State greenhouse gas reduction policies: A move in the right direction?

Policy Sciences

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 353-365

  Keeler, Andrew G ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate change policy; Environmental policy; State policies

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GREENHOUSE GAS; MITIGATION; NATIONAL PLANNING;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 37449007302     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-007-9050-y     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ahman, M., Burtraw, D., Kruger, J., & Zetterberg, L. (2005). The ten-year rule: Allocation of emission allowances in the EU emission trading system. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 05-30.
2. 2 emissions in the United States: An analysis of options through 2010. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environmental Institute, http://www.seib.org/energy/publications/policies&measures.pdf. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
3. Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., Bharvirkar, R., & Paul, A. (2001). The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emission trading. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01-30.
4. Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., & Kahn, D. (2005). Allocation of CO 2 emission allowances in the regional greenhouse gas cap and trade program. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 05-25.
5. California Assembly Bill No. 1493, passed July 1, 2002.
6. Center for Clean Air Policy. (2002). State and local climate change policy actions. http://www.ccap.org/pdf/State_Actions.pdf. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
7. CERA Advisory Service. (2006). Design issues for market-based greenhouse gas reduction strategies. National Commission for Energy Policy, http://www.energycommission.org/newfiles/CERA_SR_022106_full_report.pdf. Accessed on March 10, 2006.
8. Climate Policy Center. (2002). The sky trust proposal to reduce U. S. carbon emissions. http://www.cpc-inc.org/library/files/ 10_skytrustno.pdf. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
9. 2 abatement policies: What does it cost? In C. Carraro & G. Metcalf (Eds.), Behavioral and distributional effects of environmental policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Hargrave, T (2000). An upstream/downstream hybrid approach to greenhouse gas emissions trading. Center for Clean Air Policy.
11. Jacoby, H. (1999). The uses and misuses of technology development as a component of climate policy. In C. E. Walker, M. A. Bloomfield & M. Thorning (Eds.), Climate change policy: Practical strategies to promote economic growth and environmental quality. Washington: American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research.
12. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2002). Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 41-69.
13. Keeler, A (2002). Designing a carbon dioxide trading system: The advantages of upstream regulation. Center for Climate Policy, http://www.aecsinc.org/AECS%20white%20papers/Upstream.pdf. Accessed on December 4, 2003.
14. Maine State Planning Office and University of Maine. (2002). State of Maine climate change action plan, Responding to 'global climate change and achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Maine: Roles for industry, business, government and citizens. http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/ Research/EnvPol.htm. Accessed on December 4, 2003.
15. National Commission on Energy Policy. (2005). Pricing carbon: An overview. http://report.energycommission.org/newfiles/Final_Report/ II_Climate%20Change/II.2.a%20-%20Pricing%20Carbon.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2006.
16. National Research Council, Committee on state practices in setting mobile source emissions standards. (2006). State and federal standards for mobile source emissions. ISBN: 0-309-65868-3.
17. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated. (2003). Title 10, Section 125-O.
18. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. (2006). An update on energy efficiency policies across the northeast. http://www.neep.org/newsletter/ 2Q2006/policy.html. Accessed on July 25, 2006.
19. Porter, M., & C. van der Linde (1995). Towards a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4), 97-118.
20. Rabe, B (2002). Greenhouse & statehouse: The evolving state government role in climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/ greenhouse_and_statehouse_/index.cfm. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
21. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (2005). Memorandum or understanding. http://www.rggi.org/docs/mou_12_20_05.pdf. Accessed on March 8, 2006.
22. Smith, A., & Ross, M. (2002). Allowance allocation: Who wins and loses under a carbon dioxide control program? Center for Clean Air Policy, http://www.ccap.org/pdf/ccap_cra_report.pdf. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
23. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2006). Renewable energy-mitigating global warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/ page.cfm?pageID=895#res, Accessed on March 9, 2006.
24. US Department of Energy. (2001). Wind power today. http://www.nrel.gov/ docs/fy01osti/28921.pdf. Accessed on March 8, 2006.