The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"

Energy Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 1282-1291

  Bang, Guri ^a   Froyn, Camilla Bretteville ^a   Hovi, Jon ^a,b   Menz, Fredric C ^a,c  

^a CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH OSLO CICERO   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c CLARKSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate regime; International cooperation; Kyoto Protocol; The United States

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CONTROL; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

CLIMATE POLICY; CLIMATE REGIME;

ENERGY POLICY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; KYOTO PROTOCOL; NATIONAL POLITICS; POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845420594     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.03.015     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. ABC News/Washington Post, 2005. Most Rule Out God or Warming as a Direct Cause of Hurricanes. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/992a1HurricaneCauses.pdf (accessed October 3, 2005).
2. Barrett S. Strategic environmental policy and international trade. Journal of Public Economics 54 (1994) 325-338
3. Barrett S. Consensus treaties. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 158 (2002) 529-547
4. Barrett S. Environment & Statecraft. The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (2003), Oxford University Press, New York
5. Baumol W., and Oates W. The Theory of Environmental Policy (1988), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. Berk M.M., and den Elzen M.G.J. Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realize timely participation to meet stringent climate goals?. Climate Policy 1 4 (2001) 465-480
7. Betsill M.M., and Bulkeley H. Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly 48 2 (2004) 471-493
8. Bodansky D. The history of the global climate change regime. In: Luterbacher U., and Sprintz D. (Eds). International Relations and Global Climate Change (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
9. Bohm P., and Russell C. Comparative analysis of alternative policy instruments. In: Kneese A.V., and Sweeney J.L. (Eds). Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics (1985), North-Holland, Amsterdam 395-460
10. Busby J., and Ochs A. From Mars and Venus down to earth: understanding the transatlantic climate divide. In: Michel D. (Ed). Climate Policy for the 21st Century (2004), Brookings Institution, Washington 35-76
11. Cleveland C.J., and Kaufman R.K. Oil supply and oil politics: déjà vu all over again. Energy Policy 31 6 (2003) 485-489
12. Criqui, P., Kitous, A., Berk, M., den Elzen, M., Eickhout, B., Lucas, P., van Vuuren, D., Kouvaritakis, N., Vanregemorter, D., 2003. Study Contract: B4- Greenhouse Gas Reduction Pathways in the UNFCCC Process up To 2025-Policymakers Summary 3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for the European Commission, DG Environment. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/pm_summary2025.pdf
13. Den Elzen, M.G.J., Berk, M.M., Lucas, P., Eickhout, B., Van Vuuren, D.P., 2003. Exploring climate regimes for differentiation of commitments to achieve the EU climate target. RIVM Report No. 728001023, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Available at: http://arch.rivm.nl/ieweb/ieweb/Reports/728%20001%20023_final_V1.pdf
14. Dudek D., and Golub A. Intensity targets: pathway or roadblock to preventing climate change while enhancing economic growth. Climate Policy 3 S2 (2003) S21-S28
15. Ellerman A.D., and Wing I.S. Absolute versus intensity-based emission caps. Climate Policy 3 S2 (2003) S7-S20
16. European Commission (EC), 2005. Winning the battle against global climate change. Background paper, Commission staff working paper, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/staff_work_paper_sec_2005_180_3.pdf
17. In: Evans P., Jacobson H., and Putnam R. (Eds). Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (1993), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
18. Fisher D.R. Bringing the material back in: understanding the united states' position on climate change. Sociological Forum (2006) forthcoming
19. Fredriksson P.G., and Millimet D.L. Strategic interaction and the determination of environmental policy across U.S. States. Journal of Urban Economics 51 (2002) 101-122
20. Fri, R.W., 2005. Business planning for U.S. firms, which end is up? Resources, vol. 157. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, pp. 16-18
21. Froyn C.B. International environmental agreements: the role of political feasibility. In: Atkinson G., Dietz S., and Neumayer E. (Eds). Handbook of Sustainable Development (2006), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
22. Grubb M. Kyoto and the future of international climate change responses: from here to where. International Review for Environmental Strategies 5 1 (2004) 15-38
