Climate change and the credibility of international commitments: What is necessary for the U.S. to deliver on such commitments?
- Kentaro Tamura
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The engagement of the United States is critical to the success of any international effort against global climate change. Although international climate efforts require long-lasting, credible commitments by participating countries, risk of failure to deliver on such commitments rises with the degree of gap that the domestic institutions permit between the executive and the legislature. The U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol indicated that the Clinton administration’s effort to bring international solutions into the domestic arena before domestic consensus was obtained was counterproductive. The congressional politics over budgetary allocation regarding the Bush administration’s technology policies showed that general preference to a technology-oriented approach to climate change alone did not ensure the credibility of international commitments. These cases revealed that the U.S. climate diplomacy was lacking in domestic institutional mechanisms that bring the executive branch’s deal at international negotiations, and the legislators’ preferences at home, closer together. For the U.S. to take leadership in international climate cooperation, domestic institutional frameworks which reconcile the interests of the two branches are necessary. This paper suggests that such domestic institutional frameworks feature two components: regular channels of communication between the two political branches; and, incentive mechanisms for the two branches to swiftly come to terms with each other.
- Aldy, J. E., Barrett S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Thirteen plus one: A comparison of global limate policy alternatives. Climate Policy, 3, 373–397. CrossRef
- Bang, G., Tjernshaugen, A., & Andresen, S. (2005). Future U.S. climate policy: International re-engagement? International Studies Perspectives, 6, 285–303. CrossRef
- Baumert, K. A., & Kete, N. (2002). Introduction: An architecture for climate protection. In K. A. Baumert (Ed.), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for protecting the climate (pp. 1–30). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
- Bodansky, D. (2002). U.S. climate policy after Kyoto: Elements for success. Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Bodansky, D. (2003). Climate commitments: Assessing the options. In Pew Center on Global Climate Change (Ed.), Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the international effort against climate change (pp. 37–59). Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
- Bodansky, D., Chou, S., & Jorge-Tresolini, C. (Eds.) (2004). International climate efforts beyond 2012: A survey of approaches. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
- Brewer, T. L. & Egenhofer, C. (2005). The political economy of US responses to climate change issues. Final Report, Prepared for Environmental Studies Group, Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan.
- Busby, J. W., & Ochs, A. (2005). From Mars, Venus down to Earth: Understanding the transatlantic climate divide. In D. Michel (Eds.), Climate policy for the 21stcentury (pp. 35–76). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
- Christensen, A. C. (2003). Convergence or divergence?: Status and prospects for US climate strategy. Climate Policy, 3, 343–358. CrossRef
- EIA (2004). Annual energy outlook 2004 with projections to 2025. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration.
- Fisher, D. R. (2004). Bringing the Material Back In: Understanding the United States Position on Climate Change. Department of Sociology, Columbia University.
- Grubb, M., & Yamin, F. (2001). Climate collapse at The Hague: What happened, why, and where do we go from here? International Affairs, 77, 261–276. CrossRef
- Harrison, N. E. (2000). From the inside out: Domestic influences on global environmental policy. In P. G. Harris (Ed.), Climate change and American foreign policy (pp. 89–109). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
- Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lisowski, M. (2002). Playing the two-level game: US president Busch’s decision to repudiate the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental Politics, 11, 101–119. CrossRef
- Martin, L. L. (2000). Democratic commitments: Legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Millett, S. M. (1990). The constitutionality of executive agreements: An analysis of United States v. Belmont. New York: Grand Publishing.
- Milner, H. V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP). (2004). Ending the energy stalemate: A bipartisan strategy to meet America’s energy challenges. Washington, DC.: NECP.
- Odell, J. S. (2000). Negotiating the world economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
- Pizer, W. A. & Tamura, K. (2004). Climate policy in the United States and Japan: A workshop summary. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, 04–22.
- Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460. CrossRef
- Schelling, T. C. (2002). What makes greenhouse sense?: Time to rethink the Kyoto Protocol. Foreign Affairs, 81,2–9.
- Tjernshaugen, A. (2005). United States participation in future climate agreements: An assessment. CICERO Policy Note, 01.
- Underdal, A. (1998). Explaining compliance and defection: Three models. European Journal of International Relations, 4, 5–30.
- Victor, D. G. (2004). Climate change: Debating America’s policy options. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
- Climate change and the credibility of international commitments: What is necessary for the U.S. to deliver on such commitments?
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
Volume 6, Issue 3 , pp 289-304
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Climate change
- United States
- International commitment
- Climate diplomacy
- Industry Sectors
- Kentaro Tamura (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Climate Policy Project, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan