Public Opinion and Climate Change: Analysis of the Virginia Climate Survey
By Barry Rabe and Christopher Borick
INTRODUCTION
State governments have taken an unexpectedly central role in the formation and implementation of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in response to growing concerns over climate change. More than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the future of international treaties and regimes remains highly uncertain. At the federal level, the 110th Congress gave unprecedented attention to this issue, holding nearly 150 hearings on the topic. Nonetheless, no major federal initiative to reduce carbon dioxide and related emissions emerged from either the legislative or executive branch, thereby deferring any future steps to President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress.
In the absence of international collaboration or federal policy, a growing number of state governments have used powers available to them under their respective constitutions to develop policies designed to reduce the states' own releases. These policies have frequently been linked to other state goals, such as diversification of energy supplies, or reduction in the release of other environmental contaminants. At present, close to thirty states mandate increases in the level of electricity that comes from renewable sources through so-called portfolio standards. Twenty-three are formally involved in the regional initiatives, such as the ten-state partnership of Northeastern states that launched the first North American auction of carbon allowances in September 2008. Fifteen states have joined California's effort to attempt to impose regulatory provisions on carbon emissions from future vehicle fleets. Indeed, one can find examples of virtually every conceivable policy that has been proposed around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in operation in one or more states, with a pattern toward policy proliferation and regionalization that shows no signs of slowing.
Policy analysts contend that a variety of factors have converged to stimulate state policy development. This includes concerns over possible threats that climate change may pose to particular states, ranging from coastal damage to shifts in agricultural productivity. At the same time, states have pursued a number of these initiatives for other reasons, such as diversification of their energy supply, or the desire to develop national (and, in some cases, international) expertise in anticipation of future federal and international policy. While states have noted that they cannot unilaterally address this issue through emissions reductions, they do recognize that often their emission levels are greater than those of other nations. Texas, for example, releases more greenhouse gases per year than the United Kingdom.
Thus far, state policy development has been robust in every region of the nation except the Southeast. There has been some indication that this may be changing, reflected in North Carolina's adoption of a mandatory renewable portfolio standard in 2007, and Florida's increasingly active exploration of climate options through a statewide commission. Most states in the region, however, have proven far less involved in this arena than their counterparts in the Pacific West, the Southwest, the Northeast, and the Midwest.
This uneven pattern of development will present unique challenges for nearly any federal policy or strategy that might be considered by the new President and Congress, including issues of federalism. For example, nearly a dozen bills were introduced during the 110th Congress that called for some form of a carbon cap-and-trade program, a market-based emissions trading strategy that has been endorsed by President Obama. One prominent illustration was the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, which proposed allocation of extra emission allowances “for States with programs that exceed Federal emissions reduction targets." Other legislative proposals for cap-and-trade are less sensitive to early state action, and see federal legislation as involving preemption of existing state programs with little or no credit for early state action. The federalism issue is also likely to emerge in other policy areas, including the possibility of a two-tiered national renewable portfolio standard, which would involve a federal minimum but allow states to go above that level if they so choose. Individual states are likely to respond differently to these options, depending on the likely imposition of costs and benefits upon them given their emissions trends, and the degree of policy engagement to date.
State governments have taken an unexpectedly central role in the formation and implementation of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in response to growing concerns over climate change. More than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the future of international treaties and regimes remains highly uncertain. At the federal level, the 110th Congress gave unprecedented attention to this issue, holding nearly 150 hearings on the topic. Nonetheless, no major federal initiative to reduce carbon dioxide and related emissions emerged from either the legislative or executive branch, thereby deferring any future steps to President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress.
In the absence of international collaboration or federal policy, a growing number of state governments have used powers available to them under their respective constitutions to develop policies designed to reduce the states' own releases. These policies have frequently been linked to other state goals, such as diversification of energy supplies, or reduction in the release of other environmental contaminants. At present, close to thirty states mandate increases in the level of electricity that comes from renewable sources through so-called portfolio standards. Twenty-three are formally involved in the regional initiatives, such as the ten-state partnership of Northeastern states that launched the first North American auction of carbon allowances in September 2008. Fifteen states have joined California's effort to attempt to impose regulatory provisions on carbon emissions from future vehicle fleets. Indeed, one can find examples of virtually every conceivable policy that has been proposed around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in operation in one or more states, with a pattern toward policy proliferation and regionalization that shows no signs of slowing.
Policy analysts contend that a variety of factors have converged to stimulate state policy development. This includes concerns over possible threats that climate change may pose to particular states, ranging from coastal damage to shifts in agricultural productivity. At the same time, states have pursued a number of these initiatives for other reasons, such as diversification of their energy supply, or the desire to develop national (and, in some cases, international) expertise in anticipation of future federal and international policy. While states have noted that they cannot unilaterally address this issue through emissions reductions, they do recognize that often their emission levels are greater than those of other nations. Texas, for example, releases more greenhouse gases per year than the United Kingdom.
Thus far, state policy development has been robust in every region of the nation except the Southeast. There has been some indication that this may be changing, reflected in North Carolina's adoption of a mandatory renewable portfolio standard in 2007, and Florida's increasingly active exploration of climate options through a statewide commission. Most states in the region, however, have proven far less involved in this arena than their counterparts in the Pacific West, the Southwest, the Northeast, and the Midwest.
This uneven pattern of development will present unique challenges for nearly any federal policy or strategy that might be considered by the new President and Congress, including issues of federalism. For example, nearly a dozen bills were introduced during the 110th Congress that called for some form of a carbon cap-and-trade program, a market-based emissions trading strategy that has been endorsed by President Obama. One prominent illustration was the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, which proposed allocation of extra emission allowances “for States with programs that exceed Federal emissions reduction targets." Other legislative proposals for cap-and-trade are less sensitive to early state action, and see federal legislation as involving preemption of existing state programs with little or no credit for early state action. The federalism issue is also likely to emerge in other policy areas, including the possibility of a two-tiered national renewable portfolio standard, which would involve a federal minimum but allow states to go above that level if they so choose. Individual states are likely to respond differently to these options, depending on the likely imposition of costs and benefits upon them given their emissions trends, and the degree of policy engagement to date.