FORGING A PATH AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH THE STATES: A CASE STUDY OF OPTIMAL POLICY ROUTES FOR STATE ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

For decades, scientists have warned about the toll humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels for energy and transportation is having on our planet’s climate, yet the U.S. federal government has been unable to enact a comprehensive climate change policy. In this void, there are a growing number of states considering or are already taking their own actions on climate change despite facing many of the same barriers encountered at the federal level, including the politicization of climate change. While there has been much scholarship on why these states choose to take these actions, there is little about what might be the best policy route for the states to pursue them. This thesis examines three case studies of policy routes used by the different states: a cap-and-trade program in California passed by the state legislature, a ballot initiative to add an amendment to Michigan's constitution to raise its state renewable energy requirements, and the regulatory cooperation between California and the federal government on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for new vehicles. Reviewing the policy under consideration itself, how it benefits the climate, why and how the state sought this particular action, the policy route through which it was pursued, the deliberation over that policy, and the end result, this thesis recommends that unless there are numerous factors that support taking action on climate change – including political climate, sufficient public education, and a sustained, deliberative process prior to pursuing such a policy – states should focus their efforts on regulatory actions that allow for public involvement but is deliberative and insular enough that only those who are well-versed on the topic and passionate about getting involved in it are part of the actual deliberations. Professors Lisa Jaeger and Paul Weinstein served as readers for this thesis