Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 255–269 | Cite as

Carbon emissions and climate policy support by local governments in California: a qualitative comparative analysis at the county level

  • Robert HabansEmail author
  • Matthew Thomas Clement
  • Andrew Pattison
Research Article

Abstract

Drawing from the existing social science literature, we examine the relationship between fossil fuel use and the adoption of policy to address climate change at the local level. In our analysis, we incorporate direct measures of fossil fuel use in a manner that allows us to distinguish carbon emissions from consumption-based and production-based activities. Focusing on the 36 most populous and urbanized counties within the state of California, we merge these emissions, along with other political and economic measures, with an indicator of extensive policy support derived from climate agreement signatories. We then use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to examine conditions that are sufficient for broad adoption of climate policy within a given county. Based on the results, we frame consumption-based and production-based emissions as distinctive in the way that their relationship with climate policy adoption depends on other favorable political and economic conditions. In particular, we identify several routes to extensive adoption for counties that have a combination of low emissions and a favorable political environment. In the conclusion, we discuss the QCA findings and elaborate on the theoretical and practical implications for efforts to understand and to promote carbon reduction efforts at the local level.

Keywords

Local climate change policy Policy adoption Carbon emissions and affluence Qualitative comparative analysis Fuzzy-set Direct measures of carbon emissions Production and consumption carbon emissions Civic capacity and emissions 

Notes

References

  1. Betsill MM, Rabe BG (2009) Climate change and multilevel governance: the evolving state and local roles. In: Mazmanian D, Kraft M (eds) Towards Sustainable Communities: transition and transformations in environmental policy, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brody SD, Zahran S, Grover H, Vedlitz A (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risk, stress, and opportunity. Landsc Urban Plan 87:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulkeley H, Betsill MM (2013) Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environ Polit 22(1):136–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clement MT, Pattison A, Habans R (2017) Scaling down the ‘Netherlands fallacy’: a local-level quantitative study of the effect of affluence on the carbon footprint across the United States. Environ Sci Pol 78:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunlap RE, Brulle RJ (eds) (2015) Climate change and society: sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dusa A, Thiem A (2014) Qualitative comparative analysis. R Package Version 1.1–4. URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
  7. Farrell J (2015) Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(1):92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrell AE, Hanemann WM (2009) Field notes on the political economy of California climate policy. In: Selin H, VanDeveer SD (eds) Changing climates in North American politics: institutions, policymaking, and multilevel governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  9. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galli A (2015) Footprints. Oxf Bibliogr.  https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199363445-0046
  11. Gurney KR, Mendoza DL, Zhou Y, Fischer ML, Miller CC, Geethakumar S, de la Rue du Can S (2009) The Vulcan Project: high resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emissions fluxes for the United States. Environ Sci Technol 43(14):5535–5541Google Scholar
  12. Hand CM, Williams D (2019) State-level factors in metropolitan climate activism. J Publ Prof Sociol 11(1):1Google Scholar
  13. Knight KW, Rosa EA, Schor JB (2013) Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Glob Environ Chang 23(4):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kousky C, Schneider SH (2003) Global climate policy: will cities lead the way? Clim Pol 3(4):359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krause RM (2011) Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U. S cities. J Urban Aff 33(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2000) The only generalization is: there is no generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method: key issues, key texts. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindseth G (2004) The cities for climate protection campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environ: Int J Justice Sustain 9(4):325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Logan JR, Molotch HL (1987) Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucas SR, Szatrowski A (2014) Qualitative comparative analysis in critical perspective. Sociol Methodol 44(1):1–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lutsey N, Sperling D (2008) America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy 36(2):673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martelli et al (2018) Do voters support local commitments for climate change mitigation in Italy? Ecol Econ 144:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olivier JGJ, Bouwman AF, Berdowski JJM, Veldt C, Bloos JPJ, Visschedijk AJH et al (1999) Sectoral emission inventories of greenhouse gases for 1990 on a per country basis as well as on 1× 1. Environ Sci Pol 2(3):241–263Google Scholar
  23. Pattison A, Habans R, Clement MT (2014) Ecological modernization or aristocratic conservation: exploring the impact of affluence on emissions. Soc Nat Resour 27(8):850–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters GP (2008) From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol Econ 65(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pitt D (2010) The impact of internal and external characteristics on the adoption of climate mitigation policies by U.S. municipalities. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 28(5):851–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rabe B (2004) Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. Brookings Institutional Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabe B (2007) Beyond Kyoto: climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 20(3):423–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rabe B (ed) (2010) Greenhouse governance: addressing climate change in America. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  29. Ragin CC (1987) The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Ragin CC (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Ragin CC (2004) Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): state of the art and prospects. Reflections on fuzzy-set/QCA. Qual Meth Newsl Am Pol Sci Assoc Org Sec Qual Meth 2(2):3–13Google Scholar
  32. Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramaswami A, Weible C, Main D, Heikkila T, Siddiki S, Duvall A, Pattison A, Bernard M (2012) A social-ecological-infrastructural systems framework for interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems. J Ind Ecol 16(6):801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reams MA, Clinton KW, Lam NSN (2012) Achievement of climate planning objectives among US member cities of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Low Carbon Econ 3(4):137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rees W, Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16(4):223–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rihoux B, Alamos-Concha P, Bol D, Marx A, Rezsohazy I (2013) From niche to mainstream method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011. Polit Res Q 66(1):175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudel T (2012) Defensive environmentalists and the dynamics of global reform. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2010) Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comp Sociol 9:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ummel K (2014) Who pollutes? A household-level database of America's greenhouse gas footprint. Center for Global Development Working Paper 381Google Scholar
  40. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2013) World social science report 2013: changing global environments. UNESCO Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Urpelainen J (2009) Explaining the Schwarzenegger phenomenon: local frontrunners in climate policy. Glob Environ Polit 9(3):82–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US Conference of Mayors (2019) Climate Protection Agreement (USCMCPA). https://www.usmayors.org/mayors-climate-protection-center/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
  43. van den Bergh J, Grazi F (2010) On the policy relevance of ecological footprints. Environ Sci Technol 44:4843–4844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Victor D (2015) Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520:27–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vig NJ, Kraft ME (2010) Environmental policy: new directions for the twenty-first century, Seventh Edition. CQ Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  46. Wang R (2012) Leaders, followers, and laggards: adoption of the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in California. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 30(6):1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang R (2013) Adopting local climate policies: what have California cities done and why? Urban Aff Rev 49(4):593–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woodruff SC, Stults M (2016) Numerous strategies but limited implementation guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nat Clim Chang 6(8):796–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. World Resource Institute (2012) Greenhouse Gas Protocol. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/. Accessed 5 Jan 2016
  50. Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods. Sage publicationsGoogle Scholar
  51. Zahran S, Grover H, Brody SD, Vedlitz A (2008) Risk, stress, and capacity: explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban Aff Rev 43(4):447–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignIllinoisUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental StudiesColgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations