Swanson 1

Theo Swanson

Mr. McCall

APP 1

15 December 2019

Federalism and the Climate Crisis

The state of our environment is currently entering crisis mode. Temperatures are

expected to rise more, weather is getting more extreme, droughts are lasting longer and flood and

hurricane frequency has increased exponentially (“The Effects of Climate Change”). Climate

change is now a universally-recognized problem in almost all major countries, and the fight to

reverse these harmful effects has begun. However, America has been noticeably opposed to the

dramatic changes outlined by the recent U.N. climate assessment and has even pulled out, with

great resistance, of the Paris agreement (Pompeo). Seeing these events, it is easy to believe that

the unpopular actions of the U.S. federal government are unable to be changed without sweeping

reforms at the national level. Being almost any other country, this would be the case, but one

unique aspect of U.S. politics offers another option. This is, of course, the idea of federalism, and

I believe that that utilizing its concepts to change climate legislation will help guide the

environmental future of the U.S. in the right direction.

Federalism is perhaps the most important system of thought in the U.S. government, and,

In the simplest terms, is a system where power is divided among a central government and

smaller, local governments. In the United States, this means that there are multiple levels of

governance: the National, State, and Local governments. While there are expressed powers given

to each, there are many responsibilities that may overlap or contradict each other on each level.
 Swanson 2

Federalism works in countries like the United States because of its large and diverse nature.

Looking at the state of the U.S, it is impossible to gauge its stance and actions regarding climate

change without looking at all levels of government including state, local, and national, and action

on all levels is the only way to make true progress.

First, one can look at the national government’s policy. Many criticize its actions and

inactions in response to the current climate crisis. One example is the Trump Administration’s

move to centralize U.S. climate policy. Under the name ​Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient

Vehicles Rule, or SAFE Vehicles Rule, it aims to lower carbon emissions by targeting fuel

standards of cars and light trucks (Environmental Protection Agency). Another facet of this

policy is that it will revoke California and other state’s abilities to set their own carbon emission

standards (Environmental Protection Agency). Creating a strictly central policy does streamline

environmental regulations, as well as creates a larger sphere of influence for the policies put in

place. However, many Americans are critical of the comparatively lax federal policy that the

federal government is trying to implement.

One such critic of U.S. environmental policy is Thomas L. Friedman, a Pulitzer-Prize

winning author and foreign affairs columnist for the ​New York Times. ​In his book ​Hot, Flat, and

Crowded,​ he discusses the perceived lack of national focus following the shift in foreign policy

of post-9/11 America (Freidman). Friedman argues that not only is implementing green energy

necessary for the survival of mankind, it will be the new source of national power and unity.

Interestingly enough, he equates this theoretical shift to a complete, national

implementation of renewable energy, or ‘code green’, similar to the nature of Cold War-era

America, in which the entire country was (primarily) united in ideology and goals (Freidman). In
 Swanson 3

the book, Freidman also discusses the ideas of perceived scarcity and overpopulation, along with

the growing global middle class. Specifically, he discusses his projections of the next global

industrial age, which he believes to be based on the green energy market, as well as the

underlying flaws in America and China’s outdated energy industries (Freidman).

Looking at this, it is clear that there is a big push for more environmental action on the

federal level. While it’s true that action in the United States government will push our country in

the right direction, that would neglect the workings of the other part of the Federalist system. In

recent months, many state-level governments have begun implementing their own climate

change policies to fit national and international standards. In addition to the previously discussed

topics regarding California and Washington, more states have been electing pro-climate senators

(McMahon). After the latest midterms, states including Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and

Nevada, New Mexico, and New York implemented new carbon reduction strategies in their

states (McMahon).

Additionally, a great number of states are still in support of the Paris Agreement,

regardless of the federal government’s choice to back out. The “We Are Still In” movement is

one such example. This organization is made up of ten states as well as countless businesses and

other organizations (“Who’s In”). Although the federal government has not changed to fit the

standards specified by the Paris Agreement, these states are working individually to make this

goal. Although it will take more than just ten states to meet the international standards, this

sentiment among states means that there is still hope for the environmental future of the United

States.
 Swanson 4

This is a perfect example of federalist ideas in action. Because of the divided power

between the state and federal governments, states are able to create policy to fit their own needs.

As stated before, though, this aspect of federalism proves to complicate climate change policy

when trying to work on a larger scale. Additionally, the divided nature of U.S. politics creates

conflicts at every level.

An example of this conflict comes in response of the Trump administration’s moves to

control carbon emissions. In the wake of the SAFE Vehicles Act, the State of Washington is

filing a lawsuit on the grounds that the U.S. government is obstructing their ability to protect

their state from pollution by pursuing a zero-emissions policy (​"Inslee and AG Ferguson

statement on Trump administration attacking states ability to regulate vehicle emissions."). ​What

one sees here is a conflict of federal and state power, as well as indecision on what actions will

benefit the people more. With the trend of centralization and national policy seen at the

beginning of the twentieth century, problems such as the climate crisis are seen as an issue to be

solved at the national level. However, the White House has faced criticism on behalf of their

moves to control states’ ability to combat carbon emissions congruent with their relatively lax

environmental policy.

