This lesson is structured to make you think about the interconnected nature of energy policy and climate policy.
During the Trump Administration, the United States lost virtually all momentum behind meaningful national climate policy. Efforts to meet targets associated with the Paris Agreement were halted with our intent and then formal withdrawal from the compact. The Clean Power Plan was replaced with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule [1]. These are just a few of the larger examples of efforts to undo work set in motion by the Obama Administration to help us meet our Paris Agreement targets. But that's in the past, and the Biden Administration is now working to try to get us back on track. We've rejoined the Paris Agreement, and the IIJA and the IRA both have hefty climate-friendly provisions. But I still want to take a minute to talk about the Clean Power Plan.
When considering the relative merits and challenges of addressing climate at the local scale, one issue that often comes up a lot as a benefit of local action is the ability to tailor the plans to the specific geographic, economic, and other circumstances of a location. But one of the challenges with thiis is that effectiveness may partially depend on support from higher levels of government. To some (myself included), the Clean Power Plan was the best of both worlds - it was national in scope, but allowed states the flexibility to craft their own paths forward to meet its targets. And while it's not active right now, I think we can use this as a model for how we can think about crafting large scale climate policy that is both effective (reaching large swaths of emissions generating activities) and flexible.
Here is a short clip put out by the Obama White House explaining the Clean Power Plan. However, if you're like me and want more detail, I recommend checking out the Press Conference [2] (just under 30 minutes) from when President Obama announced the plan. While it might not seem immediately relevant given it's currently defunct, it still represents a fundamental shift in the way climate policy is crafted, creating a national umbrella with flexibility for states to meet requirements tailored to their own economic and environmental realities. In time, we may see something like this reemerge.
By the end of this Lesson, you will have a greater understanding of:
This lesson will take us one week to complete. Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific assignments, time frames 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.
These two are inextricably linked as we move forward. We cannot address the challenges associated with reducing human-induced climate change without taking a good, long look at our energy policies and the resources on which we depend so heavily. So much of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are tied directly to energy extraction, production, and consumption - as you can see in the image below, nearly 75% - therefore, any efforts to reduce these emissions will necessarily have very real consequences for all facets of the energy industry.
In effect, climate policy IS energy policy.
What are the goals of climate policy? While many countries (and other levels of government) are still trying to figure out what an effective climate policy really means for them, we can broadly explore some of the goals of instituting climate policies, recognizing that no one policy can be all things to all people.
Generally, we can sort climate policy objectives into the following two categories:
Addressing climate change has always been a two-fold challenge and will continue to be one. In order to avoid more severe consequences of change in the future, we must look for ways to mitigate our emissions now and moving forward. But mitigation efforts alone are not enough, because the emissions we've already released will inevitably impact the climate and because we are already seeing climate change impacts that we must react to. Adaptation policy is often more complex and less easily quantifiable than mitigation policy, but it's important to understand that together they represent a comprehensive approach to addressing global climate change.
Over the past several decades, there have been various legislative attempts to combat climate change at the federal level, with varying degrees of success. Here is an excellent summary [9] (required reading!) from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. You'll see on that summary that several attempts at carbon pricing (mostly through cap and trade) emerged with bipartisan support.
The list stops short of the Clean Power Plan (also 2015), which in many ways was a turning point in US federal climate policy as the first ever energy policy designed specifically to reduce carbon emissions and was done so to position the US for the then-upcoming Paris climate negotiation talks. While we could devote an entire semester (or doctoral dissertation! or career!) to an analysis and discussion of the merits, drawbacks, and politics of climate legislation in the United States, we need to condense it into part of just one lesson in our course. If you find yourself really interested in this material and would like to know more, feel free to explore the links on your own and/or post to the class discussion board.
The Paris Agreement [10] reached in December 2015 built upon the existing momentum that finally, the US is taking climate change more seriously. But what took so long?
Read "Federal Government Activity on Climate Change [11]" from Ballotpedia (you can start at "Policy History (1992 - 2009). This is a few years old now, but provides a valuable perspective on the then-current state of affairs related to attempts to institute federal action on climate change, including bonus coverage of Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that gave the EPA the power to regulate carbon dioxide. And remember, to understand the future of climate policy, we need to know how we got to where we are now.
The Economy....from late 2007 through mid 2009, the United States experienced an economic downturn and recession unparalleled in scope and severity since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Triggered largely by risky lending and the securitization of mortgages, coupled by increases in commodity prices like food and oil, thes "Great Recession" and substantial job loss made it quite a difficult proposition for elected officials to support climate policies perceived (to some extent, correctly so) to increase energy prices.
The Politics...every facet of tackling climate change is politically charged. As we saw last lesson, many people question the validity of the science that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are influencing our climate system. Others worry that climate policy will affect end users of energy more than energy producers. Still others are concerned that until the fast-growing, developing countries of China and India commit to reducing their unchecked emissions, the United States will put itself at a global competitive disadvantage for manufacturing goods (conveniently ignoring that the U.S. emitted GHGs unchecked for hundreds of years to establish itself as a global superpower). Climate policy is an issue with so much at stake - for everyone - that tensions run high and fears are plentiful. It isn't the goal of this class to draw political lines in the sand - instead, you need to understand the motivations of all sides and how the vested interest of various parties influences the decisions that are made about this issue.
This is a list (certainly not exhaustive) of some of the major attempts at climate legislation in the House and Senate over the past several years. While somewhat redundant with the C2ES list linked above, I include it here mostly for the summaries of these various pieces of legislation. I encourage you, as you're working on your research projects, to seek out summaries from credible, non-partisan think tanks. They can be quite helpful!
The Process...In case you are not familiar with how a bill becomes law, here [12]is a good summary from USA.gov, and here [13]is a more detailed explanation - including videos that provide a step-by-step explanation of the process - from the U.S. Congress.
Of course, the process is almost never this straightforward, as things such as "horse trading" (I'll support your bill if you support mine, I'll support your bill if you publicly state this or that, etc.) and political posturing have resulted in this process often being referred to as "sausage making" after the famous quote: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." Whether Otto von Bismarck said it or not [14], the quote and characterization are still used to this day.
Components |
---|
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (2010) [15]
|
Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan (S.3464) (2010) [17]
|
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) (2009) [15]
Pew Center Summary of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act [19] |
American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACES) [20]
|
The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462) [22]
Pew Center Summary of American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 [23] |
The Clean Power Plan (2015) [24]
|
Climate Equity Act of 2020 (H.R. 8019) [26]
|
H.Res.319 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal [28]
|
As we've discussed earlier, climate policy is energy policy - and often actions we can implement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are cost-saving and carry additional ancillary benefits. It's no surprise, then, that in the absence of a federal climate policy, smaller scale bodies of government are working hard to address these challenges in their own regions, states, and localities.
We find ourselves at a tumultuous point in US climate policy history. Retreating from the commitments of the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreements and renewed investment in the fossil fuel industry puts us at odds with what the scientific community understands about climate change and the actions we must take to address it. As you can imagine, in the years (decades, really) prior to 2015, the very noticeable absence of federal leadership on this problem created a void smaller geographic scales just couldn't ignore. The next several pages of this lesson will take you through the climate policy efforts which emerged at a variety of sub-national geographic scales and introduce you to new ones growing out of the stalled progress we've seen in the past several years with federal climate policy until the Biden Administration took over. Now, these efforts are to a large extent supported by federal initiatives, and so it will be interesting to see what kind of progress can be made while the IRA and IIJA rubber starts hitting the road. As the Rhodium Group notes [31], the IRA should "provide a decade of policy certainty" supporting emissions reductions and a change in the energy industry, which has never happened before.
As you read through these pages, think about the advantages and disadvantages to tackling these problems at different geographic scales (geography matters!). Greenhouse gas emissions are a unique environmental problem, in that, while emissions are localized and certainly the impacts of climate change are localized, the problem is global. Think about this - most GHG emissions come from the industrialized and rapidly developing parts of the world, the US, China, India. But that doesn't mean these are the countries most adversely affected by a changing climate (take a look at which places are most vulnerable [32]). Rather, some of the most disproportionately affected countries are unindustrialized, low-lying island nations and coastal regions. So, emissions reductions in a given area don't always correlate to reducing that same location's vulnerability to climate change. Quite frankly, our comfortable western lifestyles run up a carbon tab that folks in Bangladesh or Vanuatu (or any other number of places) must pay.
Addressing climate and energy challenges at smaller scales of government offer a degree of flexibility in the strategies implemented to solve the problems which are best suited to a particular place in a way that a blanket federal approach would fail to accommodate. It affords policy makers the opportunity to explicitly tailor plans to the economic, social, and environmental factors and incorporate these place-based nuances into their decision-making process. However, the piece by piece approach also leaves room for inconsistency, and for leakage of emissions from more stringently regulated states to those which are more lax, and may fail to spur innovation across all states. This was really what was so innovative (and smart) about the Clean Power Plan's design; it was structured to strategically have the best of both worlds - a federal program with national targets which allows states to choose their own pathways to meeting reduction goals.
