IES Policy Forum

Henrik Selin started the set of presentations by describing the focus of the book ‘Changing Climates in North American Politics’. It analyses domestic climate change policy in Mexico, the United States and Canada and the cooperation between these three countries on climate change matters. Currently, governments in all three countries are discussing and in the process of introducing policy measures on climate change. The US federal level focuses on the introduction of a cap-and-trade system. Some of this policy debate is influenced by the European experience. However, in all three countries the most ambitious policy measures are not to be found at the national but rather at the sub-national level. Historically, US states and Canadian provinces have played an environmental leadership role starting a bottom-up dynamic uploading their policies onto the federal level. State/province level governments and cities are very active on climate change policy and they are very well linked with each other through formal and informal networks learning from each other’s experiences. States and provinces are also in direct contact with European actors to exchange best practices and experiences. Selin suggested that future North American climate change policy would have a high degree of federal and state activities possibly leading to a power struggle between the two levels.

Stacy D. VanDeveer focused on the climate change policy options currently discussed in North America. These options are: market creation, regulation, taxes and subsidies. For many policy measures, climate change is only one of the justifications for their introduction. Energy security and green jobs sometimes figure higher on the list of justifications for climate change policy than the actual reduction of emissions. VanDeveer stressed the importance of environmental federalism. States and provinces play an important role in shaping federal policy. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and trade system for CO2 emissions, includes seven US states in the North East. It was modelled after earlier US experiences with NOx and SOx trading mechanisms. Its caps are not very ambitious though. Therefore, carbon prices are rather low. It seems very likely that allowances and credits awarded through the RGGI system will be grandfathered into a possible national cap-and-trade system. US Representatives Waxman and Markey proposed a bill including a power sector cap-and-trade system, which passed the House of Representatives committee stage and will soon be table on the floor of the full House. The Senate may make this bill less ambitious. VanDeveer speculated that in international negotiations, President Obama might not be able to go beyond the bills that Congress will most likely adopt.

David Wirth contributed an international perspective to the debate by reflecting on the United States in UN climate change negotiations. According to him, the US will most likely adopt its domestic climate change policy before the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. On many policy issues, the US has been very introspective being concerned with its own domestic policy-making, which then often constrained the scope for action at the international level. President Obama is very cautious trying to avoid the mistakes made by his predecessor Clinton in the case of the Kyoto Protocol. At the time, Congress essentially voted down the Kyoto agreement before it was even agreed. Furthermore, US industry and environmental groups call for reaching a domestic climate change decision before making international commitments. For these reasons, the US executive acts cautiously at the moment not disclosing any figures in the pre-Copenhagen debate. Wirth reported that, given the 2010 Congressional elections, there is a sense in the United States that “it is year or never” to achieve a domestic and international climate change policy deal.

A vivid discussion ensued the presentations. Participants asked the panellists about the legal prerequisites for the US to be able to negotiate internationally. The speakers pointed out that the US President has far-reaching authority to negotiate and sign international agreements. However, Senate has to give its consent to these international agreements by a 2/3 majority. Therefore, it is much easier for the President to negotiate with a domestic agreement in place prior to the negotiations. Another participant asked about the influence of Europe on the US debate. The three panelists agreed that Congress is very much inward-looking. It pays more attention to what the US states are doing than to EU policy. It was suggested that there is still a very low level of understanding on both sides of the Atlantic on how the respectively other institutions work.