Progress on climate policy in the US has been, for the most part, driven by the actions of sub-state actors. Most prominent amongst this bunch is the state of California, so much so that it is the source of the so-called “California Effect” – a term coined by UC Berkeley professor David Vogel to capture the positive learning/emulation effects of progressive regulation. In essence, Vogel is pointing out a “race to the top” dynamic in which states compete with one another in an attempt to create competitive advantage, gain first-mover advantages, and enhance their reputation.
But recent events in California threaten to derail climate legislation in California, and the positive feedback loop envisioned by Vogel could potentially be eliminated, or worse still be reversed. There is a movement underway, propelled by state Republicans, Libertarians, and “Tea Partiers”, to suspend California’s climate legislation (known as AB32) until economic conditions (specifically unemployment) improve. The ballot initiative, currently in the process of preparing to gather the requisite number of signature in order to get onto the ballot for the November 2010 elections, proposes to suspend implementation of AB32 until unemployment returns to 5.5% for a period of one full year (the current rate is just over 12%). Couched in a populist language of overbearing/intrusive government involvement in individual lives (AB32 lets government tell individuals what kind of car to drive, what kind of house to build, etc…) and leveraging the recent “climategate” scandal to question the underlying science of climate change, the proposition draws on a host of public fears and resentments and, I would guess, is quite likely to make it onto the ballot (a total number of signatures equal to 5% of the total # of voters in the most recent gubernatorial election is needed).
This is going to be an interesting story to watch as the year progresses. Populist politics are increasingly driving political dynamics across the US (case in point is the election of Scott Brown in MA). The recent USSC decision (Citizens United v. FEC) has altered the playing field, and the November election will be the first to operate in this new, corporate friendly, era of campaign spending. California has an interesting recent history of progressive legislative/judicial action countered by regressive populist action (think of the same sex legislation and Proposition 8 enacted in November 2008). And if the “California Effect” holds true, this could mean trouble for the entire set of sub-state climate initiatives taking place in the US and beyond.
Leave a comment