Mellacheruvu 1

Pranav Mellacheruvu

Professor Malone

English 131

19 August 2015

Political Factors Influencing Modern-Day Climate Change Legislation

Climate change is an undeniable and potentially worrying global phenomenon. It is a

result of complex changes in atmospheric and oceanic composition due to the gradual increase in

emissions of greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases create a greenhouse effect wherein

some solar radiation hits the surface of the Earth and is then trapped in the atmosphere by this

layer of gases. Thereby, similar to the way in which the panes of glass in a greenhouse trap

warmth and moisture, the Earth becomes warmer and warmer with increased solar radiation

accumulation. The United States began addressing this climate change problem on the national

level in 1963 when it passed the Clean Air Act. Since then, the United States government has

passed a plethora of climate change laws in an effort to combat climate change. But what are the

various factors that influence the passage of this legislation? Increased political gridlock

nationally and globally stagnates almost all climate change legislation that is introduced in

congressional subcommittees. Furthermore, the American people do not perceive climate change

to be an immediate threat and, thereby, popular support for climate change has decreased of late.

This paper will discuss the ways in which these two main factors have negatively influenced the

passage of climate change legislation in the United States, and will suggest that, until we are able

to find ways to resolve one or both of these issues, such legislation will remain inadequate at

best.
 Mellacheruvu 2

The majority of papers and literature on the subject of climate change have focused upon

statistical trends which implicate global warming due to increased emission of greenhouse gases.

But the second most popular subtopic regarding climate change in these articles and studies has

been legislation. Most papers on climate change legislation explore the ways in which legislation

is being addressed on the global level. The sources addressed throughout this paper primarily

discuss the national politics behind climate change legislation, specifically. This paper will

attempt to draw upon observations and facts from academic and non-academic literature about

both global politics and U.S. national politics in order to address factors contributing to a general

decrease in climate change legislation specifically in the United States. The sources have also

been compiled such that potential avenues of political bias have been largely eliminated so as to

support a completely objective approach whilst discussing recent downward trends in climate

change legislation in the United States.

Political stagnation is an issue of paramount concern when it comes to legislation.

Extreme coalitions, both on the left with the Green Party, and the right with the Tea Party, are

small yet vociferous. The Green Party advocates rapid and radical reform to prevent climate

change whereas the Tea Party questions whether or not the United States needs to take measures

to prevent climate change. The Tea Party general stance on climate change is encapsulated by

Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots who remarks that, this so-called

climate science is just ridiculousI think its all cyclical (Davenport). In stark contrast, Penny

Kemp, a spokesperson for the Green Party argues that, we need to dramatically change our

behavior (towards climate change) and commit to larger projects to reduce it (Davenport). Such

disparate views on climate change have been polarizing Congress to such an extent that

legislation regarding climate change has reached an all-time low. A study from the London
 Mellacheruvu 3

School of Economics and Political Science includes a Climate Laws Institutions and Measures

(CLIM) Index. This quantitative index measures how much climate change legislation has been

passed by all the countries part of the United Nations since 1990. According to the CLIM Index,

climate change legislation in the United States has been steadily dropping since 2010

(Neumayer). This date roughly coincides with the time at which the Tea Party was formulated.

Thereby, one may easily suggest a correlation between the Tea Party formation and the

subsequent reduction in climate change legislation passed by Congress. Political gridlock has

been a major component of the recent reduction in climate change legislation in the United

States. But such gridlock has not been a new phenomenon.

Prior to our present day, climate change legislation was also under the influence of the

countrys respective political situation at the time. For example, early in the Bush

administration and largely republican-dominated Congress, the Kyoto Protocol was not accepted

by the United States (Frankel). The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that was signed in

1997, during the democratic Clinton administration, that required countries to reduce their

greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush claimed that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

would induce severe economic setbacks especially because, at the time, the United States was at

war in Afghanistan. Once again, there is a clear correlation here between the color of Congress

and Congress stance on climate change legislation. When Congress turns a democratic blue,

there is increased climate change legislation, whereas when Congress turns a republican red,

climate change legislation decreases.

