Geographic Variation in U.S. Climate Change Opinion at State and Local Scales

Author(s):  
Peter D Howe ◽  
Matto Mildenberger ◽  
Jennifer R. Marlon ◽  
Anthony Leiserowitz
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 596-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Howe ◽  
Matto Mildenberger ◽  
Jennifer R. Marlon ◽  
Anthony Leiserowitz

Author(s):  
Priya Sreedharan ◽  
Alan H. Sanstad ◽  
Joe Bryson

Energy “sustainability” and energy supply have again emerged as central public policy issues and are at the intersection of the economic, environmental, and security challenges facing the nation and the world. The goal of significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with energy production and consumption, while maintaining affordable and reliable energy supplies, is one of the most important issues. Among the strategies for achieving this goal, increasing the efficiency of energy consumption in buildings is being emphasized to a degree not seen since the 1970s. “End-use” efficiency is the core of the State of California’s landmark effort to reduce its GHG emissions, of other state and local climate-change initiatives, and is emphasized in emerging federal GHG abatement legislation. Both economic and engineering methods are used to analyze energy efficiency, but the two paradigms provide different perspectives on the market and technological factors that affect the diffusion of energy efficiency. These disparate perspectives influence what is considered the appropriate role and design of public policy for leveraging not just efficient end-use technology, but other sustainable energy technologies. We review the two approaches and their current roles in the GHG policy process by describing, for illustrative purposes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of energy efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Discussion Draft. We highlight opportunities and needs for improved coordination between the engineering, economic and policy communities. Our view is that a better understanding of disciplinary differences and complementarities in perspectives and analytical methods between these communities will benefit the climate change policy process.


Eos ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Showstack

Governors, mayors, citizen groups, and others are moving ahead with regional and smaller-scale efforts to counteract climate change in the wake of the U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-188
Author(s):  
Annie Doubleday ◽  
Nicole A. Errett ◽  
Kristie L. Ebi ◽  
Jeremy J. Hess

Objectives. To develop a set of indicators to guide and monitor climate change adaptation in US state and local health departments. Methods. We performed a narrative review of literature on indicators of climate change adaptation and public health service capacity, mapped the findings onto activities grouped by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ten Essential Services, and drafted potential indicators to discuss with practitioners. We then refined the indicators after key informant interviews with 17 health department officials in the US Pacific Northwest in fall 2018. Results. Informants identified a need for clarity regarding state and local public health’s role in climate change adaptation, integration of adaptation into existing programs, and strengthening of communication, partnerships, and response capacity to increase resilience. We propose a set of climate change indicators applicable for state and local health departments. Conclusions. With additional context-specific refinement, the proposed indicators can aid agencies in tracking adaptation efforts. The generalizability, robustness, and relevance of the proposed indicators should be explored in other settings with a broader set of stakeholders.


Oecologia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 155 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Pape Møller

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangbai He

AbstractTo successfully respond to climate change impacts, it is imperative that governments structure adaptation laws and policies around their country’s existing legal framework. The United States (US), China, and Australia have all made adaptation attempts through legislative, executive, and judicial action. However, because the systems of law and governance of the three countries differ, the ways in which adaptation issues are managed vary. State and local adaptation planning functions as the leading adaptation pathway in the US, whereas in Australia judicial intervention is more influential than executive action. By contrast, China relies primarily on policy to manage adaptation issues. This article argues that the differences in adaptation responses are the result of a complex combination of factors, which include climate politics and awareness of adaptation, the status of environmental principles, and the role of the judiciary. This analysis helps in identifying the opportunities and barriers associated with different adaptation solutions, and also contributes to cross-jurisdictional learning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document