In this lesson, you'll learn about the processes and actions that instigate policy formation. We'll also take a look at the interests and actors who work to stifle policy development. We'll look at the roles of many sectors of society in driving policy development and change including elected officials, corporations, the scientific community, activists, markets, lobbyists, and many others. We'll also take a look at how the development (or lack thereof) of energy policy is driving the development of many organizations around the world.
By the end of the Lesson, you should be able to:
This lesson will take us one week to complete. You are responsible for this lesson content, external assigned readings, and lesson activities. Please refer to Canvas for deliverables and due dates.
If you have questions, please feel free to post them to the "Have a question about the lesson?" discussion forum in Canvas. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses if you, too, are able to help a classmate.
To understand what drives policy development, we need to think about the geographic scales of influence on any given body which may develop and implement policy. A useful framework for this is to think about vertical and horizontal policy diffusion.
Both types of policy diffusion are critical to addressing the global climate challenges we face. Think back to the Clean Power Plan - while inherently a federal policy, it offered states wide-ranging flexibility in how they'd set and meet their targets, including the opportunity to collaborate regionally. This illustrates both vertical and horizontal policy diffusion. The Paris Agreement is another example - it's an international agreement with nationally determined contributions that very likely would require integration at the state and local scales as well. But what if one level of governance isn't as active as others? That's a bit of what we were seeing during the Trump Administration. While the federal government in the U.S. wasn't actively seeking to address climate change through federal policy measures, states, municipalities, and businesses were continuing to work in this space and were learning from what their counterparts were doing - a strong example of horizontal diffusion.
One common way that policies are actively diffused is through publishing best practices, case studies, and other resources. Not only can you save time by modifying an existing policy instead of creating it from scratch, but you can also evaluate the effectiveness of the policy where it was originally applied. See e.g. the Resource Library [2] for the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy [3], which is one of the organization identified in Lesson 5. The Horizontal and Vertical Reinforcement in Global Climate Governance article is a good read if you're interested in understanding this better.
Who is writing our climate policy? It depends heavily on the scale of governance. For this discussion, we'll focus primarily on federal level energy policy - but keep in mind that similar networks exist at other scales. Let's take a look at the roles these groups play and how they work together.
Our elected officials provide the voice for legislation as it works its way through its designated approval process. Here, we could be talking about a township adopting a resolution or state or federal representatives proposing a bill.
Special interest groups are coalitions of people and organizations banded together by common beliefs on policy decisions. Working together, these groups have the power to inform and influence policy decisions through correspondences with legislators and their staff. While we often think only of the negative side of special interest groups, they do also serve an important role in keeping policymakers informed.
Our elected officials vote on legislation and have influence over issues the govern all aspects of society, including health care, education, military strategy, financial reform, agriculture, climate change, energy policy and all the other topics in between. They could not possibly be versed enough in all of these issues to enable them to make informed decisions about what policies are the most beneficial or efficient. It's simply too much to ask that our politicians somehow be expert in all issues. Instead, they rely on groups of experts to provide them with the information they need to make an informed and justified decision on policy design.
For example, the company I used to work for, Environmental Credit Corp., was a member of 2 coalitions related to climate policy, focusing exclusively on the use of domestic and international offsets to meet reduction goals in a cap and trade or other regulatory system for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As the developer of offset projects across the US, it was important to ECC (and to many other members in those groups) to educate elected officials about the benefits of offset use - both in terms of keeping costs of compliance low in early years of a program and in achieving tangible, real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
What we need to be mindful of when it comes to special interest groups is the financial power they often have over our elected officials. Large groups and corporations often provide significant campaign donations and often use that power to try to influence policymakers to prioritize their interests over the interests of the general public.
The scientific community has an important role to play in the development of policy, epecially with issues related to energy and the environment. Many scientists directly inform the president, mostly through the Office of Science and Technology Policy [4]. The president also has an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology [5], a cabinet-level position that provides science-base adivise on any number of matters. Scientists and researchers are also called on to testify at congressional hearings related to energy bills. For environmental and energy challenges, legislators usually rely on the scientific community to provide them the basis for which legislation must exist. At the local level, scientists still often provide an important voice to the validity of proposed measures.
With regard to energy policy specifically, here are just a few of the issues on which the scientific community provides their expert opinions to policymakers:
Believe it or not, as a voter, your voice matters! Last week, we looked specifically at the role citizens play in climate policy decisions. It's important not only that you stay informed about the issues affecting your life, but that you voice your preferences for policies about them to your elected officials. Politicians want to stay in office, and that means keeping their constituents happy. Be a proactive and engaged citizen. Let your leadership know that you're paying attention.
It is exceedingly rare to have perfect circumstances under which to develop and pass policy. It's important to recognize that policy development must fit within larger agendas, and sometimes seemingly unrelated issues can make it difficult to pass even a popular policy. Let's take a look at some of the threats to policy change and think about how they relate specifically to energy policy.