Another point to consider is why some countries have more ambitious climate change

policies as opposed to others. Climate policy is formulated according to a two-level system. The

upper level is one in which the worlds governments interaction strategically, each seeking to
 Mellacheruvu 4

benefit from global climate regime while reducing their costs (Neumayer). For example, many

countries participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). In the UNFCCC, representatives from countries vouch for different pieces of

climate change legislation based on how they will potentially benefit or harm their countrys

respective economies. For example, lobbyists from China advocate for less stringent regulations

on mass industrialization and coal usage (Bortscheller). This is because Chinas economy is in a

phase of heavy industrialization and Chinese legislators would like to protect their countrys

economic interests whilst remaining a part of the UNFCCC. Conversely, representatives from

Germany have been key adversaries of promoting climate change legislation. Germany has a

growing market for alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy. Thereby, it advocates for

more clean energy legislation. Thus, a countrys internal economic tendencies can mold its

stance on climate change and subsequently affect the amount of climate change policy that is

passed on the global level.

The lower level of climate policy operates on the domestic level. Different countries have

different legislative systems. For example, the United States touts a two-party system whereas in

many European countries there are multi-party systems. But the number of institutional veto

players, or number of legislators who influence the passage of legislation varies between

different governments (Guardian). Countries in which governmental decisions are predicated

upon a small set of legislators or by a single party ruling, the stance on climate change tends to

be much more defined. An example of such a political scenario may be found in China. On the

other hand, European countries like Germany have multi-party systems in which more voices are

heard, and, as a result of these multiple voices, the countrys overall stance on climate change is

less defined. In the United States, the two party system requires a simple majority of votes in
 Mellacheruvu 5

Congress to pass legislation. Since there are a multitude of governmental systems that exist

across the world the challenge is that even if legislation is proposed at the UNFCCC level,

representatives from certain countries may down vote the legislation because their respective

lawmaking bodies may not agree with the legislation. The Bush administration rescinding the

Kyoto Protocol is a good example of the manner in which domestic politics have an impact on

the global level as well. Political gridlock exists on two levels, national and global, thus making

it all the more difficult to pass climate change legislation in the United States.

Although climate change is considered a major problem globally, in the United States

climate change legislation takes a backseat when compared to other national crises. According to

polls conducted by Northwestern University, the majority of Americans believe that climate

change and global warming exist, but that they should be given less priority on the voter docket

because there are more pressing legislative matters to attend to (Osofsky). Some of these

matters include the addressing the ever-increasing national deficit, high rates of unemployment,

and healthcare benefits for everyday Americans. Furthermore, many Americans believe climate

change is something that can be addressed in the future (Osofsky), which is why there has

been a decrease in local petitions, pleas and movements for climate change legislation. On the

whole, grassroots campaigns and social movements are decreasing across the United States. This

trend can perhaps be traced back to the idea that Americans are concerned about issues that affect

them more immediately, as as opposed to issues that can affect them in the future. Just as a

college student procrastinates on writing a paper until just before the due date, the American

people are in a state of procrastination; they believe climate change is not a problem until it

really becomes a problem. Yet, because of this trend of decreased grassroots campaigns, district

representatives and senators have been proposing less legislation through the congressional
 Mellacheruvu 6

subcommittees (Osofsky). Since the majority of constituents in the respective districts of

lawmakers have been less vociferous about climate change and have instead expressed concern

about other legislative concerns, climate change legislation has taken a back seat in American

politics.

Climate change legislation has been decreasing in the United States due to political

gridlock and lack of popular support. Whether this is a worrying trend or just a temporary

phenomenon given the current political climate is the question. However, climate change is a

disturbing phenomenon and the sooner we address it on a national level the better. Of course

other legislative issues such as addressing the deficit are important, but the longer we, as

Americans, neglect acting upon climate change, the less progress we can make in addressing this

very real problem.

 Mellacheruvu 7

Works Cited

Bortscheller, Mary J. Equitable But Ineffective: How The Principle Of Common But

Differentiated Responsibilities Hobbles The Global Fight Against Climate Change.

American University Sustainable Development Law & Policy. Spring 2010, 49-53, 65-68.

Print.

Davenport, Coral. "Political Rifts Slow U.S. Effort on Climate Laws." The New York Times. The

New York Times, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 July 2015.

Frankel, Jeffrey. "Global Environmental Policy and Global Trade Policy." Harvard Project on

International Climate Agreements (2008). Print.

Neumayer, Eric. "Political Economy of Climate Change Policy in the Transition

Region." Corruption and Climate Change Policies: Do the Bad Old Days

Matter? London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2014. 58-70. Print.

Osofsky, Hari. "Climate Change Legislation in Context." Northwestern University Law

Review. 102: 245-52. Print.