The dynamics of advancing climate policy in federal political systems

Abstract

To avoid irreversible climate damages, countries with different political systems must commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the world. The challenge posed to federal countries participating in international climate agreements through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is that successful implementation requires buy-in from their subnational governments. However, subnational climate action may not be aligned with the political priorities of the national government and could either undermine or support commitments made through the agreement. To explore these dynamics, we review the incoherence between international commitments, national and subnational policies of Canada and the United States, relying on case studies of investments in low-carbon energy and emissions outcomes.Political and policy incoherence has flowed in both directions. Both countries have

Climate Governance and Federalism in Brazil

“…President Bolsonaro was elected and supported by 'ruralists', the large rural landowners bloc in Congress, who are interested in agriculture expansion, reduction of conservation areas and authorization for increased use of pesticides (dos Santos Estevo 2021). This situation illustrates what Jordaan et al (2019) describe as political conflicts and ideological divisions arising from political polarization between different governments in a federation undermining the emergence of effective forms of multi-level climate governance. Overcoming this current political polarization in Brazil is one of the country's biggest challenges in order to promote multi-level climate governance.…”

“…Within the multiplicity of forums for the formulation of climate policies, regulatory overlaps and coordination deficits within a federation can hinder collaboration and generate inefficiencies in the adoption and implementation of climate policies (Jordaan et al 2019). In Brazil, a sector related to climate governance, such as land use management, is a source of tension between different levels of government.…”

Climate Governance and Federalism

“…In addition, the effects of federalism often cross-cut and neutralise each other (Weaver 2020). Drawing on work by a number of scholars, we suggest three possible ways in which federalism might prove favourable for climate change governance, and, conversely, three ways in which it might prove less so (Balthasar, Schreurs, and Varone 2020;Hueglin and Fenna 2015, 41-6;Jordaan et al 2019;Weaver 2020).…”

Realizing the Right to Be Cold? Framing Processes and Outcomes Associated with the Inuit Petition on Human Rights and Global Warming

“…The American and Canadian governments of the time clearly did not abandon their conception of climate mitigation as a threat to economic growth predicated on the ongoing exploitation and use of fossil fuels (Jacques et al ) in favor of the petition's climate human rights frame. Not only did they not alter their climate policies to increase their efforts to combat climate change in line with the petition's demands, they also actively obstructed international efforts to address climate change by refusing to ratify or withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol (Eckersley ; Jordaan et al ; Stoett ). And despite changes in government in both countries that have resulted in the adoption of more ambitious or effective climate policies under the Obama and Trudeau administrations, the overall trajectory of carbon emissions has increased since the petition was filed and are due to exceed the thresholds identified by scientists as posing a significant risk to populations in the arctic and elsewhere around the world (Climate Action Tracker , ).…”