Sometimes it's not about finding agreement that something should or should not be done, but how it should be done that causes problems. Energy policy is a perfect example of this. On both sides of the aisle, politicians agree that revamping domestic energy policy is a worthwhile venture, agreeing most about the national security benefits of reducing US dependence on foreign oil. However, there is clear disagreement about how to achieve that goal, with Democrats generally more interested in renewable energy but Republicans tend to promote domestic fossil fuel exctraction. Interest groups' influence often weigh heavily in these decisions - especially at the federal level, less so at the local level - though constituents can also be influential. This is particularly true with energy and climate policy, as there are many interest groups that get involved, some of which are quite influential and well-funded (e.g. fossil fuel companies and individuals who make money from the fossil fuel industry). It is also not uncommon for one policy to be "held up" until an agreement is made on a separate policy (aka "horsetrading").
Inertia is a powerful force in politics. While all sides might agree that a current practice isn't the best or most efficient, a known inefficiency is often less daunting than the unknown or possible negative impact, and nothing changes. Economic impacts are an especially potent consideration in energy politics in this regard. Addressing energy challenges often involves internalizing the cost of environmental degradation associated with traditional fuel sources, which increase prices in the short term, and lawmakers and citizens alike approach the idea of increasing costs for energy with great trepidation. (This is why subsidies and other incentives are common in pro-renewable policy.) While this is true irrespective of the broader economic context, it is particularly difficult to justify during times of economic hardship. After the financial crisis in 2008, many lawmakers backed away from the ideas of a clean energy overhaul for the country or a price on carbon. With the economy crippled and Americans struggling to combat rising unemployment and decreasing home values, clean energy legislation was perceived as a luxury we could simply not afford, despite its macroscale cost savings over time.
But does it have to be that way? After the economy recovered (for some), many energy and climate policy advocates focused more on the economic benefits of adopting less carbon-intensive energy policies. Job growth in the design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance of these technologies as well as lowered energy costs due to enhanced efficiency became the lead talking points in the conversations for the advancement of clean energy policy. These were certainly themes before the economic downturn, but now represent a more pressing concern for Americans. One prominent example of this is the Inflation Reduction Act, for which the name speaks for itself. Even though it is as much a climate bill as an inflation reduction bill, it is (justifiably) couched in the language of economic and employment benefits, since they have a broader bipartisan appeal.
Uncertainty is a characteristic of climate change impacts which comes up frequently. While scientists understand the anthropogenic forcing of the climate and can anticipate the types of responses the physical environment may exhibit, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when and where a climate change impact will be felt and how severe it will be. This uncertainty surrounding the issue provides an opportunity for people and groups opposed to climate and energy reform to suggest the issue is not immediately pressing. Consider this: uncertainty over policy outcomes leads to more reactive -instead of proactive - policies, which are typically more expensive and less effective at addressing the problem. For climate change specifically, this is particularly problematic because despite the uncertainty about some of the specifics, it is quite possible that if we're 'wrong' it is because we've underestimated [6]the possible impacts and severity. And this seems like a good time to (re)share my favorite cartoon encapsulating our efforts to enact climate policy at all scales of governance:
We've spent a lot of time this semester discussing the role of all scales of government in developing energy policy. But it should be clear by now that they aren't the only players. Industry plays a huge part in shaping policy of all kinds, and energy is certainly no exception. Let's take some time to explore the advantages and disadvantages associated with having industry involved with the development of energy policy. Collectively, we'll refer to anyone spending money to influence energy policy as the energy lobby.
The primary players in the energy policymaking process are the energy companies themselves. Individually and working in coalitions together, energy companies spend a lot of money developing and presenting their thoughts and positions on energy legislation to Congress.
Below are links to some energy lobbying groups if you're interested in learning more about who participates and what they do.
What does it really mean to be part of the energy lobby? It means working directly and indirectly with the nation's lawmakers in Washington to inform and influence the content and scope of legislation. This can take on many forms, from donating to campaign funds [13] for candidates who support favorable policies to preparing brief documents to be distributed to committee members, to working with congressional staffers, to actually drafting language to be included in the text of legislative bills.
They have a lot at stake. In the case of energy policy, specifically, we are talking about billions of dollars, national security, and international relations. A commonly used metaphor for energy companies and their participation in energy policy (even policies that limit emissions or impose other restrictions) is that companies would rather be at the table than on the menu. If they are able to help inform the development of policy, they are more likely to ensure that the policies eventually adopted have less negative (or more positive) consequences for them, and it helps policy makers understand how policies will affect their businesses.
It's not rocket science - public policy, for better or worse, can have significant impacts on individual companies and entire industries. Lobbying can and does influence these policies, so lobbying is seen as an investment that can provide returns.
