Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions,

Policymaking and Multilevel Governance

Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping

University University & &

Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research,

Linköping University Linköping University

The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the  The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the  Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit BrusselInstitute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel

May 25, 2009May 25, 2009

North American Federal SystemsNorth American Federal Systems

All three North American countries have a All three North American countries have a federal structure giving policy making and federal structure giving policy making and regulatory authority to sub-national entitiesregulatory authority to sub-national entities

Many federal divisions of authority on climate Many federal divisions of authority on climate change policy making remain unsettled in change policy making remain unsettled in Canada, the United States and MexicoCanada, the United States and Mexico

Climate change policy initiatives are discussed Climate change policy initiatives are discussed and developed in a multitude of states, and developed in a multitude of states, provinces, municipalities and firmsprovinces, municipalities and firms

Four Research QuestionsFour Research Questions 1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies, 1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies,

and practices in the area of climate change governance and practices in the area of climate change governance under development in North America? under development in North America?

2.2. What roles do major public, private, and civil society What roles do major public, private, and civil society actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and governance? governance?

3. Through which pathways are climate change policies 3. Through which pathways are climate change policies and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North America? America?

4. To what extent can North American climate change 4. To what extent can North American climate change action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel governance, and are local and federal institutions across governance, and are local and federal institutions across the continent facilitating or impeding this process of the continent facilitating or impeding this process of change?change?

Q #1. Emerging Institutions, Q #1. Emerging Institutions, Policies and PracticesPolicies and Practices

National governments and policy makers in Canada, the United States and Mexico are engaged in building limited domestic and transnational institutions for GHG mitigation and climate change research

Much of the most significant North American institutional innovation in the post-Kyoto decade has taken place below federal organizations

It is necessary to look to states, provinces and municipalities to find the most ambitious policy developments in North America

Sets of Policy ChoicesSets of Policy Choices Regulating emission sources, energy production Regulating emission sources, energy production

and goods and goods Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of

energy and goodsenergy and goods Creating new markets and market based Creating new markets and market based

instruments including cap and trade schemesinstruments including cap and trade schemes Using subsidies to support research and Using subsidies to support research and

development, renewable energy generation and development, renewable energy generation and the purchase of greener productsthe purchase of greener products

Q #2. Roles of Public, Private Q #2. Roles of Public, Private and Civil Society Actorsand Civil Society Actors

Networked collaboration between a growing number of private- and public-sector actors significantly influences policy developments

Much climate change action is driven by networked actors as new institutions help to form and maintain new and expanded networks

Social interaction serves to identify and shape interests and preferences of actors across public, private, and civil society sectors

Networks and OrganizationsNetworks and Organizations There are a host of important local, regional, There are a host of important local, regional,

national and continental networksnational and continental networks Networks use old and new organizations to Networks use old and new organizations to

facilitate interaction, including:facilitate interaction, including: NEG-ECPNEG-ECP ICLEIICLEI U.S. Conference of MayorsU.S. Conference of Mayors Federation of Canadian Municipalities Federation of Canadian Municipalities The Climate RegistryThe Climate Registry

Expansions of Regional EffortsExpansions of Regional Efforts

Six New England states and five Eastern Six New England states and five Eastern Canadian provincesCanadian provinces

RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to MaineMaine

Western Climate Initiative (also including Western Climate Initiative (also including Canadian provinces)Canadian provinces)

Mid-West GHG Reduction AccordMid-West GHG Reduction Accord

Q #3. Pathways of Policy ChangeQ #3. Pathways of Policy Change

Climate change networks influence policy developments at various levels of authority through four pathways of policy change:

(1) Strategic demonstration of action feasibility

(2) Market creation and expansion

(3) Policy diffusion and learning

(4) Norm creation and promulgation

Importance of Bottom-Up Importance of Bottom-Up PressurePressure

Networked actors exercise influence within and across different levels of political authority

Local level policy making is likely to have an impact on future federal policy

RGGI setting important precedents for GHG RGGI setting important precedents for GHG emissions tradingemissions trading

California developing a portfolio of policy California developing a portfolio of policy responses, including for energy and vehiclesresponses, including for energy and vehicles

Q #4. Status of Multilevel Q #4. Status of Multilevel GovernanceGovernance

Multilevel climate change governance is developing in North America

Policy making efforts at multiple governance levels are becoming more ambitious in terms of scope and mitigation goals

Four possible scenarios for developing multilevel governance based on high/low combination of federal and sub-national policy making

Complex Multilevel Complex Multilevel CoordinationCoordination

The fourth scenario – complex multilevel coordination – is most likely

Federal governments set mandatory policy floors of minimum regulations and standards, allowing actors and jurisdictions to exceed federal policies in some areas

Sub-national policy making continues apace among leaders who exceed federal requirements

Continental climate change governance is characterized by debates about appropriate levels of policymaking and implementation

II. Policy Options, BroadlyII. Policy Options, Broadly

Property Rights/Market Creation (Cap & Property Rights/Market Creation (Cap & Trade)Trade)

Regulation (product standards, emissions, Regulation (product standards, emissions, building/construction, land-use, transportation, building/construction, land-use, transportation, etc.)etc.)

