Suchergebnisse

The surge of American states' adoption of policies to mitigate climate change in the late 1990s and 2000s appeared to constitute a first wave of expanding use of market‐based policy tools such as carbon cap‐and‐trade in the absence of binding federal constraints. Instead, a substantial number of states have rescinded earlier policy commitments, as have Canadian provincial partners, while others have remained engaged or even expanded their policies. This article examines the durability of the three regional cap‐and‐trade zones that were established with comparable structure and intent but met very different fates. The analysis of these regional entities places particular emphasis on their political resilience across election cycles, their ability to be flexible and adapt administratively through mid‐course adjustments, and their capacity to build constituency support through benefit‐allocation to offset opposition linked to cost imposition.

Numerous policy tools could be employed in attempting to mitigate climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Direct cost imposition through the taxation of carbon content of fossil fuels has long enjoyed support from diverse policy analysts but has proven highly difficult to advance politically in the United States and many other nations. This article considers the evolving American experience in climate policy tool selection, including extended engagement by many states over the past decade and growing federal involvement in recent Congresses. It demonstrates the enduring aversion to direct cost imposition as opposed to other policy options. This includes a brief period in late 2008 and early 2009 when prospects for direct cost imposition heightened markedly at the federal level but collapsed quickly in favor of a mélange of other approaches that are likely to be less efficient but also less direct in their imposition of costs. The article concludes with considerations of other methods to advance direct cost imposition in the American case.