23. Grubb M., and Yamin F. Climate collapse at The Hague: what happened, why, and where do we go from here?. Internal Affairs 77 2 (2001) 261-276
24. Grubb M., Vrolijk C., and Brack D. The Kyoto Protocol, A Guide and Assessment (1999), Royal Institute of International Affairs, London
25. Hagem C., and Westskog H. Effective enforcement and double-edged deterrents. In: Stokke O.S., Hovi J., and Ulfstein G. (Eds). Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance (2005), Earthscan, London
26. Höhne, N., Ullrich, S., Phylipsen, D., Blokk., G., 2004. Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Draft Report 4 October, for the German Federal Environmental Agency.
27. Jotzo, F., Pezzey, J.C.C., 2005. Optimal intensity targets for emissions trading under uncertainty. Economics and Environment Network Working Paper EEN0504, Australian National University.
28. Kallbekken S., and Hovi J. The price of non-compliance with the Kyoto Protocol: the remarkable case of Norway. International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics (2006) forthcoming
29. Kolstad C.D. The simple analytics of greenhouse gas intensity reduction targets. Energy Policy (2005) in press
30. Leggett J. The Carbon War (1999), Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London
31. Levinson A. A note on environmental federalism: interpreting some contradictory results. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1997) 359-366
32. List J.A., and Gerking S. Regulatory federalism and U.S. environmental policies. Journal of Regional Science 40 (2000) 453-471
33. Lutzenhiser L. The contours of U.S. climate non-policy. Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001) 511-523
34. Menz, F.C., 2002. Bush proposal on climate change: business as usual? In: Cicerone, vol. 1. Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO), Oslo. http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/1720.pdf
35. Menz F.C. Green electricity policies in the United States: case study. Energy Policy 33 18 (2005) 2398-2410
36. Moser S.C., and Dilling L. Making climate hot: communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment 46 10 (2004) 32-46
37. Müller B. Equity in Climate Change. The Great Divide (2002), Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford
38. New York Times, 2005a. Rebuffing Bush, 132 Mayors Embrace Kyoto Rules. E. Sanders, May 14, 2005, p. A9.
39. New York Times, 2005b. 9 States in Plan to Cut Emissions by Power Plants. Anthony DePalma, August 24, p. 1.
40. New York Times, 2005c. So Who Is Right in Debate on Role of Global Warming? Time Will Tell. Andrew C. Revkin, September 24, p. A12.
41. New York Times, 2005d. Some Experts Say It's Time to Evacuate the Cost (for Good). Cornelia Dean, October 4, p.F4.
42. Nordhaus, W., Boyer, W., 1999. Requiem for Kyoto: an economic analysis. In: Weyant, J. (Ed.), The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. The Energy Journal, special issue.
43. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2004. Climate change activities in the United States: 2004 update. Pew Center Report, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/us_activities_2004.cfm
44. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2005. States News. June 9, 2005. http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/news.cfm
45. Pizer, W.A., 2005. The case for intensity targets. RFF Discussion Paper 05-02, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
46. Purvis N. The perspective of the United States on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. International Review for Environmental Strategies 5 1 (2004) 169-178
47. Putnam R. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization 42 3 (1988) 427-460
48. Rabe, B.G., 2002. Greenhouse and statehouse. The evolving State Government role in climate change. Pew Center Report, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/statesgreenhouse.pdf
49. Salameh M.G. Quest for middle east oil: the US versus the Asia-Pacific region. Energy Policy 31 11 (2003) 1085-1091
50. 2 emissions. Environment 46 10 (2004) 8-19
51. Svendsen G.T. The Political Economy of the European Union (2003), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
52. The White House, 2002. Global Climate Change Policy Book. Washington, DC. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html.
53. Ungar S. Is strange weather in the air? A study of US national network news coverage of extreme weather events. Climatic Change 41 2 (1999) 133-150
54. US Senate, 1997. Senate Resolution 98. Congressional Record, Report No. 105-5412, June 1997.
55. Werksman J. Designing a compliance system for the UN framework convention on climate change. In: Cameron J., Werksman J., and Roderick P. (Eds). Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law (1998), Earthscan, London 85-112
56. Werksman J. The negotiation of a compliance system for Kyoto. In: Stokke O.S., Hovi J., and Ulfstein G. (Eds). Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance (2005), Earthscan, London 17-38