Taxes (emissions, energy, consumption, Taxes (emissions, energy, consumption, particular products or practices, etc.)particular products or practices, etc.)

Subsidies (R & D, renewable energy, greener Subsidies (R & D, renewable energy, greener purchasing, mass transport, etc.)purchasing, mass transport, etc.)

II. Policy Goals, BroadlyII. Policy Goals, Broadly

Reduce EmissionsReduce Emissions Increase Energy EfficiencyIncrease Energy Efficiency Push TechnologyPush Technology

Energy SecurityEnergy Security Environmental & Human Health ProtectionEnvironmental & Human Health Protection Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.

Different Frames in Different States Different Frames in Different States and for Different Political Actorsand for Different Political Actors

Rationales for state actionRationales for state action GHG reductionsGHG reductions Environmental co-benefitsEnvironmental co-benefits Job creation/investment driverJob creation/investment driver Domestic/secure energyDomestic/secure energy Energy diversificationEnergy diversification

Combinations of strategic and moral logicsCombinations of strategic and moral logics

Renewable Portfolio StandardsRenewable Portfolio Standards

Regional Climate InitiativesRegional Climate Initiatives

The Climate Registry ParticipantsThe Climate Registry Participants

What Difference Could What Difference Could one Small Region Make?one Small Region Make?

If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was classified as a country, it would be the 12classified as a country, it would be the 12thth largest largest emitter of GHG in the world. emitter of GHG in the world.

+ NY, NJ and DE = 8th+ NY, NJ and DE = 8ththth largest emitter worldwide largest emitter worldwide + CA breaks into the top 5, globally…+ CA breaks into the top 5, globally… MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US

emissions but still are comparable to the total emissions but still are comparable to the total emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt, emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt, Austria, or Greece). Austria, or Greece).

REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

Initiated with leadership of NY Initiated with leadership of NY Gov. Pataki to Northeast and Gov. Pataki to Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states Governors. Mid-Atlantic states Governors.

Signed by 7 Governors on Signed by 7 Governors on December 20, 2005December 20, 2005

7 states “in” plus addition of 7 states “in” plus addition of Maryland and 2 states (MA, Maryland and 2 states (MA, RI) “observing” RI) “observing”

States committed to links (CA)States committed to links (CA) Other states encouraged to Other states encouraged to

join and program is designed join and program is designed to be expandableto be expandable

Purpose: power sector GHG “Cap-and-Trade” system

• Environment and energy officials from each state• Not a voluntary program – by regulation in each state• Reduce CO2 with flexible, market-based program for

least cost reductions• Build on successful NOx and SOx programs• Create a model for a federal program• Maintain electricity affordability, reliability and fuel

diversity

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)(RGGI)

• Cover sources 25 Megawatts+• Two-Phase Cap—stabilization through 2015; 10%

reduction by 2019.• Start Date of 2009.• Built-in Review of Program in 2015.• Allocations:

25% for state to use for consumer benefit Allocation 75% of the allocations left to each state to decide

RGGI Package

RGGI – 2009 StatusRGGI – 2009 Status

Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09)Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09) Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010 Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010

contracts) – too low to influence much investmentcontracts) – too low to influence much investment NY Gov Paterson commitment in questionNY Gov Paterson commitment in question Early fears of over allocation multiplyingEarly fears of over allocation multiplying Current GHG emission est.: Current GHG emission est.:

9% below ’07; 17% below cap9% below ’07; 17% below cap Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be

nationally tradablenationally tradable

US Federal – Status May 2009US Federal – Status May 2009

New Auto CAFE standardsNew Auto CAFE standards National RPS still in discussion/debateNational RPS still in discussion/debate Waxman/Markey (US House) out of CtteWaxman/Markey (US House) out of Ctte

Economy wide & power sectorEconomy wide & power sector Power sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auctionPower sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auction -3 % (of 2005) by 2012-3 % (of 2005) by 2012 -17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels)-17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels) -42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990)-42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990) -83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990)-83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990) A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)

WRI’s Emission Reduction WRI’s Emission Reduction Comparison EstimatesComparison Estimates

Fed Challenges/ConcernsFed Challenges/Concerns

Little auctioning means little revenueLittle auctioning means little revenue For domestic budgets (healthcare) or For domestic budgets (healthcare) or international Copenhagen commitmentsinternational Copenhagen commitments

US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious)US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious) Copenhagen negotiating constraints & Copenhagen negotiating constraints &

opportunitiesopportunities Coordinating multilevel climate governanceCoordinating multilevel climate governance

US, North American, Transatlantic & GlobalUS, North American, Transatlantic & Global

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Q & AQ & A

Stacy.vandeveer@unh.edu

Buy the books! Buy the books!