Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative
Why have only two of the eleven original members of the Western Climate Initiative implemented a cap-and-trade system? This article compares the implementation of cap-and-trade in California and Quebec versus in New Mexico and British Columbia. Ideas around the reality of anthropogenic global warmin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global environmental politics 2015-08, Vol.15 (3), p.49-73 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 73 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 49 |
container_title | Global environmental politics |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Houle, David Lachapelle, Erick Purdon, Mark |
description | Why have only two of the eleven original members of the Western Climate Initiative implemented a cap-and-trade system? This article compares the implementation of cap-and-trade in California and Quebec versus in New Mexico and British Columbia. Ideas around the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the legitimacy of cap-and-trade created favorable context in three jurisdictions, although institutions condition the expression of these ideas in the policy-making process. Since parliamentary institutions concentrate power, elite consensus is more important in Canada, while in the United States public opinion plays a more significant role. However, ideational factors shaped by political institutions do not explain differences in cap-and-trade implementation. Growth in shale gas production, welcomed in British Columbia and New Mexico but resisted by Quebec and marginal in California, further explain different outcomes. Ideas, mediated by institutions, are the necessary prerequisites for action, while material factors influence policy instrument choice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1162/GLEP_a_00311 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1752993267</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1752993267</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-7696138327126e0a59f125a04d083850f107e967a62f1549e7c3561bce2099293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFTEQhhexYK298wfk0gtXZ5KTZOOVsvTjwAELbemdId0zW3PYL5Nsof76ZlupvVDo1QTyzJNh3hTFe4RPiIp_PtkcnVlnAQTiq2IfpVAlgMHXy5mrUlQAb4q3Me4gM6Bxv_hRj_3kgkv-ltjZ2Pnkm8jGlp3P1-UxbSm4jtVuKt2wLS-C29IXtu6njnoakh9uWPpJ7IpiojCwuvO9S8TWQ9Y8KN8Ve63rIh3-qQfF5fHRRX1abr6frOtvm7KRwFOplVEoKsE1ckXgpGmRSwerLVSiktAiaDJKO8VblCtDuhFS4XVDHIzhRhwUHx69Uxh_zXkc2_vYUNe5gcY5WtSSGyO40i9EATi8AOUcVR5wsX58RJswxhiotVPIywh3FsEu4djn4WR89WTeUZP6OZLdjXMY8pasrLRcKXu-BLjkl-sS2LPZe5_-4v954es_0JuOpluUXliRPwByy4Fj7rZg7G8_Pdw_Ke4BFcCwvQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1722163857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><source>MIT Press Journals</source><creator>Houle, David ; Lachapelle, Erick ; Purdon, Mark</creator><creatorcontrib>Houle, David ; Lachapelle, Erick ; Purdon, Mark</creatorcontrib><description>Why have only two of the eleven original members of the Western Climate Initiative implemented a cap-and-trade system? This article compares the implementation of cap-and-trade in California and Quebec versus in New Mexico and British Columbia. Ideas around the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the legitimacy of cap-and-trade created favorable context in three jurisdictions, although institutions condition the expression of these ideas in the policy-making process. Since parliamentary institutions concentrate power, elite consensus is more important in Canada, while in the United States public opinion plays a more significant role. However, ideational factors shaped by political institutions do not explain differences in cap-and-trade implementation. Growth in shale gas production, welcomed in British Columbia and New Mexico but resisted by Quebec and marginal in California, further explain different outcomes. Ideas, mediated by institutions, are the necessary prerequisites for action, while material factors influence policy instrument choice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-3800</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-0091</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00311</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA: MIT Press</publisher><subject>British Columbia ; California ; Canada ; Climate ; Elite ; Emissions Trading ; Global warming ; Implementation ; Jurisdiction ; New Mexico ; Production ; Public opinion ; Quebec ; Quebec (province) ; United States</subject><ispartof>Global environmental politics, 2015-08, Vol.15 (3), p.49-73</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-7696138327126e0a59f125a04d083850f107e967a62f1549e7c3561bce2099293</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-7696138327126e0a59f125a04d083850f107e967a62f1549e7c3561bce2099293</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://direct.mit.edu/glep/article/doi/10.1162/GLEP_a_00311$$EHTML$$P50$$Gmit$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27846,27905,27906,53990,53991</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Houle, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lachapelle, Erick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purdon, Mark</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative</title><title>Global environmental politics</title><description>Why have only two of the eleven original members of the Western Climate Initiative implemented a cap-and-trade system? This article compares the implementation of cap-and-trade in California and Quebec versus in New Mexico and British Columbia. Ideas around the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the legitimacy of cap-and-trade created favorable context in three jurisdictions, although institutions condition the expression of these ideas in the policy-making process. Since parliamentary institutions concentrate power, elite consensus is more important in Canada, while in the United States public opinion plays a more significant role. However, ideational factors shaped by political institutions do not explain differences in cap-and-trade implementation. Growth in shale gas production, welcomed in British Columbia and New Mexico but resisted by Quebec and marginal in California, further explain different outcomes. Ideas, mediated by institutions, are the necessary prerequisites for action, while material factors influence policy instrument choice.</description><subject>British Columbia</subject><subject>California</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Elite</subject><subject>Emissions Trading</subject><subject>Global warming</subject><subject>Implementation</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>New Mexico</subject><subject>Production</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Quebec</subject><subject>Quebec (province)</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1526-3800</issn><issn>1536-0091</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFTEQhhexYK298wfk0gtXZ5KTZOOVsvTjwAELbemdId0zW3PYL5Nsof76ZlupvVDo1QTyzJNh3hTFe4RPiIp_PtkcnVlnAQTiq2IfpVAlgMHXy5mrUlQAb4q3Me4gM6Bxv_hRj_3kgkv-ltjZ2Pnkm8jGlp3P1-UxbSm4jtVuKt2wLS-C29IXtu6njnoakh9uWPpJ7IpiojCwuvO9S8TWQ9Y8KN8Ve63rIh3-qQfF5fHRRX1abr6frOtvm7KRwFOplVEoKsE1ckXgpGmRSwerLVSiktAiaDJKO8VblCtDuhFS4XVDHIzhRhwUHx69Uxh_zXkc2_vYUNe5gcY5WtSSGyO40i9EATi8AOUcVR5wsX58RJswxhiotVPIywh3FsEu4djn4WR89WTeUZP6OZLdjXMY8pasrLRcKXu-BLjkl-sS2LPZe5_-4v954es_0JuOpluUXliRPwByy4Fj7rZg7G8_Pdw_Ke4BFcCwvQ</recordid><startdate>20150801</startdate><enddate>20150801</enddate><creator>Houle, David</creator><creator>Lachapelle, Erick</creator><creator>Purdon, Mark</creator><general>MIT Press</general><general>The MIT Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150801</creationdate><title>Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative</title><author>Houle, David ; Lachapelle, Erick ; Purdon, Mark</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-7696138327126e0a59f125a04d083850f107e967a62f1549e7c3561bce2099293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>British Columbia</topic><topic>California</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Elite</topic><topic>Emissions Trading</topic><topic>Global warming</topic><topic>Implementation</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>New Mexico</topic><topic>Production</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Quebec</topic><topic>Quebec (province)</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Houle, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lachapelle, Erick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purdon, Mark</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Global environmental politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Houle, David</au><au>Lachapelle, Erick</au><au>Purdon, Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative</atitle><jtitle>Global environmental politics</jtitle><date>2015-08-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>49</spage><epage>73</epage><pages>49-73</pages><issn>1526-3800</issn><eissn>1536-0091</eissn><abstract>Why have only two of the eleven original members of the Western Climate Initiative implemented a cap-and-trade system? This article compares the implementation of cap-and-trade in California and Quebec versus in New Mexico and British Columbia. Ideas around the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the legitimacy of cap-and-trade created favorable context in three jurisdictions, although institutions condition the expression of these ideas in the policy-making process. Since parliamentary institutions concentrate power, elite consensus is more important in Canada, while in the United States public opinion plays a more significant role. However, ideational factors shaped by political institutions do not explain differences in cap-and-trade implementation. Growth in shale gas production, welcomed in British Columbia and New Mexico but resisted by Quebec and marginal in California, further explain different outcomes. Ideas, mediated by institutions, are the necessary prerequisites for action, while material factors influence policy instrument choice.</abstract><cop>One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA</cop><pub>MIT Press</pub><doi>10.1162/GLEP_a_00311</doi><tpages>25</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-3800 |
ispartof | Global environmental politics, 2015-08, Vol.15 (3), p.49-73 |
issn | 1526-3800 1536-0091 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1752993267 |
source | PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Business Source Complete; Political Science Complete; MIT Press Journals |
subjects | British Columbia California Canada Climate Elite Emissions Trading Global warming Implementation Jurisdiction New Mexico Production Public opinion Quebec Quebec (province) United States |
title | Comparative Politics of Sub-Federal Cap-and-Trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A42%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Politics%20of%20Sub-Federal%20Cap-and-Trade:%20Implementing%20the%20Western%20Climate%20Initiative&rft.jtitle=Global%20environmental%20politics&rft.au=Houle,%20David&rft.date=2015-08-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=73&rft.pages=49-73&rft.issn=1526-3800&rft.eissn=1536-0091&rft_id=info:doi/10.1162/GLEP_a_00311&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1752993267%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1722163857&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |