IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v38y2021i4p398-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Climate Change Leadership: An Analysis of the Ambitiousness of State GHG Targets

Author

Listed:
  • Derek Glasgow
  • Shuang Zhao
  • Saatvika Rai

Abstract

Traditionally, diffusion policy scholars sought to understand state climate change policy leadership by exploring the speed of policy adoption. This study moves beyond these approaches by exploring factors that influence adoption as well as those that influence the content of a policy or policy goal intensity. Through the exploration of the first “wave” of state GHG reduction targets during the early 2000s, we create an innovative policy commitment variable that standardizes state emissions targets and explores the specific factors influencing these mitigation goals. Our results suggest that internal political factors (Democratic control of the legislature), lower state carbon dioxide emissions and dependency on coal production increases the likelihood of target adoption. However, the degree of GHG reduction commitments (content) are dependent on both internal and external factors, such as neighboring states adoption, carbon dioxide emission levels, citizen ideology, environmental interest groups, natural gas production and solar energy potential. These results support the growing literature on differentiating adoption and the content of a policy when analyzing the spread of policy ideas. Additionally, it suggests the limitations of states as climate leaders. 在传统扩散政策学研究中,学者们往往试图通过探索采用新政策的速度来了解美国州级别对气候变化政策的领导作用。本研究通过分析影响州政府采用这些政策的因素以及影响政策内容或政策目标强度的因素来超越以前使用的方法。通过调查2000年代初参与第一波采用温室气体减排目标的美国州政府,我们创建了一个创新性的政策承诺变量。该变量标准化了州级别的排放目标,并探讨了影响这些减排目标的具体因素。我们的研究结果表明,内部政治因素(立法机构是否受民主党控制),较低的州内二氧化碳排放量以及对煤炭生产的依赖性增加了州政府采用温室气体减排目标的可能性。但是,减少温室气体排放承诺的程度(政策内容)同时受到内部以及外部因素,例如相邻州政府是否采用了类似的 政策,二氧化碳排放水平,公民意识形态,环保组织的影响,天然气以及太阳能产能潜力。这些结果支持了近期涌现的文献强调在分析政策理念传播时要区分政策采用行为和具体政策内容。此外,本文研究结果体现出美国州级政府作为大气变化政策领导者是有局限性的。 Tradicionalmente, los estudiosos de las políticas de difusión buscaban comprender el liderazgo de las políticas estatales sobre el cambio climático explorando la velocidad de la adopción de políticas. Este estudio va más allá de estos enfoques al explorar los factores que influyen en la adopción, así como los que influyen en el contenido de una política o en la intensidad de sus objetivos. A través de la exploración de la primera “ola” de objetivos estatales de reducción de GEI a principios de la década de 2000, creamos una variable de compromiso de política innovadora que estandariza los objetivos de emisiones estatales y explora los factores específicos que influyen en estos objetivos de mitigación. Nuestros resultados sugieren que los factores políticos internos (control democrático de la legislatura), las menores emisiones estatales de dióxido de carbono y la dependencia de la producción de carbón aumentan la probabilidad de adopción de objetivos. Sin embargo, el grado de compromisos de reducción de GEI (contenido) depende de factores internos y externos, como la adopción de los estados vecinos, los niveles de emisión de dióxido de carbono, la ideología ciudadana, los grupos de interés ambiental, la producción de gas natural y el potencial de energía solar. Estos resultados apoyan la creciente literatura sobre diferenciar la adopción y el contenido de una política cuando se analiza la difusión de ideas políticas. Además, sugiere las limitaciones de los estados como líderes climáticos.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek Glasgow & Shuang Zhao & Saatvika Rai, 2021. "Rethinking Climate Change Leadership: An Analysis of the Ambitiousness of State GHG Targets," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 398-426, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:4:p:398-426
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12428
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12428?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Troy D. Abel & Debra J. Salazar & Patricia Robert, 2015. "States of Environmental Justice: Redistributive Politics across the United States, 1993–2004," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 32(2), pages 200-225, March.
    2. Carley, Sanya & Nicholson-Crotty, Sean & Miller, Chris J., 2017. "Adoption, reinvention and amendment of renewable portfolio standards in the American states," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 431-458, December.
    3. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    4. Craig Volden, 2006. "States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 294-312, April.
    5. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & J. S. Butler & John Poe & Whitney Davis, 2016. "The Spreading of Innovation: State Adoptions of Energy and Climate Change Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(5), pages 544-565, September.
    6. Coley, Jonathan S. & Hess, David J., 2012. "Green energy laws and Republican legislators in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 576-583.
    7. Thomas P. Lyon & Haitao Yin, 2010. "Why Do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards?: An Empirical Investigation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 133-158.
    8. James W. Stoutenborough & Matthew Beverlin, 2008. "Encouraging Pollution‐Free Energy: The Diffusion of State Net Metering Policies," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1230-1251, December.
    9. Gray, Virginia, 1973. "Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 1174-1185, December.
    10. Carley, Sanya, 2009. "State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3071-3081, August.
    11. Oskar Krabbe & Giel Linthorst & Kornelis Blok & Wina Crijns-Graus & Detlef P. van Vuuren & Niklas Höhne & Pedro Faria & Nate Aden & Alberto Carrillo Pineda, 2015. "Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1057-1060, December.
    12. Chris Koski & Megan Keating, 2018. "Holding Back the Storm: Target Populations and State Climate Adaptation Planning in America," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(5), pages 691-716, September.
    13. Walker, Jack L., 1969. "The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 880-899, September.
    14. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2006. "Bottom‐Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 825-843, October.
    15. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr, 2013. "The Effect of the Kyoto Protocol on Carbon Emissions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 731-757, September.
    16. Saatvika Rai, 2020. "Policy Adoption and Policy Intensity: Emergence of Climate Adaptation Planning in U.S. States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 444-463, July.
