Policy Sciences

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 353–365 | Cite as

State greenhouse gas reduction policies: a move in the right direction?

  • Andrew G. Keeler


The lack of significant efforts at the national level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the United States has provided the impetus for a number of state programs. This article assesses the efficiency of these programs in making real progress in GHG reductions. It also explores the effect of state programs on the eventual adoption of a strong national GHG mitigation policy. While state programs are likely to demonstrate the viability of new mitigation approaches, they are also likely to create a set of expectations and precedents that will make a strong and coherent national policy more difficult.


Climate change policy State policies Environmental policy 



The author would like to than Lee Lane and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions, and to acknowledge support from the Climate, Water, and Carbon Initiative at the Ohio State University. An earlier version of this work was distributed in 2004 through the Climate Policy Center.


  1. Ahman, M., Burtraw, D., Kruger, J., & Zetterberg, L. (2005). The ten-year rule: Allocation of emission allowances in the EU emission trading system. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 05-30.Google Scholar
  2. Bernow, S., Dougherty, W., Duckworth, M., Kartha, S., Lazarus, M., & Ruth, M. (1998). Policies and measures to reduce CO 2 emissions in the United States: An analysis of options through 2010. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environmental Institute, Accessed on December 8, 2003.
  3. Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., Bharvirkar, R., & Paul, A. (2001). The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emission trading. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01-30.Google Scholar
  4. Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., & Kahn, D. (2005). Allocation of CO2 emission allowances in the regional greenhouse gas cap and trade program. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 05-25.Google Scholar
  5. California Assembly Bill No. 1493, passed July 1, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Clean Air Policy. (2002). State and local climate change policy actions. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
  7. CERA Advisory Service. (2006). Design issues for market-based greenhouse gas reduction strategies. National Commission for Energy Policy, Accessed on March 10, 2006.
  8. Climate Policy Center. (2002). The sky trust proposal to reduce U. S. carbon emissions. Accessed on December 8, 2003.
  9. Goulder, L., & Bovenberg, A. L. (2001). Neutralizing the adverse industry impacts of CO2 abatement policies: What does it cost? In C. Carraro & G. Metcalf (Eds.), Behavioral and distributional effects of environmental policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hargrave, T (2000). An upstream/downstream hybrid approach to greenhouse gas emissions trading. Center for Clean Air Policy.Google Scholar
  11. Jacoby, H. (1999). The uses and misuses of technology development as a component of climate policy. In C. E. Walker, M. A. Bloomfield & M. Thorning (Eds.), Climate change policy: Practical strategies to promote economic growth and environmental quality. Washington: American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research.Google Scholar
  12. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2002). Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeler, A (2002). Designing a carbon dioxide trading system: The advantages of upstream regulation. Center for Climate Policy, Accessed on December 4, 2003.
  14. Maine State Planning Office and University of Maine. (2002). State of Maine climate change action plan, Responding to ‘global climate change and achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Maine: Roles for industry, business, government and citizens. Accessed on December 4, 2003.
  15. National Commission on Energy Policy. (2005). Pricing carbon: An overview. Accessed on March 11, 2006.
  16. National Research Council, Committee on state practices in setting mobile source emissions standards. (2006). State and federal standards for mobile source emissions. ISBN: 0-309-65868-3.Google Scholar
  17. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated. (2003). Title 10, Section 125-O.Google Scholar
  18. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. (2006). An update on energy efficiency policies across the northeast. Accessed on July 25, 2006.
  19. Porter, M., & C. van der Linde (1995). Towards a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.Google Scholar
  20. Rabe, B (2002). Greenhouse & statehouse: The evolving state government role in climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Accessed on December 8, 2003.
  21. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (2005). Memorandum or understanding. Accessed on March 8, 2006.
  22. Smith, A., & Ross, M. (2002). Allowance allocation: Who wins and loses under a carbon dioxide control program? Center for Clean Air Policy, Accessed on December 8, 2003.
  23. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2006). Renewable energy-mitigating global warming., Accessed on March 9, 2006.
  24. US Department of Energy. (2001). Wind power today. Accessed on March 8, 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Glenn School of Public AffairsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations