Energy Policy and Climate Policy

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, generally speaking, climate policy IS energy policy. In reality, it gets a bit more complicated in that each has its own drivers and there are times when one does not have a compatible effect on the other.  For example, energy policy decisions to ensure adequate petroleum supply may not align well with climate goals.  Alternatively, climate change reducing goals may impact energy security, accessibility, and reliability considerations.

Emissions by Sector in the U.S., 2016. Credit: Our World in Data, 2023. Download the Global GHG Emissions Excel sheet to access the raw data and click on the image for a larger version of the visualization.

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. Further compounding the issue is that natural climate change, which has been part of the Earth’s history since day one, is also still happening which further influences challenges.  And since we cannot control this geological, natural pattern, the more we can do to address the human component, the better we will be.

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 (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 at 2020 and does not capture actions during the Biden term and the early Trump second term. 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 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 with increases in commodity prices like food and oil, the "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 (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, USA.GOV provides a resource titled How Laws are Made, which is a good starting point. Congress.gov also provides a more detailed resource titled The Legislative Process: Overview, which includes 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, the quote and characterization are still used to this day.

Furthermore, the process is dynamic, with things changing from year to year.  Sometimes it is driven by changing presidential administrations and sometimes by changes in the balance of Congress. The table below shows some examples of climate legislation efforts, but the list becomes outdated almost as soon as it is created, so consider this more of a historical demonstration than an all-inclusive list.

The role of government is often a contentious issue in policy development. Views on the role of government represent one of the fundamental defining characteristics of how people align themselves politically. While Republican-leaning individuals and companies tend to emphasize a minimal role for government (particularly the federal government), Democratic-leaning individuals often place more stock in the ability of government-led programs to be successful and cost-effective. This course isn't about deciding whether one of those views is right or wrong - there are valid elements in each approach. What we hope you take away from this material is first, that there is a role for our government in the context of energy policy. Given that governments are at a minimum charged with helping to protect the welfare of their citizens, energy and climate change are essential considerations and require some government involvement, even if it is just oversight. Second, regardless of how much of a role you think they should play, the government is involved, and so it is important for us to understand how they impact policy development, implementation, and enforcement.

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 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 that smaller geographic scales just couldn't ignore. The next several pages of this lesson will take you through the climate policy efforts that emerged at a variety of sub-national geographic scales and introduce you to new ones growing out of the intervals of stalled progress we've seen in the past several years with federal climate policy.

Addressing climate and energy challenges at smaller scales of government offers 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 piecemeal approach also leaves room for inconsistency and for leakage of emissions from more stringently regulated states to those that are more lax, and it 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 that 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!

Without national climate policy, regional efforts sprout up

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 does 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. This too is often in flux as to specific players and actions, and we suggest these sources a great places to get up-to-date information.

US State Carbon Pricing Policies

Carbon Pricing Dashboard

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.

State Participants in Regional Greenhouse Gas Programs Around the United States

Click Here for Text alternative to regional greenhouse gas programs image

Regional Greenhouse Gas Programs

Program	Participant(s)
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and TCI	Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania (new as of 2022 via Executive Order by Governor Wolf)
Midwest GHG Reduction Accord	Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas
MGGRA Observer	Ohio, Indiana, South Dakota
Western Climate Initiative	Washington, Montana, Oregon, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico
Western Climate Initiative Observer	Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska

Credit: U.S. Regional Cap-and-Trade Programs. World Resources Institute (WRI). January 15, 2009

Many states across the country have drafted, adopted, and implemented state-level 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 organizations and consultants 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 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 office and started the procedure to eventually withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement and dismantled the Clean Power Plan, states took notice.  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 in January 2019 to address climate change and conserve energy, and eventually signed an Executive Order joining RGGI in 2022.  RGGI was controversial in the largely conservative state legislature, though and in November 2025, Governor Shapiro agreed to repeal legislation facilitating Pennsylvania's participation in the regional program in part to resolve a budget impasse.  Governor Shapiro hoped that taking RGGI off the table would lead to renewed dialogue in clean energy policy at the state level, but that has yet to materialize.  

• If you're interested, you can read more from the Natural Resources Defense Council about the PA RGGI Repeal.

