Dec 3 2008
California’s adoption two years ago of AB 32, a climate change bill that provides an ambitious framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, illustrates how individual states are challenging the traditional clout of nations in influencing policy challenges of global importance.
In an article published this month in The Journal of Environment & Development, a team of public policy researchers - lead by University of Southern California professor Daniel Mazmanian - explores the factors that helped define California as a leader in the climate change arena. The study illuminates the rapidly changing dynamic in how “subnational actors,” in this case the State of California, are influencing domestic and international policy.
"California, when it comes to environmental policy, has a penchant to
act more like nation. It has entered the climate change arena with a
ambitious set of goals and a policy plan that is both extensive and
innovative," said Mazmanian. "Our research into how and why California asserted itself in the climate change arena provides us a glimpse into how global dynamics are creating
new opportunities for ‘sub national actors’ to promote policies on an international scale."
Mazmanian worked on the article with John Jurewitz of Pomona College and Hal Nelson of Claremont Graduate University. The article – “California’s Climate Change Policy. The Case of a Subnational State Actor Tackling a Global Challenge.” - “ identifies several characteristics unique to California that contributed to the state’s adoption of AB 32 in 2006. These factors include an environmentally supportive electorate and a governor who has catapulted his own international reputation by demonstrating how a state-level political leader can act as an important policy entrepreneur.
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) is a key component of the most comprehensive state-level climate change program in the United States, calling for a comprehensive emissions-reduction effort across all sectors of society. The state’s detailed plan is intended to take effect formally in 2012, though in anticipation many changes are already underway. California’s decision to enact this legislation followed several international efforts, such as Kyoto and the EU Emissions Trading System, which indicates to the authors that the state “views its actions in global eco-environmental policy terms.” The effort is clearly needed in view of the fact that California is not only the 7th or 8th leading economy in the world, but alone is one of the top-20 emitters of greenhouse gas on the planet.
The researchers also explore the politics behind the push for stricter environmental regulations. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, tapped into the state’s pro-environment sentiments as a way of contrasting his own leadership - and moderate Republican leanings - with that of President George W. Bush.
“Democratic leaders were then left scrambling to fashion the specific legislative contents of AB 32 in such a way that they could claim a share of the credit for its adoption,” according to the study which finds that “the press and the public by and large identify the policy with Schwarzenegger.”
To be sure, other states have also implemented forward-thinking environmental policies, such as New Hampshire, Washington and other small states. Examples of the way California is pushing its greenhouse gas emission policy in new directions include the decision to create performance benchmarks, rather than monitoring results through an existing state agency. In addition, the state created a think tank to foster scientific research on greenhouse gas emissions to explore ways to best implement the policies.
The authors contend that at this rate environmental federal legislation will likely lag behind as much as a decade behind California. Nonetheless, California is serving as “a catalyst to spur federal action,” according to the study.
California’s dominant role in environmental issues also places it on the same level as a nation, as evidenced through its agreements with Canada, the European Union and China. This further demonstrates, according to the study, that nation-states are no longer the sole decision-makers when it comes to encouraging the formulation of policies with global implications.
The article is available at: http://jed.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/401.