IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v21y2021i1d10.1007_s10784-021-09530-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The United States: conditions for accelerating decarbonisation in a politically divided country

Author

Listed:
  • Guri Bang

    (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
    CICERO – Center for International Climate Research)

Abstract

President Biden faces tremendous challenges to overcome political polarisation as he re-commits the United States to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and promises decarbonisation of the US economy over the next three decades. To achieve deep decarbonisation, recent scholarship identifies the crucial role of broad policy mixes that create reinforcing effects between climate and energy policies to trigger technological innovation, restrict polluting activities, promote green growth, and ensure just energy transitions. Drawing on this literature, the article explores the conditions for developing such policy mixes in the US context in three policy phases. How and why have key policy conditions developed differently in the climate- and energy policy fields, and to what effect for decarbonisation policies? The analysis shows that growing political polarisation blocked bipartisan agreement, produced negative policy feedback, and caused instability in the climate policy field, whereas these mechanisms did not dominate the energy policy field. A more bipartisan approach to renewable energy policy allowed long-term experience and positive feedback in energy-policy programmes that helped to trigger technology innovation and subsequent GHG emissions cuts. Different policy conditions within these policy fields discouraged a coupling between them that could have facilitated green-growth policies. The economic shock caused by the coronavirus pandemic may potentially change policy conditions and build a path to deep US decarbonisation in the future, but only if political polarisation on climate change can be overcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Guri Bang, 2021. "The United States: conditions for accelerating decarbonisation in a politically divided country," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 43-58, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:21:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10784-021-09530-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-021-09530-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-021-09530-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-021-09530-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bang, Guri, 2010. "Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1645-1653, April.
    2. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    3. Craig Volden, 2006. "States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 294-312, April.
    4. Adrien Vogt‐Schilb & Stephane Hallegatte, 2017. "Climate policies and nationally determined contributions: reconciling the needed ambition with the political economy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(6), November.
    5. Ramiro Berardo & Federico Holm, 2018. "The participation of core stakeholders in the design of, and challenges to, the US Clean Power Plan," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(9), pages 1152-1164, October.
    6. Luke Kemp, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the 'Ratification Straitjacket'," CCEP Working Papers 1513, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    7. Wang, Zhongmin & Krupnick, Alan, 2013. "A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-12, Resources for the Future.
    8. Harris, Paul G., 2009. "Beyond Bush: Environmental politics and prospects for US climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 966-971, March.
    9. Adrien Vogt‐Schilb & Stephane Hallegatte, 2017. "Climate policies and nationally determined contributions: reconciling the needed ambition with the political economy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(6), November.
    10. Trebilcock, Michael J., 2014. "Dealing with Losers: The Political Economy of Policy Transitions," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199370658.
    11. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2008. "The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 840-857, October.
    12. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    13. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    14. Anya M. Galli & Dana R. Fisher, 2016. "Hybrid Arrangements as a Form of Ecological Modernization: The Case of the US Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Miklós Antal & Jeroen C.J.M. Van Den Bergh, 2016. "Green growth and climate change: conceptual and empirical considerations," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 165-177, March.
    16. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    17. Guri Bang & Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin, 2016. "The Paris Agreement: Short-Term and Long-Term Effectiveness," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 209-218.
    18. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    19. Åhman, Max & Skjærseth, Jon Birger & Eikeland, Per Ove, 2018. "Demonstrating climate mitigation technologies: An early assessment of the NER 300 programme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 100-107.
    20. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    21. Healy, Noel & Barry, John, 2017. "Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 451-459.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Su, Chi Wei & Liu, Fangying & Stefea, Petru & Umar, Muhammad, 2023. "Does technology innovation help to achieve carbon neutrality?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-14.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Andresen & G. Bang & J. B. Skjærseth & A. Underdal, 2021. "Achieving the ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement: the role of key actors," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-7, March.
    2. Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2021. "Towards a European Green Deal: The evolution of EU climate and energy policy mixes," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 25-41, March.
    3. Trotter, Philipp A. & Brophy, Aoife, 2022. "Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    4. Samson Afewerki & Asbjørn Karlsen, 2021. "Policy mixes for just sustainable regional development in industrially overspecialized regions: the case of two Norwegian petro-maritime regions," PEGIS geo-disc-2021_02, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    5. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    7. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    8. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    9. Jan Fagerberg & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2022. "Innovation policy, regulation and the transition to net zero," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20220531, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    10. Daniel Rosenbloom & Adrian Rinscheid, 2020. "Deliberate decline: An emerging frontier for the study and practice of decarbonization," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    11. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    12. Bjerkan, Kristin Ystmark & Seter, Hanne, 2021. "Policy and politics in energy transitions. A case study on shore power in Oslo," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    14. Eric Brouillat & Maïder Saint Jean, 2020. "Mind the gap: Investigating the impact of implementation gaps on cleaner technology transition," Post-Print hal-03490256, HAL.
    15. Rozenberg, Julie & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Hallegatte, Stephane, 2020. "Instrument choice and stranded assets in the transition to clean capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    17. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    18. Kanger, Laur & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Noorkõiv, Martin, 2020. "Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    20. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:21:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10784-021-09530-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.