Abstract

Although economic theory would predict that states would lag behind federal efforts to control environmentally harmful emissions, there has been far more action on climate change in state capitols than in Washington, D.C. Without federal action, states have stepped in to fill the policy void on climate change. State-level action on climate change is unlikely, in itself, to have much impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or projected rates of future warming. Nonetheless, the level of state activity is significant.

The aggressiveness of state climate policy initiatives, and potential conflict between federal and state regulatory measures, provides an opportunity to reconsider the proper state role in environmental policy. There has been a vigorous debate over the proper division of authority between the state and federal governments within the academic literature, with many supporting greater state autonomy over environmental policy decisions. The arguments for state primacy are greatest where environmental concerns, and potential solutions, are confined within individual state boundaries. Where there are spillovers, however, the case for state leadership would seem to be less strong. It is somewhat ironic, then, that states have been so aggressive in the context of climate change, where both the environmental concern and many regulatory responses transgress state lines.

This Paper explores the role of state governments in developing climate change policy, with a particular focus on how federalism principles and practice should inform judgments about the division of authority between the state and federal governments.

This abstract has been adapted from the author's introduction.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Spring 2008

Publication Information

17 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 443-464 (2008)

Download

Share

COinS