Search

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]