 received more support than explanation 2. Moreover, while explanation 1 received most support in Germany and Norway, explanation 3 received most support in the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International and transboundary governance is increasingly characterized by the disentanglement from traditional political institutions and the emergence of new, horizontal and dialogue-oriented governance modes. Within the Great Lakes-regime between the USA and Canada, deliberative governance across national boundaries has been evolved, which produces democratic legitimacy and effectiveness through the inclusion of civil-societal and economic actors, argumentative procedures and common good oriented problem solving. This raises a challenging research question: Is the deliberative mode of governance within the Great Lakes-regime a model case, which allows drawing conclusion on institutional prerequisites and means how to “democratize” governance in similar issue areas? Guided by this research question the paper develops a three-dimensional model (input, throughput, output) of deliberative democracy, which serves as normative-analytical framework in order to identify and to appraise, generally speaking, the potential of deliberative politics in international governance and, in particular, the deliberative potential within the Great Lakes-regime. Equal access to political influence for non-state actors in the political communication and decision making is conceptualized as input-legitimacy. The throughput-proceduralism relies on the communication and action modes between state and non-state actors aiming at collective preference formation. The output-effectiveness relates to the search and formulation of factual and common good oriented problem solving options, which can be recognized by the public as such ones. My long-term empirical study on the Great Lakes reveals that a deliberative network and multilevel governance system of a bilateral decision making body, expert advisory bodies and public participation has been established. Six different public participation procedures on different political-institutional levels have been identified and analyzed by means of an interpretive analytical approach including policy analysis, discourse analysis and speech act analysis: public hearings, workshops, meetings, round tables, focus groups, and public advisory bodies on the regional and local levels. The results of the expert and public participation within a two-years-working cycle are aggregated in biannual reports, which provide the basis of the Canadian and US environmental policy making on the Great Lakes.Against the background of the theoretical-conceptual research on deliberative democracy and the empirical analysis of the Great Lakes-regime, generalizing conclusions can be drawn on the institutional and procedural design of deliberative governance in transboundary and international spaces in form of a loose coupling of decision making bodies, scientific advisory bodies, public participation, and epistemic community. For this purpose the merits and weaknesses of the Great Lakes-regime were carefully considered and the normative thoughts reflected. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last several years many of the most far-reaching environmental policies in the United States and around the world have been implemented by local and regional governments. Simultaneously, however, many argue that the last few decades have seen neoliberal economic ideology, which rejects a strong role for government in regulating business and private activities to promote social goals such as environmental protection, become entrenched at all levels of the state. At first glance it therefore seems quite unlikely that cities caught in the grips of neoliberal ideology and at the mercy of the whims of mobile investment capital would engage in government-led processes of environmental reform and ecological modernization. This paper explores this apparent tension. It is argued that rather than being contradictory, neoliberal globalization has served to encourage the rise of city sustainability programs as a form of urban entrepreneurialism. Many of these programs do offer important environmental benefits and have the potential to genuinely reduce the ecological footprint of cities. However, because they operate within the framework of neoliberalism, they are not likely to provide the panacea of green economic growth that they promise, nor adequately address issues of social and environmental justice. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many cases, institutional interplay is a two-way street. Although more powerful institutions tend to have a bigger influence on less powerful ones, influence is mostly still at least somewhat reciprocal. This applies to institutions at different levels of social organization as well. Local institutions being smaller on a spatial scale can be assumed to be less powerful compared to global ones. But how powerful are they really? This paper seeks to trace the influence of the local level on the global level by examining whether and how much US state-level climate policy influences the global climate regime. It will examine responses initiated at the state level, including vehicle emissions standards, emissions trading (Chicago Climate Exchange, RGGI), renewable portfolio standards, etc. and examine what influence these policies are having on the development of global institutions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on research of policy instruments in the U.S. and Russia. It argues that the development of policy instruments is conditioned through the subsisting institutional practices, the source of policy provisions, and the place and nature of environmental policy authority. The historical institutional and comparative analyses, and the theories of governmental regulation and instrumental approaches in public policy of both countries are also discussed.

