T. M. CALE, M. A. REAMS
are related to adoption of GHG reduction targets. In other
words states with more industrial manufacturing activity that
results in higher levels of toxic emissions are not any less likely
to develop GHG reduction targets.
Question 5: Are those states that have lower levels of toxic
releases, and also share a border with a state with GHG reduc-
tion targets, more likely to adopt GHG reduction targets? Yes,
the interaction or combination of lower TRI emissions and the
presence of a border state with a GHG a reduction target pro-
gram, was found to be significantly associated with adoption of
reduction targets. States with low levels of toxic emissions may
be influenced by the GHG reduction actions of neighboring
states. This finding offers some evidence of a “race to the top”
influence among states with lower levels of toxic emissions
from regulated manufacturing industries.
Question 6: Are states with higher levels of political contri-
butions from environmental and alternative energy interest
groups more likely to adopt GHG reduction targets? and,
Question 7: Are states with higher levels of contributions to
state legislators from traditional energy interest groups less
likely to adopt GHG reduction targets?
Neither environmental interest group contributions, nor en-
ergy interest group contributions had a significant effect on
state adoption of GHG targets. One explanation for this finding
is that lobbyists for traditional oil and gas enterprises and those
representing alternative energy companies, may be engaged in
issues other than whether a state adopts GHG reduction targets.
Also, these interest groups’ positions on GHG reduction efforts
may not be as polarized as the general view of average citizens
concerning climate change. Finally, while setting GHG reduc-
tion targets may be viewed as a first step in addressing climate
change, these programs may not introduce onerous measures
that would be resisted by oil and gas energy interests at this
time. In fact “no regrets” policies and actions, such as those that
require or encourage greater energy efficiency, can introduce
benefits in addition to reduced GHG levels, and may enjoy
more widespread support among various interest groups. Addi-
tional information about the stringency of state climate change
mitigation programs will be needed to examine this question
more fully.
Conclusion
This examination of states’ adoption of GHG reduction tar-
gets yielded insights into the conditions under which states are
more likely to take action to address climate change. In light of
the polarization of public attitudes and opinions concerning the
causes and consequences of global climate change, we were
particularly interested in the extent to which political ideology
may be affecting state actions.
The results of the logistic regression analysis suggest that the
most important factor in explaining variation in GHG reduction
target adoption is whether the state is located next to a state
whose officials have adopted a similar program. This finding
supports the “horizontal diffusion” of state actions to reduce
GHG’s. Also, those states with relatively low levels of toxic
pollution, and also are in close proximity to another state with
GHG reduction targets, are more likely to implement similar
efforts, providing evidence of a possible “race to the top” in-
fluence at work.
Certainly, the influence of political ideology is confirmed by
the finding that those states with more liberal voters and citi-
zens are much more likely to have set specific targets for reduc-
tions in GHG’s. This suggests that the polarization among the
public concerning climate change may be affecting the choices
made by state officials as to whether to engage in climate
change mitigation efforts.
In future studies it would be useful to examine the specific
GHG reduction targets adopted by the states, especially any
incentives that may be offered to encourage GHG reductions. In
addition, considering whether a state is a member of a regional
climate change alliance like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Ini-
tiative in New England, and the Western Climate Initiative,
may be useful. Also, the inclusion of variables related to fossil
fuel energy production and consumption, as well as alternative
energy production and consumption may be relevant in under-
standing why some states engage in efforts to reduce GHG’s
and others do not. In addition, a look at the degree to which
neighboring states with similar climate policies may also have
similar ideological orientations may yield additional insight
into policy diffusion across states. Finally, close examinations
of leader and laggard states, through case studies, would help to
shed more light on specific contextual factors affecting adop-
tion of climate change policies.
States have an important role to play in devising policies to
address climate change, both in terms of mitigation strategies to
reduce GHG’s entering the Earth’s atmosphere, and in helping
communities to adapt to some of the consequences of a warm-
ing planet, such as planning for extreme weather events. This
analysis provides insight into some of the influences at work as
state policymakers grapple with whether and how to address
climate change, with little direct guidance from the federal go-
vernment. As a result the findings are relevant to theorists and
state policy makers with an interest in climate planning, and for
researchers attempting to estimate future greenhouse gas reduc-
tion scenarios.
REFERENCES
Adger, W. N. (2009). Commentary. Environment and Planning A, 42,
2800-2805. doi:10.1068/a42244
Berry, F., & Berry, W. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innova-
tion: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review,
84, 395-415. doi:10.2307/1963526
Berry, W., & Baybeck, B. (2005). Using geographic information sys-
tems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Re-
view, 99, 505-519. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051841
Berry, W., Ringquist, E., Fording, R., & Hanson, R. (1998). Measuring
citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-1993.
American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327-348.
doi:10.2307/2991759
Erickson, R., Wright, G., & McIver, J. (1993). Statehouse democracy:
Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Fredriksson, P. G., & Millimet, D. (2002). Strategic interaction and the
determination of environmental policy across US states. Journal of
Urban Economics, 51, 101-122. doi:10.1006/juec.2001.2239
Gray, V. (1973). Innovations in the States: A diffusion study. American
Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1191. doi:10.2307/1956539
Gray, V. (1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In L.
C. Dodd, & L. C. C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American
politics (pp. 230-248). Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly
Press.
Gray, V., & Hanson, R. (2008). Politics in the American states: A com-
parative analysis (9th ed.). Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly
Press.
IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
42