    17. Sanya Carley, 2011. "The Era of State Energy Policy Innovation: A Review of Policy Instruments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(3), pages 265-294, May.
    18. William Drummond, 2010. "Statehouse Versus Greenhouse," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 413-433.
    19. Mohr, Lawrence B., 1969. "Determinants of Innovation in Organizations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 111-126, March.
    20. Berry, Michael J. & Laird, Frank N. & Stefes, Christoph H., 2015. "Driving energy: the enactment and ambitiousness of state renewable energy policy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 297-328, August.
    21. Bromley-Trujillo, Rebecca & Poe, John, 2020. "The importance of salience: public opinion and state policy action on climate change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 280-304, June.
    22. Walker, Jack L., 1969. "The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 880-899, September.
    23. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2008. "The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 840-857, October.
    24. Lutsey, Nicholas & Sperling, Daniel, 2008. "America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 673-685, February.
    25. Graham, Erin R. & Shipan, Charles R. & Volden, Craig, 2013. "The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 673-701, July.
    26. Daniel C. Matisoff, 2008. "The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 25(6), pages 527-546, December.
    27. Chandler, Jess, 2009. "Trendy solutions: Why do states adopt Sustainable Energy Portfolio Standards?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3274-3281, August.
    28. Lutsey, Nicholas P. & Sperling, Dan, 2008. "America's Bottom-Up Climate Change Mitigation Policy," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8jj755d4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    29. Berry, Frances Stokes & Berry, William D., 1990. "State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 395-415, June.
    30. Pollak, Melisa & Meyer, Bryn & Wilson, Elizabeth, 2011. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Lessons from state climate action plans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5429-5439, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Colette S. Vogeler, 2021. "The politics and policy of science and technology: Past and future," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 396-397, July.
    2. Craig Jones & Luke Fowler, 2022. "Administration, rhetoric, and climate policy in the Obama presidency," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 512-532, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Côme Billard & Anna Creti & Antoine Mandel, 2020. "How Environmental Policies Spread? A Network Approach to Diffusion in the U.S," Working Papers 2020.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    2. Saatvika Rai, 2020. "Policy Adoption and Policy Intensity: Emergence of Climate Adaptation Planning in U.S. States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 444-463, July.
    3. Armstrong, John H., 2019. "Modeling effective local government climate policies that exceed state targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 15-26.
    4. Evan M. Mistur & John Wagner Givens & Daniel C. Matisoff, 2023. "Contagious COVID‐19 policies: Policy diffusion during times of crisis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 36-62, January.
    5. Bae, Hyunhoe & Yu, Sanguk, 2018. "Information and coercive regulation: The impact of fuel mix information disclosure on states’ adoption of renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-159.
    6. Haupt, Wolfgang & Eckersley, Peter & Kern, Kristine, 2021. "Transfer und Skalierung von lokaler Klimapolitik: Konzeptionelle Ansätze, Voraussetzungen und Potenziale," IRS Dialog 1/2021, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    7. Sojin Jang & Hongtao Yi, 2022. "Organized elite power and clean energy: A study of negative policy experimentations with renewable portfolio standards," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 8-31, January.
    8. Fadly, Dalia & Fontes, Francisco, 2019. "Geographical proximity and renewable energy diffusion: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 422-435.
    9. Yi, Hongtao & Feiock, Richard C. & Berry, Frances S., 2017. "Overcoming collective action barriers to energy sustainability: A longitudinal study of climate protection accord adoption by local governments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 339-346.
    10. Brian Y. An & Adam Butz & Min-Kyeong Cha & Joshua L. Mitchell, 2023. "Following neighbors or regional leaders? Unpacking the effect of geographic proximity in local climate policy diffusion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 825-868, December.
    11. Neal D. Woods, 2021. "The State of State Environmental Policy Research: A Thirty‐Year Progress Report," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 347-369, May.
    12. Nico Heiden & Felix Strebel, 2012. "What about non-diffusion? The effect of competitiveness in policy-comparative diffusion research," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 345-358, December.
    13. Yi, Hongtao, 2015. "Clean-energy policies and electricity sector carbon emissions in the U.S. states," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 19-29.
    14. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    15. Felix Strebel & Thomas Widmer, 2012. "Visibility and facticity in policy diffusion: going beyond the prevailing binarity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 385-398, December.
    16. Xiaohan Li & Yang Lv & Md Nazirul Islam Sarker & Xun Zeng, 2022. "Assessment of Critical Diffusion Factors of Public–Private Partnership and Social Policy: Evidence from Mainland Prefecture-Level Cities in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Weixing Liu & Hongtao Yi, 2020. "What Affects the Diffusion of New Energy Vehicles Financial Subsidy Policy? Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Kaveh Rashidi & Anthony Patt, 2018. "Subsistence over symbolism: the role of transnational municipal networks on cities’ climate policy innovation and adoption," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 507-523, April.
    19. Armin Mertens & Christine Trampusch & Florian Fastenrath & Rebecca Wangemann, 2021. "The political economy of local government financialization and the role of policy diffusion," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 370-387, April.
    20. Strebel, Felix, 2011. "Inter-governmental institutions as promoters of energy policy diffusion in a federal setting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 467-476, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:4:p:398-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.