As you go through the various sub-national scales of climate action, think about where you live and what action, if any, your region, state, or municipality has taken. Do you live in an active region? Or, is there a lot of work to do? Maybe that's work you will want to do when you graduate!
Despite the federal government's ability to enact comprehensive climate legislation to mandate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (the IRA should lead to emissions reductions, but to not mandate it), much of the United States is moving forward to address climate change.
There are 3 Regional Programs committed to greenhouse gas reduction which together represent 23 states and 4 Canadian provinces, and account for half the US population and more than a third of US greenhouse gas emissions.
These programs represent a widespread interest in mandatory greenhouse gas reduction across the country. As you look at the participating states and provinces, you'll see a wide diversity of politics, resource consumption, economies, and environmental concerns. Their willingness to address climate issues represents not only an acknowledgment of the problem, but also an acceptance of the challenge of solving the problems while juggling economic and political considerations. Because the states are all so varied, addressing climate change at this sub-national scale represents an opportunity for the states to tailor their programs specifically to their assets and handicaps.
1. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI [35])
RGGI was the first (and currently the only) mandatory cap and trade system for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. It covers power plant emissions in 12 Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic states. It originally called for a 10% reduction in those emissions by 2018 and now have a goal of 30% below 2020 levels by 2030 in covered power sector emissions (any 25 MW or greater poewr plant).
Emission allowances are auctioned off, and the proceeds are re-invested in energy efficiency, clean energy technologies, and other related programs.
We can look at the RGGI program as a pilot program for national cap and trade - either economy-wide or just of the utility sector.
2. The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA [36])
The Accord is comprised of 6 states and 1 Canadian province (and 3 observer states and 1 observer Canadian province). Members are charged to formally commit to greenhouse gas emission reductions, set regional targets for reductions, and establish a multi-sector cap and trade system to reach their goals.
3. The Western Climate Initiative (WCI [37])
There are 7 states and 4 Canadian provinces participating in the WCI along with 4 Canadian provinces, 6 US states, and 6 Mexican states signed on as observers. The WCI has committed to reducing their regional greenhouse gas emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and will do so by implementing a market-based cap and trade system, similar to the future plans of the Accord and the existing RGGI program. The notable difference between WCI and RGGI is that WCI is a non-profit that provides technical assistance. Each state designs its own program. Whereas RGGI is a coalition of states that trades with each other and is managed by RGGI.
Many states across the country have drafted, adopted, and implemented climate action plans. Some states have done this as part of their commitment to regional initiatives. In addition to making the progress we need now to address the climate crisis, these state level efforts might just spur federal action, too.
How does state climate action take shape? In many cases, state-level policy makers and stakeholders enlist the assistance of external groups to help them determine an appropriate list of actions and policies the state could adopt, to achieve climate goals. Often this process begins with an inventory of the state's greenhouse gas emissions across sectors, and then the adoption of reduction targets. It's quite similar to how actions arise at larger scales. Groups such as the Center for Climate Strategies [38] come in and meet with relevant state stakeholders to scope inventories and devise strategies for emissions reduction and cost savings.
When the Trump Administration came into power and started the procedure to eventually withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement and dismantled the Clean Power Plan, states took notice [39]. Many had already been preparing for the coming Clean Power Plan requirements, and therefore weren't going to suddenly backtrack on those investments simply because the federal political winds had changed. States are often better at seeing the ancillary economic and environmental benefits, are moving forward as if the plan were still in place. In Pennsylvania, Governor Wolf signed an executive order [40] in January 2019 to address climate change and conserve energy, and eventually signed an Executive Order joining RGGI in 2022.
What is your state doing? There are several websites providing information about state-level climate planning across the country. Find out if your state has a climate action plan!
While we tend to think of climate change as a global problem, the solutions are often highly localized in nature. Therefore, it makes sense that local governments take action to reduce emissions and develop sustainable energy solutions. To an even larger extent than state governments, local scale climate change mitigation efforts offer supreme flexibility for creating solutions tailored specifically to local circumstance. Whether it's an old coal mining town in the northeast hoping to revitalize its economy with newer energy technologies or a farm town in the Midwest seeking additional revenue sources for its small-scale agricultural producers, local action empowers people because they are able to feel more connected to what is happening.
And the story of local action has never been more important than it is right now. Early local action efforts rose out of dissatisfaction with the US decision not to actively participate in the Kyoto Protocol almost 20 years ago now. Local municipalities and states filled the void left by a lack of federal leadership on climate change. During the Obama presidency, that void filled in a bit with hallmark achievements, including the Clean Power Plan and the ratification of the Paris Agreement. Then U.S. again found itself lacking federal leadership on climate action during the Trump Administration and states, municipalities, and private businesses all recognizing that there's simply no time to waste are stepping up to fill the void again. And of course, federal support is a reality again with the Biden Administration. This umnfortunate game of political football has on the one hand stunted aggressive national policies but on the other hand has motivated states and localities to take their own inititiatives.
What about your community? What's going on there? If not, maybe it's time for you to change that! You could start by revieweing some of the resources above, which provide a wealth of suggestions and models, as well as best practices. It only takes one person to get something going, especially at the local level!
While climate change has not historically been a politically divisive issue until recent years, the fiercely partisan divide as it currently exists makes garnering the support necessary for meaningful change very challenging.
Despite Congressional stalemates to produce meaningful, broadly-scoped legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions, President Obama utilized executive authority to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act based on the landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling that categorizes carbon dioxide as a threat to human health. In doing so, he directed the EPA to establish rules for both new coal-fired power plants [49], and perhaps more controversially, for existing coal-fired power plants [50] (in what became known as the Clean Power Plan). The former was viewed by environmentalists as a bit of a lame duck policy, since you could argue that in 2014, it seems silly to be building ANY new coal-fired power plants. But to regulate the 600+ existing facilities in the country - this could have wide-reaching implications for not only emissions themselves, but also how we as a nation view and value the carbon cost of our energy generation.
The Trump Administration rolled back the Clean Power Plan and implemented the Affordable Clean Energy Plan [51], which significantly neutered the original legislation. This afforded states more authority to choose to regulate (or not regulate) the emissions from their power plants, citing executive overreach of the Clean Power Plan's structure. As we know, the main federal climate policy since then is the Inflation Reduction Act, though the Infrastructure Investment Act also addresses emissions.
It depends on where you are.
This NY Times summary [52] provides an excellent overview (and these great maps!) of what the rollback (and eventual repeal) would really mean. Remember, a lot of actions were already set into motion before the Trump Administration rolled back the requirements. So for some states, moving forward regardless of the current political winds just makes good economic sense based on recent investments.
You can learn more about the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [54]that lays out the specifics for regulation under the Clean Air Act, as well as a brief history timeline [55]of this action. EPA went on to structure the proposed rules to afford states the flexibility to meet their emission standards through the employment of a cap and trade system or carbon tax. And while these efforts would have certainly been smaller in reach than an economy-wide system, because these stationary sources are such a big part of the emissions profile, the potential GHG reductions are profound.
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions offers this list [56] (required) of ways in which Congress can work to achieve GHG emissions reductions without necessarily explicitly crafting climate policy.
This C-SPAN video [57] is from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing at the time of the Supreme Court Endangerment finding in 2007. That finding opened the door for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, resulting in the Clean Power Plan proposed rules mentioned above. It's two hours long and quite old now, but it might be something you're interested to have playing in the background while you work on something else - this is footage of our lawmakers in action. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), might be one of the most vocal climate change deniers in the entire Congress, so that keeps things interesting. And if you remember, he then chaired this committee in the Senate.
In this lesson, we've learned about climate and energy policy at all scales of government, from local municipalities to intergovernmental panels. Climate change is unlike many other environmental challenges, in that it is a global issue. So, while we can all work separately to achieve reductions in greenhouse gases locally, we can't fully address the problem without global cooperation.
Global cooperation on anything is a challenge in itself. Integrating the disparate interests, intentions, and abilities of all the world's nations and finding a path forward is daunting to even consider. As the Kyoto Protocol experience illustrated, we really need to all be in this together. Will climate change be the ultimate tragedy of the commons? Will some countries recognize the economic potential of developing large-scale renewable energy technologies and out-compete us on the global stage? Will the US rise to the challenge of addressing climate change while managing a weak economy and public misunderstanding of the issue? These are not questions we can answer easily in one lesson or one course. But these will be the types of questions you may find yourself working on as an ESP graduate or any field that deals with climate/energy policy.
