It is a long-held belief among scholars and practitioners that the State of California is a notable subnational leader in environmental and climate change policy. This article focuses primarily on four essential contextual factors that explain why and how within the United States’ federal system of government California has become such an important leader, performing far in excess of the national government and most other states. These essential factors are preferences, authority, capacity, and effectiveness. The article then moves to the multifaceted implementation strategy California policy makers have employed to realize their environmental goals. Finally, despite the history of strong leadership, the state continues to face a host of significant challenges in realizing its ambitious climate change goals for the coming decades.
AlvarezR. A.Zavala-AraizaD.LyonD. R.AllenD. T.BarkleyZ. R.BrandtA. R., … HamburgS. P. (2018).
Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain.Science,
361(6398), 186–188.
Bromley-TrujilloR.ButlerJ. S.PoeJ.DavisW. (2016).
The spreading of innovation: State adoptions of energy and climate change policy.Review of Policy Research,
33(5), 544–565.
California Strategic Growth Council. (2018). Transformative climate communities: Community-led transformation for a sustainable California. Retrieved from http://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
19.
CarleyS. (2011).
The era of state energy policy innovation: A review of policy instruments.Policy Studies,
28(3), 265–294.
20.
CarlsonA. (2012).
Regulatory capacity and state environmental leadership: California’s climate policy.Fordham Environmental Law Review,
24(1), 63–86.
CullenwardD. (2014).
How California’s carbon market actually works.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
70(5), 35–44.
23.
ErbT. S. (2018). California cap and trade: A case study in environmental pluralism (Senior thesis in the Public Policy Analysis Program). Pomona College, Claremont, CA.
24.
HanemannW. M. (2007, March). How California came to pass AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Working Paper No. 1040). Berkeley, CA: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1vb0j4d6
JacobsC.KellyW. J. (2008). Smogtown: The lung burning history of pollution in Los Angeles.
New York, NY:
The Overlook Press.
30.
KarapinR. (2016). Political opportunities for climate policy: California, New York, and the Federal Government.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
MawhorterS.MartinA.GalanteC. J. (2018, July). California’s SB 375 and the pursuit of sustainable and affordable development (Working Paper). Berkeley, CA: Terner Center, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/SB375_July_2018_Final.pdf
34.
MazmanianD. (1992). Toward a new energy paradigm. In KirlinJ. (Ed.), California policy choices (Vol. 8
, pp. 203–215).
Los Angeles, CA:
University of Southern California.
35.
MazmanianD. (2015, November 5–7). The political economy of California’s decarbonization strategy and prospects for national and international replication. Paper presented at the Tsinghua-Hertie-Price Energy Transition Forum, Beijing, China.
36.
MazmanianD.NelsonH.JurewitzJ. (2013). Climate change. In E. Rarik (Ed.), Governing California: Politics, government, and public policy in the Golden State (3rd ed., pp. 405–423). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
Mazmanian, D., Jurewitz, J., & Nelson, H. (2008). When a Sub-National State Actor Confronts a Global Challenge: California Setting the Pace and Tone of U.S. Climate Change Policy. Journal of Environment and Development, 17(4), 401--423.
NEXT 10. (2018b). Decade of data charts California’s emissions reductions amidst one of the longest expansions in state history. Retrieved from https://next10.org/2018-gii
PeeveyM. R.WittenbergD. O. (2017). California goes green: A roadmap to climate leadership. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