Local Governments Solving A Global Problem

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 more than 20 years ago. Local municipalities and states filled the void left by a lack of federal leadership on climate change. During the Obama presidency, that void was filled in a bit with hallmark achievements, including the Clean Power Plan and the ratification of the Paris Agreement. Then the U.S. again found itself with an alternative approach on climate action during the Trump Administration, and states, municipalities, and private businesses all recognized the best path forward for continuity was to take their own action.

• Notably, the We Are Still In campaign is a pledge of American businesses, non-profits, universities, and municipalities who remained committed to achieving the reductions outlined in the Paris Agreement no matter what is happening at the federal level.
• The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy is a worldwide alliance of more than 7,500 cities and towns committed to climate action and provides resources for both inventorying emissions and enacting climate action plans to reduce them.
• The US EPA's Local Climate and Energy Program helps local governments around the country reduce emissions and meet other sustainability goals through training and competitive grants. Check out their website to learn more about what's going on where you live (perhaps you'd like to discuss this with your classmates).
• The International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) has been around since 1990. Their climate program is but one of many sustainability-driven initiatives the Council runs. Their Climate Program is structured into 3 areas - Mitigation, Adaptation, and Advocacy - recognizing that all parts are necessary if we're to address the totality of the problem. Specifically, their Cities for Climate Protection campaign has gained notoriety for drawing more than 1,000 members from local governments all over the world. ICLEI members can draw on an extensive network of in-house research, training programs, and the support of other members as they devise strategies for handling climate policy at their local government level. Signatories to the Global Covenant are able to access ICLEI's ClearPath software for free to conduct local GHG inventories.
• The Urban Sustainability Directors' Network joins together folks working on sustainability issues in towns and cities across the country. This focused group allows them to share ideas and best practices about programs and approaches that work.

What about your community? What's going on there? If not, maybe it's time for you to change that! You could start by reviewing 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!

Penn State is home to the Local Climate Action Program (co-directed by course author and instructor, Brandi Robinson) which partners students like you with local government officials around the state to conduct greenhouse gas emissions inventories and engage in climate action planning.  If you're interested in spending two semesters taking an intensive dive into local climate policy, let's talk!  Since 2022, the program has worked with more than 30 municipalities and counties and 70 students (about half of whom are from ESP and RESS!).  Local governments often want and need to work on climate but lack the capacity to do the work.  LCAP creates an experiential learning opportunity for students to build capacity while providing you as students with transferable skills and experience.  Everyone wins!

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, and perhaps more controversially, for existing coal-fired power plants (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, 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, during the Biden era, the main federal climate policy has been the Inflation Reduction Act, though the Infrastructure Investment Act also addressed emissions. In 2025, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) repealed and scaled back many of the clean energy and climate provisions of the IRA.  Some of the more notable rollbacks included the discontinuation of federal tax credits for residential renewable energy and energy efficiency credits, clean vehicle tax credits, and more.

But what did the rollback really mean for overall emissions reductions? 

It depends on where you are.

This NY Times summary 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. As interesting as this study was, it is now almost ten years old, and we are two Administrations beyond.  It would be an interesting exercise to revisit!

You can learn more about the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule that lays out the specifics for regulation under the Clean Air Act, as well as a brief history timeline 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 (required) of ways in which Congress can work to achieve GHG emissions reductions without necessarily explicitly crafting climate policy.

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? These are not questions we can answer easily in one lesson or one course. But these will be the types of questions you may encounter throughout your own careers.

Yearly Meetings of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties

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.

Paris 2015: The year we finally did something.

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 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 Adminstration 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.

UNFCCC leaders celebrate the adoption of the Paris Agreement.

Credit: Arnaud Bouissou - MEDDE. Adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP 21 in Paris. United Nations. July 20, 2016.  CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.

COP30 - Belém

In an attempt to recover from the disappointments of Baku, Belem did establish an agreement to mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 from developed nations and "other contributors" (read: private investment).  They also tripled commitments to adaptation financing, which is very important.  The longer and less stringent our mitigation efforts, the more important adaptation becomes in our overall response to climate change. If you're interested in what some of these documents look like, here is a summary list of the Outcomes from Belem.

COP29 - Baku

The expectation for COP29 in Baku was that it was the Climate Finance COP. The hope was that the industrialized, wealthy global north (including many petrol states) would come to the table prepared to commit the funding to climate adaptation and loss & damages, largely for the developing economies who are simultaneously more vulnerable to climate change and less able to bear the burden of its costs.  After tense debates that ran past the closing of the meeting itself, the agreements fell short.  Developed countries agreed to mobilize about $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing nations under the New Collective Quantified Goal; which was about 25% of the estimated $1.3 trillion it will take to truly address the issue.  Here is a nice summary from the Clean Air Task Force about the takeaways from COP29.

