Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking and Multilevel Governance

1. Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking and Multilevel Governance Henrik Selin, Department of International Relations, Boston University and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University & Stacy D. VanDeveer, Department of Political Science, University of New Hampshire and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University The Institute for European Environmental Policy and the  Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel May 25, 2009

2. North American Federal Systems • All three North American countries have a federal structure giving policy making and regulatory authority to sub-national entities • Many federal divisions of authority on climate change policy making remain unsettled in Canada, the United States and Mexico • Climate change policy initiatives are discussed and developed in a multitude of states, provinces, municipalities and firms

3. Four Research Questions • 1. What are the new or emerging institutions, policies, and practices in the area of climate change governance under development in North America? • 2.What roles do major public, private, and civil society actors play, and how do they interact to shape policy and governance? • 3. Through which pathways are climate change policies and initiatives diffused across jurisdictions in North America? • 4. To what extent can North American climate change action be characterized as existing or emerging multilevel governance, and are local and federal institutions across the continent facilitating or impeding this process of change?

4. Q #1. Emerging Institutions, Policies 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

5. Sets of Policy Choices • Regulating emission sources, energy production and goods • Enacting taxes on emissions, different kinds of energy and goods • Creating new markets and market based instruments including cap and trade schemes • Using subsidies to support research and development, renewable energy generation and the purchase of greener products

6. Q #2. Roles of Public, Private and 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

7. Networks and Organizations • There are a host of important local, regional, national and continental networks • Networks use old and new organizations to facilitate interaction, including: • NEG-ECP • ICLEI • U.S. Conference of Mayors • Federation of Canadian Municipalities • The Climate Registry

8. Expansions of Regional Efforts • Six New England states and five Eastern Canadian provinces • RGGI covering ten states from Maryland to Maine • Western Climate Initiative (also including Canadian provinces) • Mid-West GHG Reduction Accord

9. Q #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

10. Importance of Bottom-Up Pressure • 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 emissions trading • California developing a portfolio of policy responses, including for energy and vehicles

11. Q #4. Status of Multilevel Governance • 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

13. Complex Multilevel Coordination • 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

14. II. Policy Options, Broadly • Property Rights/Market Creation (Cap & Trade) • Regulation (product standards, emissions, building/construction, land-use, transportation, etc.) • Taxes (emissions, energy, consumption, particular products or practices, etc.) • Subsidies (R & D, renewable energy, greener purchasing, mass transport, etc.)

15. II. Policy Goals, Broadly • Reduce Emissions • Increase Energy Efficiency • Push Technology • Energy Security • Environmental & Human Health Protection • Economic Growth, Job Creation, etc.

16. Different Frames in Different States and for Different Political Actors • Rationales for state action • GHG reductions • Environmental co-benefits • Job creation/investment driver • Domestic/secure energy • Energy diversification • Combinations of strategic and moral logics

17. Renewable Portfolio Standards

18. Regional Climate Initiatives

19. The Climate Registry Participants

20. What Difference Could one Small Region Make? • If the New England/ Eastern CA Region was classified as a country, it would be the 12th largest emitter of GHG in the world. • + NY, NJ and DE = 8thth largest emitter worldwide • + CA breaks into the top 5, globally… • MA state-wide emissions are only 2% of the US emissions but still are comparable to the total emissions of whole countries (i.e. Portugal, Egypt, Austria, or Greece).

21. Initiated with leadership of NY Gov. Pataki to Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states Governors. Signed by 7 Governors on December 20, 2005 7 states “in” plus addition of Maryland and 2 states (MA, RI) “observing” States committed to links (CA) Other states encouraged to join and program is designed to be expandable REGIONAL RESPONSE #2: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

22. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) • 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

23. RGGI Package • 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

24. RGGI – 2009 Status • Auctions held quarterly (late 08 & 09) • Prices in the $3.75-4.10 range ($2-4, Dec 2010 contracts) – too low to influence much investment • NY Gov Paterson commitment in question • Early fears of over allocation multiplying • Current GHG emission est.: • 9% below ’07; 17% below cap • Waxman/Markey -- RGGI credits/allowance will be nationally tradable

25. US Federal – Status May 2009 • New Auto CAFE standards • National RPS still in discussion/debate • Waxman/Markey (US House) out of Ctte • Economy wide & power sector • Power sector Cap & trade – (only) 15% auction • -3 % (of 2005) by 2012 • -17% by 2020 (slightly less than 1990 levels) • -42% by 2030 (25-30% less than 1990) • -83% by 2050 w/interim goals (80% from 1990) • A host of complimentary measures (beyond cap & trade)

26. WRI’s Emission Reduction Comparison Estimates

27. Fed Challenges/Concerns • Little auctioning means little revenue • For domestic budgets (healthcare) or • international Copenhagen commitments • US Senate (the bill may get less ambitious) • Copenhagen negotiating constraints & opportunities • Coordinating multilevel climate governance • US, North American, Transatlantic & Global

28. THANK YOU • Q & A • Stacy.vandeveer@unh.edu • Buy the books! 