Recall that as previously noted, legislators cannot be expected to be experts on energy, education, health care, homeland security, the environment, and any other number of issues that are impacted by their policy decisions. Instead, politicians rely on experts in the field to provide them with accurate, complete information as they try to navigate policy alternatives and options. Experts such as private industry executives, scientists, environmentalists and many others participate in this process. They play an important role in educating legislators and allowing them to focus on passing policies (and getting re-elected).
Of course, no action taken by any individual or company is done in a vacuum. Everyone has motives and goals, and sometimes these do not align with policy development goals. For example, if Congress considers decreasing a subsidy to oil companies, citing recent profits as a demonstration that the subsidy is no longer needed, lobbyists from oil companies will likely lobby against it. There is also the risk of "regulatory capture," which is when corporate (or rarely, other than corporate) interests have such an outsized influence on a regulatory agency that the agency creates regulations that favor the outside interest instead of achieving the agency mission. This has more to do with the application of policy, but is a consideration for lawmakers when crafting a bill as well. It is such a widespread problem that Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a federal bill [14] to prevent it in 2011. (It never made it out of committee, unsurprisingly.) There are also organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council [15] (ALEC), a libertarian (and anti-renewable) non-profit that exists primarly to write legislation that they would like adopted word-for-word by legislators at all level of government, to varying degrees of success.
All of this speaks to why it is important for legislators to seek the advice and input of many diverse interests as they develop polices. Simply letting the companies and organizations with the loudest voices (which translates to the deepest pockets) have the final say in how policies are structured does not result in beneficial or effective policy — energy or otherwise.
In this lesson, we've talked about the factors influencing the development and change of energy and climate policy.
Hopefully this content has you thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of industry's involvement in the development of policy. Without their expertise and insight, it might be difficult to construct policies that are realistic, feasible, and achieve the desired results. The other side of that coin, however, is that industry stakeholders bring to the table their own agendas and motives, many of which are (understandably) self-serving, not altruistic. So, where and how we draw the line on industry's policy influence is a real challenge.
I like to think of energy and climate policy formation in terms of the image shown above (taken by my husband, on a trip to the Big Island of Hawaii). When lava oozes from a volcano, and blankets out across the landscape with no regard for what was there before, it covers everything in a crunchy, challenging, and rocky landscape. I feel like this is where we were starting a few years ago in terms of addressing our energy and climate challenges. The federal political environment, much like this lava field, seemed totally inhospitable and wholly incompatible with our climate goals. But, despite that seemingly impenetrable layer of political stalemate, some positive possibilities have found their way, just like these ferns have found a way (are those vertically diffusing ferns?!?). You can think of the IRA, and to a lesser extent the IIJA as the little fronds poking through the desolation. (Hopefully they continue to grow then spread across the entire field until the lava is completely concealed!) We've also seen how inaction on the lava-covered national stage hasn't stopped smaller-scale efforts from sprouting up. I wanted to end the lesson on a hopeful note, recognizing that very quickly these topics can seem a bit hopeless or too big to address. So - chin up! There are so many folks just like you who are working hard to make sure the ferns of climate policy are able to sprout and thrive.
You have reached the end of the Lesson! Double-check the Lesson Requirements in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the tasks listed there.
Nemet et al. (2016) explore the pitfalls of our historically shortsighted policy responses to energy crises and proposes a different model for approaching our energy challenges which are so longitudinal in scale and scope while Rashidi et al. (2018) try to identify what role network membership has on local scale climate action.
Points to Consider While Reading
*Students who register for this Penn State course gain access to assignments, all readings, and instructor feedback, and earn academic credit. Information about registering for this Penn State course is available through the ESP Program Office [16].
Activity | Details |
---|---|
Assignment |
This week's reading assignment proposes a relatively bold new way of thinking about how we handle our biggest policy challenges. After reading the lesson content and the article for this week, form an educated opinion about this concept of countercyclical policy. Decide whether you think it represents a more efficient approach to problems or whether you have serious reservations about it. There is no right or wrong answer. The key to successful completion of this activity lies in the following: your ability to discuss our historical and current political process in juxtaposition to Nemet et. al's countercyclical discussion and ground your opinion in supported documentation. Beyond this, contextualize the policy you're reviewing for your Research Project and speculate whether the challenges it addresses could be better served with this different approach. |
Requirements, Submission Instructions, and Grading | For more detailed instructions about the lesson activities in this course, including how you will be graded, please visit the Lesson Activity [17] page. |
Links
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/6/5782/pdf
[2] https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/resource-library/
[3] https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/
[4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/directors-office/
[6] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/12/what-uncertainties-remain-in-climate-science/
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/
[8] http://www.eei.org/Pages/default.aspx
[9] http://www.api.org/
[10] https://www.aga.org/
[11] http://www.naesco.org/
[12] https://www.seia.org/
[13] https://www.opensecrets.org/races
[14] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1338
[15] https://alec.org/
[16] https://esp.e-education.psu.edu/
[17] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog432/node/269