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 ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]