Each year since 1995 the UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties (COP) gathers to discuss a global response to climate change - both in terms of mitigating future climate change through emissions reductions and adapting to the change we're already committed to experiencing thanks to present and past emissions. (COP 1 was in Berlin, Germany in 1995.) For many years, it seemed that the venue was the only thing that really changed at the annual climate talks. Until Paris.
At the COP 21 in Paris in late 2015, participating countries signed a landmark agreement to contain global average temperature warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (with an ultimate goal of keeping it much closer to 1.5 degrees). Unlike the framework used to develop the Kyoto commitments 20 years ago, one of the most important developments which led to the success of getting 195 countries in agreement in Paris was to focus less on this developed vs. developing country designation for responsibility for reducing emissions. Instead, many of the largest emitting developing countries (like China and India) have come together to acknowledge the role they, too, must play in reducing global emissions. The agreement acknowledges that developed countries must take the lead in reducing emissions, but it does not absolve developing countries of setting and meeting targets. You can read the entirety of the Paris Agreement [58] on the UNFCCC website. And while the Trump Administration withdrew the US from the Agreement, the rest of the world marched boldly on - recognizing the gravity and urgency of the climate crisis we collectively face - until the Biden Administration entered the U.S. back in on his first day in office, 20 January 2021. Until the Biden Admiinstration signed on, the US was the only country to not be party to the Agreement, after the other remaining holdouts - Nicaragua and Syria - had signed on a few years prior.
One of the important outcomes of COP 27 was the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, which "allocates money to assist low and middle-income countries respond to climate disasters" according to Reuturs [60]. There was also some movement on limiting or eliminating the use of coal. Reuters provides a good summary here [60].
Some important agreements were made in Glasgow in 2020. This includes the Glasgow Pact, which - though not containing any binding requirements - recognizes the importance of immediate and sustained action in a number of ways, including providing funding for mitigation and adapation, as well as moving away from fossil fuels. See a summary of agreements and deficiencies here [61], from the UN.
COP 26 in Madrid, Spain was a mixed bag of successes and failures to reach agreement. See a summary from Carbon Brief here [62].
Learn more about the outcomes [63] of the COP meeting in December 2018. Despite the US plans to withdrawal formally from the Paris Agreement, the rest of the world remains committed to achieving the Paris Agreement goals.
Lima set the stage for the success of the Paris talks. The Lima Call for Climate Action [64] laid the foundation for the idea that the agreements reached in Paris would be binding for both developed and developing countries. Nothing agreed upon in Lima really had any strong enforcement behind it, it was merely a stepping stone for what was expected to come in Paris the following year.
Participants have agreed to stay on track to adopt a new 'universal climate agreement' in 2015 which will be implemented no later than 2020. In preparation for this, countries have been instructed to begin working on logistics at home in advance of the next COP in Peru so that everything will be set by 2015 in Paris. Another big outcome of this meeting was the decision to increase funding for vulnerable countries experiencing damages and hardships from severe weather events and rising sea levels.
Like many of the meetings before it, a primary point of debate for this series of talks is the developing and developed country classifications for the purpose of emission reduction and adaption funding responsibility. Near the end of the meeting, participating countries did finally adopt the agenda of the Durban Platform.
The most significant development to come out of this Conference of Parties was the Durban Platform [68]. For the first time in global climate negotiations, this document sets for binding targets for all parties. This is a significant deviation from earlier agreements and incremental progress that has focused primarily on the developed/developing country divide.
This meeting followed the disappointments of the 2009 Copenhagen meeting as member countries left without making any real, solid progress on post-Kyoto plans for global reductions in emissions. The hopes for Copenhagen had been high - the US had a sitting president (Obama) who expressed interest in the importance of climate legislation, and had the Congressional backing to do so. But, the high hopes of Copenhagen were eventually met with disappointment, as that meeting failed to produce a binding climate deal. (Read about what went wrong at Copenhagen [69]). Therefore, expectations going into the Cancun negotiations were much more measured and conservative. This means that they did not tackle some of the broad, contentious issues that have held up previous meetings, but instead focused on some important, more narrowly defined issues.
Some outcomes of the Cancun Climate Negotiations include:
This week's reading assignments attempt to tackle this challenge of which geographic scale is best for addressing climate change in the United States. Be mindful of the particular strengths of local scale action since we'll be undertaking that as part of our group project. But, also be thinking about its shortcomings and how that should inform the eventual recommendations you'll make to your municipalities.
*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 [70].
