On the Politics of a U.S. Federal Carbon Price: Evidence from Three North American Case Studies” Cambridge Journal of Science and Policy (2020)
To limit catastrophic damages associated with global warming in excess of 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been unambiguous in its calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions” in land-use, energy and industrial systems. However, perceived asymmetry between the significant up-front costs and relatively abstruse, delayed benefits of climate change mitigation creates particular challenges for the political favorability of policies to reduce greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions. As a result, carbon pricing mechanisms overwhelmingly endorsed by economists across the ideological spectrum have been, with a few notable exceptions, resoundingly rejected by legislators and political constituencies. Assessment of partisan, policy design, public opinion, and interest group pressures counteracting momentum for carbon pricing is critical in the deployment of a politically durable climate change agenda. This policy-focused communication assesses these dimensions through the examination of three case studies initially discussed by Barry G. Rabe in “Can WePrice Carbon?” (MIT Press, 2018)—British Columbia’s carbon tax, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast United States, and California’s cap-and-trade system for GHGs. Drawing on lessons from case studies and applying political theories to develop Rabe’s analysis, this work synthesizes guiding principles to comment on the feasibility of a U.S. federal carbon tax within the next five years.
To access this article, please visit the following link.