COP28 - Dubai

COP28 was in Dubai, the heart of the oil and gas producing world.  And while that may seem counterintuitive or contradictory to you (as it did to me at first), I would like to argue that it was exactly the right place to have these important conversations.  UAE hosting COP led to historic participation from the energy industry and ultimately, if we're going to decarbonize the global economy, the energy industry must be part of that solution. There were several key takeaways from this COP I'll draw your attention to:

• The establishment of the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP).  This helps to more intentionally integrate subnational climate efforts into nationally determined contribution development and implementation across the almost 80 member states.  The United States was an initial member, but is no longer actively engaged after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC more broadly in 2025. I'll admit, as someone who works on local climate issues, seeing the commitment to subnational efforts on the global stage at this meeting was nothing short of inspiring! 
   
• It was the first time that the COP agreed to language to "transition away from" fossil fuels.  This fell short of "phase out fossil fuels" which was what many negotiators wanted, but again these meetings are consensus-based, not majority and so getting the entire world to agree to transition away from fossil fuels as they sat in one of the most prolific fossil fuel producing countries in the world is still an historic accomplishment.  You can read more about this language in the UNFCCC's Press Release post-COP28.

COP 27 - Sharm-el Sheikh

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 Reuters. There was also some movement on limiting or eliminating the use of coal. If you would like to learn more, check out Reuters summary of the economic impact

COP 26 - Glasgow

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 adaptation, as well as moving away from fossil fuels. If you'd like to learn more, check out the UN Summary of agreements and deficiencies.

COP 25 - Madrid

COP 26 in Madrid, Spain was a mixed bag of successes and failures to reach an agreement. If you'd like to learn more, check out the Carbon Brief summary.

COP 24 - The Kawotice Rulebook

If you'd like to learn more, check out the December 2018 COP Meeting Outcomes. Despite the US plans to withdrawal formally from the Paris Agreement, the rest of the world remains committed to achieving the Paris Agreement goals.  

COP Meetings Leading to the 2015 Paris Agreement

Lima 2014

Lima set the stage for the success of the Paris talks. The Lima Call for Climate Action 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.

Delegates to the Lima COP20 gather in late 2014.

Credit: COP 20 - UN Climate Change Conference - Lima by UNclimatechange is licensed under CC-BY 2.0

Warsaw 2013

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 damage and hardships from severe weather events and rising sea levels.

Warsaw COP Meeting

Credit: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Doha 2012

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 adaptation funding responsibility. Near the end of the meeting, participating countries finally adopted the agenda of the Durban Platform.

Doha Climate Change COP Meeting

Credit: UNclimatechange from Flickr is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Durban 2011

The most significant development to come out of this Conference of Parties was the Durban Platform. 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.

Durban COP 2011

Credit: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Cancun 2010

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. (If you aren't sure why it failed, it may be helpful to read why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?) 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:

• stricter and more detailed reporting guidelines for measuring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emission mitigation efforts;
• $30 billion in aid through 2012 (called 'fast-start' funding) and eventually $100 billion in public/private funding annually by 2020 for mitigation efforts;
• developing national strategies to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (known as REDD).

Cancun COP 2010

Credit: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

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. We introduced 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!

Important Concepts to take away from this lesson

• Climate policy inherently is energy policy - At a high level, because so much of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions results from the combustion of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs, any policy to address climate change has substantial consequences for energy policy as well.
• Climate policy is happening at every scale - local climate change efforts enjoy the specificity of really addressing a place's unique circumstances, while national-scale policies have the benefit of influencing international agreements on the issue. Regional efforts combine the like-minded goals of geographically clustered states to address climate issues and take advantage of regionally specific resources and talent in the absence of more direction from the federal government. It is the combined efforts at all scales that will allow us to tackle the problem holistically. Our lawmakers may be unwilling to address greenhouse gas emissions at a large scale, but there are other legislative courses of action, namely through the Clean Air Act, that we can pursue. Perhaps they aren't as efficient or practical, but they are likely better than nothing.
• Climate action can occur without policy – On the point of climate action happening at every scale, we see that actions can be taken, and are being taken, regardless of where the policy stands. 

Reminder - Complete all tasks!

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.