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 ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 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]