Upside-Down Cooperative Federalism: Climate Change Policymaking and the States
By Vivian E. Thomson and Vicki Arroyo
ABSTRACT
When it comes to fixing the broken politics of global warming in the United States, all eyes tend to focus on the global stage. However, the path to a national policy has already been paved, by the thirty-five states that have filled the void left by federal inaction. Those states have adopted plans to curb their emissions, even though the benefits of those reductions will be shared widely.
This extensive state leadership means that the customary mode of cooperative federalism will not work for climate change. In air pollution control, the customary mode is a center-dominant model in which the national government establishes an overall framework that the states implement. Climate change policymaking demands a new, “upside-down” cooperative federalism model that accommodates the states' programs.
As an analytical foundation for that model, we analyze a range of political and economic factors that might promote or constrain state-level climate change or energy policymaking in nine states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. We adopt a new, three-tiered typology that groups and analyzes these states according to their efforts in crafting energy and climate policy. We also provide a detailed overview of their energy profiles, since climate change policymaking is inextricably tied to patterns of energy use and extraction. Our typology illuminates key differences in the state-level economic and political forces that either create climate policy openings or erect policy barriers. We find that the states taking action are doing so for a variety of reasons, not solely to address global warming.
Our analysis can help inform the federal climate change policymaking process, since changes to the Clean Air Act have passed only when lawmakers addressed regional priorities. This work also underscores the fact that while state efforts can lead to substantial emission reductions, actions by a subset of states cannot alone yield sufficient reductions at the federal level. A national commitment is also necessary to participate fully and fairly in international negotiations to curb climate change. Finally, we connect our analytical observations with preliminary ideas that could provide the foundation for a new, “upside-down” model of cooperative federalism.
When it comes to fixing the broken politics of global warming in the United States, all eyes tend to focus on the global stage. However, the path to a national policy has already been paved, by the thirty-five states that have filled the void left by federal inaction. Those states have adopted plans to curb their emissions, even though the benefits of those reductions will be shared widely.
This extensive state leadership means that the customary mode of cooperative federalism will not work for climate change. In air pollution control, the customary mode is a center-dominant model in which the national government establishes an overall framework that the states implement. Climate change policymaking demands a new, “upside-down” cooperative federalism model that accommodates the states' programs.
As an analytical foundation for that model, we analyze a range of political and economic factors that might promote or constrain state-level climate change or energy policymaking in nine states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. We adopt a new, three-tiered typology that groups and analyzes these states according to their efforts in crafting energy and climate policy. We also provide a detailed overview of their energy profiles, since climate change policymaking is inextricably tied to patterns of energy use and extraction. Our typology illuminates key differences in the state-level economic and political forces that either create climate policy openings or erect policy barriers. We find that the states taking action are doing so for a variety of reasons, not solely to address global warming.
Our analysis can help inform the federal climate change policymaking process, since changes to the Clean Air Act have passed only when lawmakers addressed regional priorities. This work also underscores the fact that while state efforts can lead to substantial emission reductions, actions by a subset of states cannot alone yield sufficient reductions at the federal level. A national commitment is also necessary to participate fully and fairly in international negotiations to curb climate change. Finally, we connect our analytical observations with preliminary ideas that could provide the foundation for a new, “upside-down” model of cooperative federalism.
