In November 2023, nearly 200 nations will gather in Dubai for COP 28, the world’s primary climate decision-making conference. COP 21 in 2015 led to the Paris Agreement, aiming to limit global temperature increases to 1.5C (2.7F) by 2100.
Meanwhile, young activists have been taking legal action against some of these same nations. For example a recent case by six young Portuguese individuals was brought against 32 countries, including all EU members, for insufficient progress on the Paris Agreement. Similar lawsuits are emerging in the United States, reflecting impatience with governmental climate action.
Think tanks such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) have outlined key strategies for achieving the 1.5C target. Solutions such as “ramping up renewables, improving energy efficiency, cutting methane emissions and increasing electrification with technologies available today” are central recommendations. But the report emphasizes that these kinds solutions must be implemented through well-designed policies at all levels of government.
But how are these kinds of policies adopted (or not) at a national, state, and local level? Where do the ideas come from? While there are plenty of policy innovation think tanks to offer recommendations, we know that policymakers prefer not to “reinvent the wheel” and often turn to other nations, states, or localities for ideas. This is the idea of policy diffusion, a concept that evolved from US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis in 1932. He described states as ‘laboratories of democracy’ where state policymakers can observe the politics and impacts of policy in other states and can take the ideas they like for their own governments.
In the area of climate policy, this means that effective strategies can spread from one country, state, or city to another. For example, Sweden’s pioneering carbon tax inspired similar initiatives in Norway and Finland, creating a cascade effect. Likewise, British Columbia’s carbon tax inspired other regions, including California and several Canadian provinces, to implement similar mechanisms.
However, the process of policy diffusion has its challenges which may account for the slow rate of progress those young Portuguese claimants are concerned about. Some argue that policies adopted without consideration of local context and capabilities may fail. What works well in one country may not be suitable for another due to differences in geography, culture, and socioeconomic conditions. For instance, a carbon pricing mechanism that works effectively in a densely populated urban area will almost certainly not be suitable for a rural economy. Moreover, it is possible that the policy diffusion process can lead to a homogenization of climate policies, promoting a “one-size-fits-all” approach that can limit the development of new technologies and strategies.
Another concern is the speed at which policies are adopted. The desire to align with global trends can sometimes lead to hasty decisions, resulting in unintended negative consequences such as job losses in certain sectors, increased energy costs for low-income families, or even environmental trade-offs. We have seen this play out in the US as we attempt to determine the best pathway for renewable energy development without putting millions of Americans out of work who are in fossil fuels industries.
Political considerations also play a role. Policies that are adopted due to international pressure may face domestic opposition, as has been the case with the U.S. and the Paris Agreement. Many in Congress view the accord as incompatible with America’s domestic policy priorities, leading to a lack of commitment to its goals.
As countries grapple with the urgent need for climate action, the sharing of successful policies will, and should continue. However, policy diffusion should be approached thoughtfully, recognizing the importance of local adaptation, and acknowledging that not all policies are universally applicable. Policymakers should carefully assess how policies can be adapted to suit their nation’s unique circumstances, taking into account factors like political landscape, economic conditions, and public opinion. One way to facilitate this would be to incentivize innovation and creativity in our trade schools and higher education institutions allowing innovation to take on the local flavor that will fit the region and lead to policies that stick.
Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.
Reg Murphy Center