Provides initial thoughts on the relevance of hegemony in the study of international environmental politics and U.S. environmental diplomacy. Perception of America's foreign environmental policy; Disengagement of the U.S. from multilateral environmental policymaking; Correlation between America's hegemonic position and the type of environmental diplomacy it is likely to pursue; Domestic sources of U.S. foreign environmental policy.

Once the most important whaling nation (70 percent of world whaling), the United States has become, in under a century, the champion of the struggle to save the whales. This paper reflects on the American role in the transformation of the International Whaling Commission into an anti-whaling regime. It seeks to analyse the American construction of a ‘green hegemony’ in this issue-area, paying particular attention to the external vs. internal dimensions of this process. Three aspects come under scrutiny: -Externally, the American position is at odds with its stance on most other multilateral environmental treaties. How did the whales become the chosen issue of the US’s international environmental policies? -The role of non-state actors. American environmental NGOs have proved particularly important in altering the negotiating position of the state at the table of the IWC. The paper explores how the state-NGO relationship impacts on the elaboration of an international environmental policy -Internally, the US position sits uneasily with the whaling cultures of its ‘first nations’, which continue to whale under the ‘aboriginal subsistence’ exception. How does this affect the continuance of the US’s position as hegemon? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing interest in comparative studies of EU and US federalism and its implications for environmental policy. US and EU approaches to atmospheric pollution issues, such as acid rain and climate change have been the subject of various studies and have pointed to the different approaches of the US and the EU towards common air pollution problems. This paper will examine policy making styles towards air pollution problems in federalist systems. Of particular interest is how an expanding EU may influence the policy approaches of the EU towards air pollution problems and will consider whether an enlarged EU will lead to greater convergence between EU and US approaches to air pollution issues or will instead, reinforce the divergent approaches of these federal systems towards problems such as acid rain and climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the area of global environment, US cooperation has been far from consistent. Although the US played a leading role in seeking multilateral solutions to environmental problems in the late 1960s and through the 1980s, its position today towards environme ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In July 1997 the U.S. Senate opposed the Kyoto approach by unanimously adopting the Byrd-Hagel resolution, according to which the Senate would not ratify any climate agreement that did not include developing-country participation, or that would result in ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American states have taken the lead in US climate policy over the past decade, implementing the goals of the Kyoto Protocol in the absence of ratification by the federal government. These developments serve as practical models for post-Kyoto climate policy and have theoretical implications for the treatment of atypical non-state actors in the study of global climate governance. The entrance of sub-national actors into foreign policy, or paradiplomacy, is examined in this study to highlight the international implications of climate policy adoption among the American states. A typology of American state actions is presented, and future options for bottom-up climate policy in the United States are considered. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US history is replete with examples of US states leading Congress toward a variety of national policy actions addressing environmental issues. By providing political support, by testing policy designs, and by implementing policies mandated by federal law US states have consistently served as the laboratories for new experiments. In recent years, many federal environmental laws have been modeled after state and regional programs and plans. The state-level climate change policies now rapidly proliferating around the country will undoubtedly impact any new federal legislation on the issue. This article analyzes the political circumstances leading to state leadership on climate change and the impact such leadership is having on national and international negotiations and decisions. The article begins with a summary of the climate change issue with special attention paid to the politics of climate change negotiations at the international, regional, national and local levels. It then process-traces the development of current state action on climate change in 7 states with an aim of highlighting important explanatory variables for new policy development. The findings reveal that state action is likely to lead the US to full compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, whether or not the US decides to sign the treaty again and work to ratify it through the Senate. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dynamics and the impact of China's economic development are global in many perspectives, also in terms of its environmental consequences. The most dramatic expression of this, is arguably that China will soon surpass the US as the largest polluter in several categories including CO2 emissions.China is responding to this by developing a more elaborate environmental policy (cf. Mol and others) which is often studied form the perspective of its convergence with global environmental governance arrangements. In that sense China's domestic environmental policy is globalizing. In this paper we claim that one can also look at the domestic environmental policies as having a 'global' dimension. First, because of the size of the Chinese population and economy, any measure that results in cutting pollution will have a large impact on global pollution; second, because improvements in China will result in less 'down-stream impacts' (cf. SOuth East Asian countries and Mekong delta states); and third, because China is setting norms and setting down certain practices (for example in energy policies and in the fight against desertification) which are influential in global debates, regime formation and to other countries and actors.In the paper I will emphasize this 'domestic as global' approach as it fits in the conceptual debate on multilevel norm setting in global governance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many authors have shown that scientific uncertainty may be used as a red herring in environmental negotiations; an excuse for postponing necessary but costly actions. Solutions to this problem generally involve improvements in institutional design, such as the various mechanisms described as “the precautionary approach”. In theory, rules that require early responses to environmental problems in spite of uncertainty, should lead to proactive governance. In practice, effective application of precautionary approaches has been the exception, rather than the rule. Here, I argue that this variegated success is observed because uncertainty is a red herring in analysis as well as negotiation. By focusing on uncertainty as the problem we implicitly assume that precaution would be exercised if the science were certain. However, evidence from organizational science, political psychology, and domestic environmental politics suggests that most people are environmental satisficers, not maximizers. Our willingness to pay depends on a threshold of acceptable costs in the present, rather than some discounted vision of the future. The distinction is difficult to prove empirically, but the implications are profound. Precaution becomes a question of institutional feasibility as well as institutional design. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes climate change politics and policy making in the United States. It argues that developments in U.S. climate change policy is largely driven from below where most innovative and ambitious policy making efforts on climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation are developing apace at regional and local levels. A steadily growing number of states, municipalities and private corporations across the country are initiating climate change action beyond requirements mandated by the federal government. The paper examines major policy developments and activities on climate change in the public sector, civil society, and the private sector in the United States to date. The paper concludes with a discussion of possible ramifications and limitations of climate change policy making at local and regional levels in the United States, and how local and regional policy developments may influence U.S. foreign environmental policy and international climate cooperation more broadly. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US was a leader early on in international environmental politics. The US still has an impressive record in some areas, but the picture is varied and overall the trend is negative, particularly under the present administration. However, it is difficult * and sometimes meaningless * to label the US as one actor. This is clearly demonstrated in US climate policy. US scientists played a key role in discovering and conveying the problem * assisted by green activist groups. But Bush Sr. was perceived my most observers as a laggard. The Clinton administration was quite progressive and was at least partly a leader in Kyoto. However, Congress blocked his ambitions both domestically and internationally. Bush Jr. has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and is perceived as laggard. However, there is a growing concern that the KP may not be the way forward as it in terms of commitments is a $B!G(Bmini-regime$B!G(B. The US led Asia Pacific Partnership, focussing on technology, has attracted participation from the two leading developing countries, China and India. All the way the US has argued for a $B!G(Bbottom-up$B!G(B approach, and this now happens as a number of cities and states, most notably California, are taking action. In sum, few would argue that the US is a leader, but due to the uncertainty of the faith of the KP as well as of the new Partnership and US domestic action, one should not draw too hasty conclusions about the future role of the US. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question this paper addresses is whether and, if so, to what extent can existing IR theories of high politics decision making be applied to low politics issue areas, specifically international environmental policy. The paper considers three individual level theories: Prospect Theory, Political and Policy Risk Theory and Poliheuristic Theory. Each is applied to two case studies, The Montreal Protocol and The Kyoto Protocol, to test its ability to explain the decision-making processes of United States presidents. The climate change case study is most illustrative, either for or against the applicability of a theory, as the risks presidents faced were greater. The paper concludes that none of the applications lend full support to any of the theories. At the same time, none of them completely invalidate the theories either. Of the three, Political and Policy Risk Theory shows the most promise, while the analysis of Prospect Theory reveals some weaknesses in its applicability and the results of the application of Poliheuristic Theory fall somewhere in between. The findings suggest that foreign policy analysis theories may be best able to explain international environmental policy choices if they can capture the complexity of the issue, better define risk and allow for more human agency in terms of personal preferences and belief systems. In general, the applications to environmental policy suggest that the three theories could be adjusted or amended to become better generalizable to different policy areas. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the death of the industry-funded Global Climate Coalition in 2000, the fracture in the U.S. business community with respect to domestic and international U.S. climate policy has widened. Holdouts such as the coal industry (which has deep ties to the Bush administration) continue to resist any binding commitments to emissions reduction. But Business Week?s August 16, 2004 climate change feature proclaimed, ?Many companies are now preparing for a carbon-constrained world? and quoted CEOs, including some from energy firms, calling for regulation and U.S. participation in a global emissions agreement?partly on the grounds that multinationals doing business in the EU and other Kyoto-committed countries are already facing carbon constraints. This paper will explore the potential for this realignment of business to effect a U.S. reengagement with global climate mitigation efforts in the post-Bush era?and on what terms. Paterson (Global Warming and Global Politics, 1996) argues that the power of the fossil fuel and fuel-dependent industry lobby to influence U.S. policy stemmed largely from the U.S.?s history as a major energy producer and the subsequent oil-dependent development of the U.S. economy. These industries have enjoyed a conduit to policymakers via campaign contributions and the ?revolving door? between industry and government (especially evident in the Bush era). Policymakers? perceptions of the costs of emissions mitigation have been influenced directly by industries interested in maintaining a profitable status quo, and also by the extent of the U.S.?s built dependence on energy abundance. Oil dependence, however, is but one (albeit until recently, the most important for the U.S.) of three variables identified by Paterson as major influences on states? climate policies. I argue that changes in, and changed perceptions about, the two others?states? position in the international political economy, and the costs of unabated global warming?help to account for the widening fracture in the U.S. business community and increasingly complicate the climate-policy picture at the end of the Bush era. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the proliferation of environmental policy conditions within bilateral and small regional trade agreements and assesses the extent to which those conditions affect regulatory standards and their implementation among trading partners, with emphasis on trade agreements the U.S., Canada, and the EU have struck with developing countries. It explains how and why environmental conditionality has become a standard component of these trade agreements. It also examines how unilateral environmental regulation in the large markets of these rich countries is altering environmental policies within export-dependent developing countries. While Parties to the World Trade Organization have been at a prolonged impasse over whether and how to incorporate environmental considerations into global trade agreements, in many cases by explicit intent of both rich and poorer countries, a recent spike in bilateral and regional trade agreements, both formal and tacit, has de facto supplanted WTO talks in this area. Finally, the paper assesses normative consequences. Some observers note approvingly that bilateral and regional trade has become a significant force to improve the capacity for and transparency of environmental law enforcement in countries where implementation has been historically weak. Another important consequence, however, is that the comparatively stronger bargaining position of rich countries in bilateral as opposed to multilateral trade negotiations has imprinted environmental policies on large areas of the developing world that serve the interests and political agendas of rich countries without necessarily addressing environmental priorities of their poorer counterparts. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pam Doughman, Ph.D. University of Illinois, Springfield, IL, pdoug2@uis.eduAllison M. Chatrchyan, Ph.D. Cornell University, Millbrook, NY, amc256@cornell.eduPaper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, Illinois. February 28 - 3 March 2007. http://www.isanet.org/chicago2007/, Panel: SC05.Abstract This paper argues that in the absence of mandatory federal action on climate change from the late 1990s, US states including CA, NY, Maine and others, and various regional climate change initiatives, took on a leading role in developing their own climate change policies, putting increasing pressure on the US government to address climate change at the federal level. The paper argues that federalism has played an essential role spurring state and regional leadership in the face of US inaction. Several cases of state climate policies, regional initiatives, and the interstate commerce in carbon are used to explore the conditions for sub-national actors to act as laggards or leaders in international environmental policy. The rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by President G.W. Bush was inconsistent with policy preferences at the state and local level in a number of states. In the absence of US federal support for reducing total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, voluntary and local measures arose to fill the unmet policy preferences. Regarding mandatory reductions, California and Northeastern states have taken the lead by setting caps on emissions and authorizing development of market-based mechanisms for meeting the caps. This paper argues that state leadership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has helped spur change in policy at the federal level, including five major bills currently being proposed in Congress that would address climate change. