The Conditions for Emissions: Exploring the Dynamics of Carbon Policy Emissions Across the United States

ABSTRACT In this paper, we investigate the adoption of carbon pricing policies within the U.S. across states. While policymakers have many tools at their disposal, carbon pricing is a policy option that utilizes market theories to curtail harmful effects from emissions through pricing structures. This is important because as global warming issues become more evident, policy efforts will be needed to intervene. If we can understand what factors drive adoption and the dynamics involved, there is a potential to incentivize policy adoption. In this study, we first examine the factors that drive carbon pricing policy adoption in US states. Then, in response to the findings from the first model, we determine the factors that are driving carbon emissions to identify the overlap in variables that increase the likelihood of carbon pricing policy adoption and decrease carbon emissions. Examining state data from 2005 to 2020, we find that a multitude of factors influence interstate carbon pricing policy adoption, including the political landscape of the state, and the presence of interest groups to name a few. Some overlap is shared between increased likelihood of carbon pricing policy adoption and reduced carbon emissions, therefore it would be beneficial for policymakers and environmentalists to collaborate and potentially incentivize adoption. Related Articles Hedegaard, T. F., and K. Kongshøj. 2024. “Carbon Tax Revenues and How to Spend Them: Danes' Attitudes Toward Revenue Recycling.” Politics & Policy 52, no. 5: 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12619 . Joo, J., J. Paavola, and J. Van Alstine. 2023. “The Divergence of South Korea's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from the EU ETS: An Institutional Complementarity View.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 6: 1155–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12566 . Asadnabizadeh, M. 2024. “Did the Glasgow COP26 Negotiations Meet or Miss Article 6 (Carbon Markets) of the Paris Agreement? A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Politics & Policy 52, no. 4: 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12621 .