In this lesson, we've explored the connection between energy policy and climate policy. Climate change mitigation is a relatively new consideration for energy policy, but the ancillary benefits from enacting policies to curb anthropogenic climate change often overlap with goals of modern energy policy like improved efficiency, decreased dependence on foreign oil, air quality improvement, and job creation. I've tried to introduce the idea of scale of governance as a key factor in climate policy considerations, as it will factor particularly predominantly in this SP 2020 offering of the course with our local scale climate action planning project. We'll get into a bit more detail later this semester, primarily through assigned readings, but this lesson was intended to give you an overview of the interconnected nature of climate and energy and get you thinking about scale. Geography matters!
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.
Links
[1] https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/affordable-clean-energy-rule#:~:text=The%20ACE%20rule%20establishes%20emission,under%20section%20111(d).
[2] https://youtu.be/Pe0N2uydr5Y
[3] https://www.youtube.com/obamawhitehouse
[4] https://www.youtube.com/embed/uYXyYFzP4Lc
[5] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
[6] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog432/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog432/files/Global-GHG-Emissions-by-sector-based-on-WRI-2020.xlsx
[7] http://www.nber.org/papers/w15022
[8] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.578.7463&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[9] https://www.c2es.org/content/congress-climate-history/
[10] http://www.c2es.org/international/paris-agreement
[11] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_government_activity_on_climate_change
[12] https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made
[13] https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process
[14] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/making-law-sausage-and-legal-bills
[15] https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/1733
[16] http://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/kerry-lieberman-american-power-act
[17] https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/3464
[18] http://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/lugar-practical-energy-climate-plan
[19] https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation-library/united-states/national/us---pew-climate-center---c2es-reports/Pew-Center.-2010.-CEJAP-Act-vs-Clear-Act.pdf
[20] https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2454
[21] http://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/acesa
[22] https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/1462
[23] http://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/summary-american-clean-energy-leadership-act
[24] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/23/2015-22842/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating
[25] https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18684054/climate-change-clean-power-plan-repeal-affordable-emissions
[26] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8019
[27] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8019/all-info
[28] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/319
[29] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hres109/text
[30] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/319/committees
[31] https://rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-reduction-act/
[32] https://www.cgdev.org/publication/dataset-vulnerability-climate-change
[33] https://www.wri.org/data/us-regional-cap-and-trade-programs
[34] https://www.wri.org/
[35] https://www.rggi.org/
[36] http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/regional-climate-initiatives/mggra
[37] https://wci-inc.org//
[38] http://www.climatestrategies.us/
[39] http://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/state-reactions-to-trump-repealing-the-clean-power-plan.html
[40] https://www.governor.pa.gov/executive-order-2019-01-commonwealth-leadership-in-addressing-climate-change-and-promoting-energy-conservation-and-sustainable-governance/
[41] https://www.c2es.org/document/climate-action-plans/
[42] https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/statelocalclimate_.html
[43] https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local-climate-action-framework-step-step-implementation-guide_.html
[44] https://www.wearestillin.com/us-action-climate-change-irreversible
[45] https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/
[46] https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-climate-and-energy-program
[47] http://www.iclei.org/
[48] http://usdn.org/public/page/5/About
[49] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/08/2013-28668/standards-of-performance-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-stationary-sources-electric-utility
[50] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating
[51] https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/proposal-affordable-clean-energy-ace-rule
[52] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/10/climate/clean-power-plan-emissions-your-state.html
[53] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/10/climate/clean-power-plan-emissions-your-state.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=CDAB3F4ED903F01E9227CB504DCDE84F&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL
[54] https://www.epa.gov/nsr/clean-air-act-permitting-greenhouse-gases
[55] http://www.c2es.org/publications/sequence-events-leading-regulation-greenhouse-gases-through-epa
[56] https://www.c2es.org/content/congress-and-climate-change/
[57] http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?197772-1/epa-regulation-greenhouse-gases
[58] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
[59] https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/07/535002-un-chief-invites-leaders-fast-track-ratification-paris-climate-deal
[60] https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/cop-27-political-progress-transformative-climate-actions-remain-elusive-2022-12-20/
[61] https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26
[62] https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop25-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-madrid/
[63] http://sdg.iisd.org/news/katowice-climate-change-conference-delivers-outcome-to-facilitate-implementation-of-paris-agreement/
[64] http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf
[65] https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/15744968050
[66] https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/
[67] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
[68] http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_durbanplatform.pdf
[69] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8426835.stm
[70] https://esp.e-education.psu.edu/