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human societies are increasingly challenged to find ways to benefit from natural resources without destroying the environment on which they depend. In a globalized world where progressive demands often clash with profit motivations, states seek creative governance mechanisms to achieve these oft-conflicting goals. Governance, understood as the emergence and recognition of principles, rules, and procedures, provides standards of acceptable public behavior that are followed to generate behavioral regularities. The solutions span the range from strict regulatory control to laissez-faire market mechanisms to voluntary mechanisms. This paper argues that governmental processes focusing on policy steering beyond the traditional regulatory approaches are often better able to address the changing nature of societal demands for environmental protection and economic competitiveness. The article analyzes the factors explaining the variation in policy practices including external forces such the competitive economic forces, regime influences, and the spread of norms through the system, and internal pressures such as socio-cultural conditions, institutional framework, government initiative, societal demands, and economic conditions. Using the cases of Lithuania, Estonia, Russia and the United States, the article reveals that regime influences, domestic institutions, socio-cultural conditions and government initiatives take us a long away in explaining the variations of choices we see across states. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines progress made by EU and other European nations in achieving the targets they agreed to when they ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the additional goals some countries have set unilaterally, assesses the policies they have put in place to pursue these goals and how these policies compare; and explores the political factors that contribute to the political support for these efforts. The paper uses theories and frameworks from comparative public policy and politics to assess these policy and political developments, and seeks to identify lessons from Europe concerning how to generate political support for precautionary climate policies and the kinds of policies that are most effective in efficiently reducing greenhouse gas emissions that might help move climate policy forward in the United States. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conflict over the Kyoto protocol, European GMO regulation, and environmental standard-setting for export credit agencies provide for very different negotiation dynamics in transatlantic environmental politics. In climate politics, a coalition between European nations and an extensive number of other countries, among them most importantly Russia, Canada, Japan and the major developing countries, appears to have won an intermediate victory over U.S. opposition to Kyoto protocol provisions. In GMO politics, the U.S. ended negotiations by taking the case to the WTO when it became clear that European regulation was to become a de-facto global standard. With regard to ECA politics, the United States managed to bring about an international agreement by building alliances with individual European states which is modeled after its domestic regulation and required substantial concessions by all other parties. It appears that transatlantic environmental agreements are most likely to come about when the United States can shape the provision of the agreement after its domestic regulations. When Europeans define their interest(s) as contrary to the U.S. proposal and therefore resist internationalization of domestic U.S. regulation, contention arises and agreement is less likely. However, we can witness in the case of GMO politics that a unison and determined Europe can drive home (at least intermediate) victories, too. This paper examines what role Europe can play in transatlantic environmental politics if it manages to speak with one voice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trans-Atlantic relations are important in many areas of international environmental politics. Studies show that the status of these relations can both facilitate and hinder effective policy making and implementation. This paper examines trans-Atlantic relations on international chemicals management. The paper shows how EU and U.S. led policy developments on chemicals over the past decade have led to the creation of several multilateral treaties and organizations, as well as the expansion of existing programs. While they share a basic concern over hazardous chemicals, however, the European Union and the United States often disagree over specific regulatory issues and approaches. There are moreover signs that ongoing European efforts to expand Community chemicals assessment and regulation are resulting in growing EU-U.S. controversy over the future direction of chemicals management. Specifically, the EU and the U.S. disagree on regulatory, financial