Climate Change Regionalism in North America

Abstract

lobal institutions and debates about climate change governance attract consid-erable academic and media attention. The main multilateral forums are arenas forhigh-profile political negotiations, inter-state conflicts, and thousands of nongov-ernmental actors. Similarly, national climate change politics and policy are signifi-cant to decision makers and scholars, and local and urban climate change activismand planning also draw notable interest. However, outside the European Union(EU), much less analytical and political attention is paid to issues and possibilities ofregional-level climate change governance—despite the fact that regional coopera-tion and institutional arrangements offer a multitude of political, economic, andenvironmental benefits not readily available in local, national, or global settings(Balsiger & VanDeveer, 2010; Jordan, Huitema, Van Asselt, Rayner, & Berkhout,2010; Patt, 2009). Furthermore, regional policy making around economic integra-tion and trade has proliferated in recent decades, resulting in scholarly and politicaldebates about the complementarities and conflicts between global and regionaltrade initiatives, state sovereignty, and democratic governance (Kuhnhardt, 2010;Laursen, 2003).Even as North American trade and economic integration deepened significantlyover the last 20 years, little public debate about regional options for better climatechange and energy governance has followed. In fact, few leading North Americannationalpoliticians—someinCanadaandMexicobutpracticallynoneintheUnitedStates—have paid serious attention to continental alternatives for reducing green-house gas (GHG) emissions and addressing adaptation needs, even as the dynamicnature of multilevel climate change governance driven by subnational policy lead-ership across the continent is growing (Selin & VanDeveer, 2009a, 2009b) However,it is possible to identify potential benefits for North American countries of morecoordinated action across Canadian, U.S., and Mexican public and private sectorentities. Furthermore, global GHG emissions cannot be adequately reduced—andthe goal of keeping average global temperatures from increasing more than 2°Cover preindustrial levels cannot be met—without significant cuts in North Americanemissions.This viewpoint article intends to stimulate both scholars and practitioners toengage in more serious reflection and critical debate about opportunities forfurther coordinated North American responses to climate change. It draws atten-