Premium
Rethinking Climate Change Leadership: An Analysis of the Ambitiousness of State GHG Targets
Author(s) -
Glasgow Derek,
Zhao Shuang,
Rai Saatvika
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
review of policy research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1541-1338
pISSN - 1541-132X
DOI - 10.1111/ropr.12428
Subject(s) - greenhouse gas , climate change , ideology , legislature , climate change mitigation , energy policy , politics , political science , state (computer science) , democracy , business , economics , economic system , public economics , political economy , natural resource economics , environmental resource management , environmental economics , renewable energy , engineering , ecology , biology , electrical engineering , algorithm , computer science , law
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.