and market based issues relating to chemicals and their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with an example of transatlantic harmonization of policies in a practical perspective. Studying environmental standard-setting for export credit agencies provides an interesting perspective on how conflicting environmental policy positions emerge and are mediated across the Atlantic. In this issue area, the European Union plays a somewhat limited role; therefore, this paper will focus on the most relevant national players in Europe, especially Germany. Differing regulatory cultures that have produced differing means to provide export credits, nevertheless, provide a direct link to the panel?s theme of different institutional structures and policy cultures. It is exactly these differing regulatory cultures that have turned export credit agency policy harmonization into a contentious issue. In setting environmental standards for export credit agencies, Germany and the United States assume counter-intuitive roles. The United States unilaterally implemented high standards in the mid-1990s and sought harmonization of these standards within the OECD to its own level. In 2001, OECD negotiations resulted in non-binding ?Common Approaches? to environmental screening that fell short of U.S. demands ? due largely to Germany?s opposition to these standards. The consequences were high environmental standards for U.S. exporters seeking export credits, and lower standards for their foreign competitors; thus putting U.S. exporters at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors in accessing developing- and transition-country markets. I argue that roles were distributed this way because of diverging domestic institutions and domestic power distributions. Rules proposed by the United States provided for a poor institutional fit in countries which also had lesser incentives than the United States to arrive at a substantial international agreement on the issue. This case underscores that domestic politics and national interest drive international environmental politics. Norms and values matter and certainly help particular negotiating parties that can invoke them on their behalf, but they first need to overcome hard material interests that may leave little room for ?good? policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been a proliferation of studies dealing with the relations of business and the international environment. There has, however, been very little on unions and the environment, if we exempt occupational heath and safety where unions play a primary role. The relations between unions and international environmental politics are more complex and diverse, however, and worth closer investigation. In this contribution I plan to explore the environmental politics of USA unions through an examination of their views towards climate change. In the first part I will offer a historical account of the engagement of USA unions with international environmental policy making, in general, and climate change, in particular. In the second chapter I will outline the range of environmental discourses among unions as these apply to the issue at hand. In the third part I will discuss the most prominent strategies adopted by unions and offer the most plausible explanations for them. In light of the above I will close by discussing whether USA unions have really adopted an environmental agenda, or whether they are simply using the language of the environment, and the long term implications of whichever scenario turns out to be the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While climate protection has not been on the policy agenda of the Bush administration, California took a step forward towards the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Although it will take several years until such regulations will be in place, California’s initiative is characteristic for US environmental policy. California has always set examples for the rest of the country. Other states follow and the California effect changes the situation in the nation. This example shows the importance of subnational initiatives for climate protection in multilevel systems. The paper will compare such initiatives in Europe and in the US. It will include not only the state but also the local level. This seems to be more important in Europe where almost 1.000 cities joined the Climate Alliance, a transnational city network, and committed themselves to reduce CO2 emission by 50 percent until 2010. This paper aims at a systematic comparison of the role of cities and regions in the US and the EU multilevel system. This includes their impact on policy making in Washington and in Brussels as well as horizontal effects, such as learning patterns among American states or European cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US and the EU have clashed at the global level on a number of environment-related issues such as climate change and agriculture (GMOs) with implications for international environmental agreements, global trade, the trans-Atlantic relationship, and developing countries. The differences stem in part from the different degrees of influence wielded by environmental advocates in the EU and the US. This makes it important to consider what the implications of the expansion of the EU to include ten additional members in 2004 will be on EU environmental and agricultural policies. The positions of accession states on environment related matters differs at times substantially with that of the EU-15. This paper will consider how EU environmental and agricultural policy is likely to be affected by expansion and its implications for the Trans-Atlantic divide using an institutionalist analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]