The Interactions Between States and the Federal Government - Research Paper Example

Interaction between the Federal Government and the s Introduction This paper focuses on interaction between the state and federal climate change policies as one of the examples of federal governments and states interactions. For the last five years, there have been introduction of a number of climate bills in the United States Congress whereby the cap-and-trade systems seems to be at the heart of each bill (Selin and Stacy 7). However, by June 2010, H.R. 2454, was the only passed bill, ACES (American Clean Energy and Security) Act of the year 2009 and there was no bill presented to the president to sign. Due to this sluggishness of the federal actions, there emerged initiatives of the climate policy from the state, regional, and local levels. In fact, state climate policies remain to be developed, contemplated, and implemented in almost every state. However, federal actions have taken place (Rabe 56). This has occurred due to greenhouse gas regulation policies and Congressional action by the United State EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), which is under the constitution’s Clean Air Act (Selin and Stacy 8). There are important questions, which arise as a result of this interaction between the state and federal climate change policies. What are the Constitutional issues regarding this interaction? What are the branches of the federal government and the states in this interaction? This paper seeks to answer these questions and many others regarding the issue of Interaction between the federal government and the states. The interaction between state and federal climate policies can be problematic or reinforcing. This depends on the overlapping nature between the states and the federal government, the relative efforts’ stringency, and the policy instruments used. Problematic interactions occur when the federal government policy has restrictions on emissions such as cap-and-trade system or involves an international performance such as renewable fuel measures. In this case, the reduction of harmful emissions achieved by a division of one of the U.S. states reduces the federal policy pressures, hence increasing such emissions in other states resulting in what is referred to as “emissions leakage” (Rabe 59). In contrast, implementation of federal climate policy in a particular state that fixes emissions’ prices such as carbon taxes does to lead to emission offsetting in another state. This aids in reducing emissions nationwide. Even in cases where there is likeliness of emission leakage, there may be state action case to the point where these actions results in offsetting benefits (Selin and Stacy 15). There are a number of arguments, which support the view that state-level policies are more significant than the federal-level climate policies despite the emission leakage possibilities. Analysis of interaction between the state and federal climate change policies Interactions between the state and federal climate change policies represent an expansion of federal power over the states or a regression allowing more state control. This is because there many critics who argue that state-level policies on climate change are more significant than the federal-level climate policies. In addition, federal-level climate policy results in problematic interaction (Rabe 63). This mainly occurs when federal government policies put restrictions on emissions such as cap-and-trade or renewable fuel measures. This might likely result to emissions leakage therefore, allowing more state control than the federal government. The position of both the state and federal government is to safeguard the climate by ensuring reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the two parties have a similar agenda of ensuring health, environment and protecting the health of human beings and other living organisms on earth, the degree to which they put emission restrictions brings problematic interactions between the federal government and the states climatic change policies. The role of the Federal Courts in this topic In the United States, both state and federal policies plays the politics about greenhouse emissions. Federal courts ensure the EPA greenhouse gas emissions regulation an Obama administration victory. The role of federal courts in the climate change issue is to rule on greenhouse gas emissions from either automobiles or other sources such as power plants (Selin and Stacy 19). Since the states have no enough resources to address this issue of climate change, the federal courts plays the major role in ensuring greenhouse gas emission. In addition, the state governments do not have enough power to implement a crucial policy to govern greenhouse gas emissions (Rabe 67). The role of federal courts to rule over the issues about greenhouse gas emission by setting restrictions such as carbon taxation, although this results to “emission leakage” in other countries (Burns and Hare 60). The federal courts, however, implements strict plans, which aids in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. States have no enough powers to set such plans, which can ensure greenhouse gas emission nationwide. The position of the two political parties (Republican Party and Tea Party movement) is to ensure greenhouse gas reduction. The Republican Party movement has taken a position that mitigates greenhouse gas emissions (Selin and Stacy 23). On the other hand, according to the CBS and New York Times, most of Tea Party supporters do not consider the issue of global warming as an important aspect. The Party’s supporters highly oppose the cap-and-trade system as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emission. The branches of the federal government and the states To argue that the United States implemented a federal system of government that is currently operating means that the states government exists with either federal or national government. The federal government has some granted powers whose scope of operation are limited by the US Constitution. According to the US Constitution, the federal government has three branches, which include the judicial, legislation, and executive (Rabe 71). Each federal branch asserts and wields power on the issue of climate change, which the constitution grants it to. Therefore, the interaction between state and federal climate change policies is defined by federalism concept and the enumerated powers that the US Constitution grants the federal government. The powers of a state on the issue of climate change are limited since there is no state that has the authority to violate the constitution (Burns and Hari 61). For instance, the state only has powers to set a law governing the operations of that particular state that emits greenhouse gases and not passing laws such as carbon taxation that affects the entire country. On the other hand, the US constitution limits the powers of the federal government only to view areas (Selin and Stacy 27). Although the federal government is able to withhold the national environmental funds to cater for impacts of the greenhouse gas emission, the federal court itself is unable to implement such a law that is absent in the authorities of the constitution. Constitutional issues The new legal initiatives meant to address the issue of greenhouse gas emission and any other climate change factors are gaining more traction. However, the environmental history in the United States shows us that every aspect of these new initiatives will be uncompromisingly tested by the courts. The general efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission are currently facing constitutional issues (Rabe 78). For instance, most industries are arguing that both the state and federal governments do not have the authority to pass laws regulating greenhouse gas emission and thus the federal authority should pre-empt the state regulations (Selin and Stacy 45). The states’ efforts to pass their own environmental laws are being challenged by a series of hostile claims. The critics claim that such laws are illegal according to the constitution and that they are against the constitution’s Dormant Commerce clause, Treaty Powers clause, and Compact clause (Burns and Hare 65). Additionally, the constitution demands the US Congress to apportion representation of each state in the house “according to state’s number”. This framework has been for the last two centuries sufficiently flexible, allowing enormous change to the government’s nature. The federal government is currently carrying out activities that the constitutional’s framers could not imagine two ways (Goulder and. Stavins 45). The first sense is because the constitutional framers would not imagine that there will be any government to carry out such activities. The second sense is that the framers of the constitution would not have the belief that the federal government would assume these responsibilities than the States. Yet the language that the framers used to phrase the federal government powers was broad enough for the federal government to be able to expand its role. While the federal government powers granted by the constitution are state, the constitution should issue flexible powers to the federal government (Goulder and. Stavins 54). Therefore, the interaction between state and federal climate change policy is a fluid notion in the current federal system. This concept operates in different ways since its application takes place in varying contexts and times. Conclusion In conclusion, the interactions between states and the federal government can be problematic or reinforcing. For instance, the interaction between states and federal climate change policy seems to be problematic since when federal government policy pose restrictions on greenhouse emissions such as “cap-and-trade” system or international performance such as renewable fuel measures, this arises many problematic issues (Burns and Hare 65). In this case, the reduction of harmful emissions achieved by a division of one of the U.S. states reduces the federal policy pressures, hence increasing such emissions in other states resulting in what is referred to as “emissions leakage”. The constitution should be implemented to address such issues that occur due states and federal government interactions. Work cited Burns, William C. G, and Hari M. Osofsky. Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Goulder, Lawrence H, and Stavins, Rabe N. Interactions between State and Federal Climate Change Policies. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. Print. Rabe, Barry G. Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Print. Selin, Henrik, and Stacy D. VanDeveer. Changing Climates in North American Politics: Institutions, Policymaking, and Multilevel Governance. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009. Print. Read More