The workings and decisions of the federal, combined with the legislation in state-level

government generally reflect the needs of the people and country. That being said, an interesting

aspect of the climate argument and action are the decisions being made outside of the

government. According to the 4th National Climate Assessment, which surveys both the effects

and projections of climate change as well as individual efforts to mitigate them, most states have

at least 5-12 actions working to mitigate these effects (Sullivan). The Climate Assessment also
 Swanson 5

looks at various organizations outside of the government. In addition to the 10 states, countless

towns, businesses, and universities are joining the aforementioned “We Are Still In” movement

(“Who’s In?”).

Moreover, these actions aren't just occurring in the United States. According to the

Washington Post, more than 20 multinational corporations voiced their support at the U.N

Climate Summit, and made commitments to use one-hundred percent renewable energy for their

electricity (Mufson). Among these were retail store Target, German Company Deutsche

Telekom, Japanese department store Takashimaya, and Australia and New Zealand Banking

Group (Mufson). Obviously, changes won’t be enough to completely mitigate the existing effects

of climate change, but it shows corporate support for the standards set by the U.N, which, in

some cases, may be more influential on the average person that governmental policy.

The projections set by these businesses are heartening for the future of climate policy,

and are leading many to believe that change must start on a smaller scale before being set by a

government. Earlier this year, Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute stated,

“In many cases, the private sector and subnational actors are moving faster than national

governments” (Mufson). This idea rings true both in America and abroad, and offers a slightly

different view regarding the nature of change in governmental policy and action. While many

believe that change must start with sweeping reforms at the national level, as well as a

resurgence of nationally-minded political focus, the recent developments in individual,

corporate, and state-wide action bring into play the influence of independent policy on every

level. Each state and region has different economic characteristics as well as a different scope of

influence in the environmental issues that they can mitigate. Allowing each to set policy to best
 Swanson 6

fit their needs is at the root of federalist philosophy, and it may offer a solution to the current

political gridlock in the U.S. government.

The current climate crisis is an increasing problem in every part of the world, and, if

projections are correct, will inflict irreversible damage on our climate in the next decade (“The

Effects of Climate Change”. While it has been proven that this issue can be fixed by eliminating

our carbon footprint and decreasing pollution, the true issue lies in the politics and regulations

that must be put in place to make these ideas a reality. The current state of the U.S. government,

with corruption, division, identity politics running rampant, as well as the vast divide between

Americans, make for a complete lack of progress on the national level. However, federalism, one

of the core ideals the American political philosophy, relies on a balance between the national

government and state governments. In order to begin fixing this problem, both aspects of

federalism must work, creating a more focused national policy while allowing states to create

regulations that best fit the nature of their economies. Only then will we as a people begin to fix

the mistakes of the past, and lead a more balanced and environmentally healthy future.
 Swanson 7

Works Cited

Brady, Jeff. “Trump Administration Escalates Battle Over Environmental Regulations

With California.” ​NPR,​ NPR, 24 Sept. 2019,

www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763876070/trump-administration-escalates-battle-over-en

vironmental-regulations-with-califo.

“The Effects of Climate Change.” Edited by Holly Shaftel, ​NASA,​ NASA, 30 Sept. 2019,

climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Trump Administration Announces One National

Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards.” ​EPA,​

Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Sept. 2019,

www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announces-one-national-program

-rule-federal-preemption-state-fuel​.

Friedman, Thomas L. ​Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and

How It Can Renew America​. Picador/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009.

Hafstead, Marc. “How State-Level Action on Carbon Emissions Stacks Up.” ​Resources for

the Future,​ 2018,

www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/how-state-level-action-on-carbon-emiss

ions-stacks-up/​.
 Swanson 8

"Inslee and AG Ferguson statement on Trump administration attacking states ability to

regulate vehicle emissions." ​US Official News,​ 19 Sept. 2019. ​Gale OneFile: News​,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A600197096/STND?u=lom_interlcfa&sid=STND&

xid=9c563cfc. Accessed 14 Dec. 2019.

McMahon, Jeff. “Midterm Results: Climate and Energy Score Brilliant Wins And Stunning

Losses In The States.” ​Forbes,​ Forbes Magazine, 7 Nov. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/11/07/midterm-results-climate-and-energ

y-score-brilliant-wins-and-stunning-losses-in-the-states/#316db4b6306b.

Mufson, Steven. “Some Corporations Step up Climate Action as Government Policies

Stall.” ​The Washington Post​, WP Company, 27 Sept. 2019,

www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/09/24/some-corporations-ste

p-up-climate-action-government-policies-stall/.

“The Paris Agreement.” ​UNFCCC,​ United Nations,

unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.

Pompeo, Michael R. “On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement - United States

Department of State.” ​U.S. Department of State,​ U.S. Department of State, 2019,

www.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/.

“State Carbon Pricing Network - Climate-XChange.” ​Climate,​ Climate XChange,

climate-xchange.org/network/.
 Swanson 9

Sullivan, Cody. “National Climate Assessment: States and Cities Are Already Reducing

Carbon Emissions to Save Lives and Dollars: NOAA Climate.gov.” ​National

Climate Assessment: States and Cities Are Already Reducing Carbon Emissions to

Save Lives and Dollars | NOAA Climate.gov​, 5 Feb. 2019,

www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/national-climate-assessment-state

s-and-cities-are-already-reducing.

“Who's In.” ​We Are Still In​, www.wearestillin.com/signatories.

Swanson 10