The evolution of the United States Climate Change Policies and missed leadership opportunities /La evoluci

• Author: Rubial, Mar

INTRODUCTION

The United States climate change policies are one of the most controversial and interdisciplinary topics of our times. At the same time, climate change is not only one of the most important international topics and challenges, but also an interdisciplinary theme that recalls the roots of IR nourished by different social studies and sciences.

Climate change has been approached by IR scholars from very diverse perspectives, including regime theory (Rosendal, 2001; Young, 2004; Yamin and Depledge, 2004; Oberthür and Tánzler, 2007), the regimen complex (Keohane and Victor, 2011), multilevel, polycentric and complex governance (Betsill and Bulkeley,2006; Ostrom, 2010; Abbott, 2012) and constructivism (Ungar, 1992; Stehr and Storch, 1995; Rosa and Dietz, 1998; Demeritt, 2001; Oels, 2005; Pettenger, 2007; Schroeder, 2008; Hermann and Mahlko, 2012).

At the same time, it is remarkable the literature regarding the relationship of the national-international dimensions of public policies. Early in the academy, Katzenstein (1976) pointed out that the content of the foreign policies results as much from the constraints of domestic structures as from international effects. As Oberthür and Tánzler (2007: 257) affirmed applied to climate change policies: "international institutions and domestic policies can thus be conceptualized as feeding back on each other over time'.

Additionally, it is worth highlighting the literature on climate change leadership, including the role of the United States (Peterson, 2004; Parker et.al, 2012; Parker, Karlsson and Hjerpe, 2015; Parker and Karlsson, 2018).

There are several studies focused on particular issue-topics that appear in US approach to climate change. Lee, Arroyo and Roy (2001) referred to themes re-emerging throughout the 20th century and playing an important role by shaping US policy. Cass (2007) affirmed that the climate debate in the US was bogged down in the science and the economics of climate change. We agree that the recurrence to these two domains is evident in statements, paper positions and submissions of the federal government at least from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump administration. At the same time, our work is based on the idea that the initial framing of the problem (i.e. how the debate was born and developed in a country) is conclusive to understand its behavior, as well as policy and norms construction (Pettenger, 2007). Consequently, Ronald Reagan framing encompassed key features such as a long-term issue, scientific uncertainty and unjustified costs for American interest and economy, as well as the faith in technology as the final solution of any problem.

The contribution and main objective of this work lies in exposing the evolution and the main features of the US climate policies expressed in its domestic (national and subnational) and foreign dimensions that are naturally interwoven. Thus, we assert some of the main features of traditional political approach to climate change include: an emphasis on costs and the impact of measures to address climate change in the American economy and its economic growth; the questioning of climate science as insufficient to justify the costs of the action; the questioning of the differentiation between developed and developing countries as a valid argument for the US to take the lead in international climate action; the resistance to assume mitigation commitments that collide with the principle of national sovereignty and fundamental freedoms inherited from the founding fathers and the related tension between the role of States and free market value.

We also recognize that political ideology and partisanship continue to play a key role in climate change polices in the US. While political and economic denialism has not been able to immobilize subnational governmental and non-governmental climate initiatives, it has undermined the opportunity and the responsibility of the US to sustain leadership as international projection.

This contribution followed a qualitative approach based on the analysis of climate change policies at different scales. It used as primary sources of research, reports of International Organizations, as well as official documents of the government of US and the States. As secondary sources, it visited literature on climate change, US climate policies and other areas consistent with the objective. As regards the techniques of data analysis, the contribution is based mainly on documentary and qualitative data analysis.

While it is possible to trace the antecedents of the United States' climate policy in previous years, we concentrated on the period that extends from the 1980s to the present, since it coincides with the beginning of international negotiations on climate change. This timeframe is reflected on the first part of the contribution, while the second one is focused on the last 20 years of social changes towards climate change. Thus, it is organized in two sections. The first one is focused on US climate policies from 1980s to our days trying to interlink national and international positions. The second one portrays the relationship between the features of traditional US approach to climate policy and changes occurred in the last 20 years at different levels.

[I]. UNITED STATES FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

The climate related norms in the US were sanctioned from the fifties, associated to the pollutant's discussion and its effects in air quality, including the Air Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act and the Air Quality Act. This topic was an important entry point to generate rules regarding climate change, especially in relation to the legal battle on EPA competence on climate change (Ferreira et. al, 2012).

However, the federal interest on climate change as a result of international and national increasing awareness began under President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), even when decisions did not take place in light of the diagnosis of high economic costs and insufficient science evidence. It should be underlined that Reagan embraced the Montreal Protocol that seek to phase out ozone depleting substances in light of a cost-benefit analysis (save money).

The challenges increased significantly under the Presidency of George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) comprising in the international scenario, the organization of the Noordwyk Conference on Global Climate Change. In this Conference, the majority of developed countries agreed on stabilizing emissions by 2020, in contrast with the US reluctance to targets. The US argued that the emission reduction targets were too rigid and did not consider properly different national circumstances. National circumstances language has been part of US's interest for a long time and it is not casual the addition made to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) by the US and China in the Joint Declaration of November 2014 and that appears in the PA. Also, in Noordwyk, the US position was to continue with scientific research and developing national strategies and programs with domestic monitoring and verification (Bodansky, 2001; Depledge, 2005) in a more conservative approach to international commitments.

In addition, when negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Rio de Janeiro, the US delegation had specific instructions related to the establishment of institutions and the implementation mechanisms. Along with the OECD countries, the US supported launching strong institutions, including a scientific advisory body, a committee for implementation and detailed reporting systems. Thus, the original position of the US involved the construction of an international climate architecture that would promote research and allow the country to have a leading role. But this leadership was not interpreted in terms of greater international commitments to reduce emissions, but rather to safeguard their freedoms, while modeling the conditions and characteristics of that architecture.

At the same time, at the national level, the unleashed scandals linked to the area of budgets and the alteration of data and testimonies on climate change and its effects are facts to mention. Another key episode was the meeting of the IPCC held in the US, which led the President to recognize that human actions were generating an impact on the atmosphere and to propose that market mechanisms should occupy a key role in the solution (Cass, 2007). Hence, Bush administration was critical in terms of the introduction of the market mechanisms, the public recognition of climate science facts and the negotiation and signing of the UNFccc.

William J. Clinton (1993-2001) experienced critical moments while in office, such as the negotiation of the Berlin Mandate and the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, at the international arena. This administration ratified the importance of the flexibility mechanism as a way to achieve domestic consensus around the proposal. At the same time, it accepted the target of reducing 7 per cent of emissions below 1990 for the period 2008-2012. However, the pressure coming from business and industry lobbies was very strong to reject the target since they considered developing countries should not be excluded (Bodansky, 2001; Depledge, 2005).

Moreover, this Presidency had to deal with the results of the midterm elections that changed the scenario with a Republican Congress. However, all these internal pressures did not cause the rejection of the drafts of the Berlin Mandate including the differentiation between developed and developing countries. On the contrary, the US submitted its own proposal of document that agreed with differentiation and not commitments for developing countries while including the flexible mechanisms (UNFCCC, 1997). At the same time, it could be mentioned that the US Clinton administration advocated for the inclusion of the six main greenhouse gases and the...