When siting works, Canada-style.

Hazardous waste management poses increasing problems for Canadian provinces and American states, given the vast quantities and types of wastes generated and the virtual inability to open new storage, treatment, or disposal facilities. The Canadian experience is very similar to the American one in many respects, except for the fact that three provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec) have devised alternative approaches to siting that appear successful in moving beyond the political gridlock so common on this issue. In each of these cases, traditional, top-down approaches to siting have been eschewed in favor of a more comprehensive approach that includes extensive public participation, economic and social compensation packages, formal partnerships between public and private organizations, and direct links between siting proposals and other aspects of waste management, including waste reduction, recycling, and export/import control.     

The politics of sustainable development: impediments to pollution prevention and policy integration in Canada

Abstract: Sustainable development has been widely hailed in Canadian environmental -policy circles, as has its related goals of promoting pollution prevention and integrating policy across sectoral, jurisdictional, and medium (e.g., air, water, land) boundaries. But such broad support has generally not served to translate sustainability into concrete policy initiatives at the federal or provincial levels. Indeed, most Canadian efforts to foster sustainability appear to be largely symbolic in nature, leaving the bulk of environmental regulatory functions highly fragmented by medium and oriented towards pollution control. In comparison with the United States, it remains much more difficult to discern prevention and integration principles being put into practice in Canada in many important areas of environmental policy. The decentralization of policy-making and the lack of policy entrepreneurship within environment ministries in Canada appear to contribute to this comparatively slower response to the challenge of sustainability. Sommaire: Dans les milieux qui formulent les politiques environnementales au Canada, on chante les louanges du développement durable; on vante aussi ses objectifs de promouvoir la prévention de la pollution et d'integrer les politiques au niveau des secteurs, des territoires administratifs et de I'ensemble des trois milieux: air, eau, terre. Cet appui généralisé n'a cependant pas permis, dans l'ensemble, de traduire la durabilité en initiatives concrètes aux niveaux fédéral et provincial. En fait, la plupart des efforts canadiens favorisant la durabilité semblent avoir un caractère largement symbolique, la plupart des fonctions de réglementation environnementale étant fortement fragmentées selon les milieux (air, eau, terre) et orientées vers le contrôle de la pollution. A l'encontre des États-Unis, on a du mal à voir pratiquer au Canada les principes de la prévention et de l'intégration dans de nombreux domaines de politique environnementale. La décentralisation de la formulation des politiques, ainsi que I'inactivité des ministères de l'environnement dans ce domaine, semble contribuer à cette plus grande lenteur face au défi de la durabilité.     

Legislative incapacity: the congressional role in environmental policy-making and the case of Superfund

Congress plays a central role in national environmental policy formation but appears ill equipped to set policy priorities and devise integrative legislation. Fragmentation of authority among a multiplicity of committees and subcommittees, especially in the House, contributes to these problems. This pattern is evident in the evolution of Superfund, the national program to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. The prolonged process of reauthorization in the 1980s contributed to serious program delay and failed to resolve a number of fundamental questions concerning the national cleanup effort. Institutional reforms could contribute to a more effective congressional role in future environmental policy deliberations.     

Taxing Fracking: The Politics of State Severance Taxes in the Shale Era

States producing gas and oil have long levied severance taxes at the point of extraction, commonly placing most revenues into general funds. These taxes have assumed new meaning in many states amid the expansion of gas and oil production accompanying the advent of hydraulic fracturing. We reviewed all major statutes and constitutional amendments related to severance taxes that were enacted at the state level during the first decade of the “shale era” (2005–14). There have been only modest adjustments in statutory tax rates and some evidence that states have attempted to reduce these rates, possibly in response to growing national production. In turn, there is also evidence that states have begun to pursue more targeted strategies for revenue use, including some expanded focus on responding to the negative externalities linked to drilling, expanded revenue sharing with localities, and increased long‐term protection of resources through state trust funds.     

Carbon Taxation and Policy Labeling: Experience from American States and Canadian Provinces

A vast economics literature embraces taxation of the carbon content of fossil fuels as the superior policy approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, experience around the world suggests that carbon taxes face exceedingly difficult political hurdles. Federal experience in the United States and in Canada confirms this pattern. This article reviews sub‐federal policy development among American states and Canadian provinces, a great many of which have pursued climate policy development. With one major exception, explicit carbon taxation appears to remain a political nonstarter. At the same time, states and provinces have been placing indirect carbon prices on fossil fuel use through a wide range of policies. These tend to strategically alter labeling, avoiding the terms of “tax” and “carbon” in imposing costs. The article offers a framework for considering such strategies and examines common design features, including direct linkage between cost imposition and fund usage to build political support.     

Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States

Abstract: Neither Canada nor the United States has sited a new radioactive waste management facility in more than two decades, despite the continuous generation of new waste and the paucity of reliable disposal capacity. Both nations have stirred up considerable political controversy in attempting to site such facilities, with aggressive local collective action consistently blocking proposals. Building on provincial experience in gaining public support for hazardous waste facility siting tlirough a voluntary, comprehensive process, both Ontario and Nebraska Show signs of devi?ting from the classic Not-in-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) response for low-level radioactive waste. Through a variation of the process used successfully in Alberta and Manitoba for hazardous waste, Ontario and Nebraska have demonstrated the potential applicability of these alternative siting principles for radioactive waste. Sommaire: Ni le Canada, ni les États-Unis n'ont construit de nouvelles installations de gestion des déchets radioactifs depuis plus de deux décennies, malgré la production continuelie de déchets supplémentaires et malgré la faible capacité d'élimination fiable. Les deux nations ont déclenché des controverses politiques considérables en essayant de mettre en place de telles installations, et leurs propositions ont été bloquées systématiquement et agressivement par les collectivités locales. Forts de certaines expériences provinciales pour gagner le soutien du public ewers l'emplacement d'une installation de déchets dangereux grâce à un processus volontaire et extensif, l'Ontario et le Nebraska semblent dévier de la réaction classique “ pas dans ma cour ” en ce qui concerne les déchets faiblement radioactifs. Par l'entremise d'une variante du processus utilisé avec succès pour les déchets dnngereux en Alberta et au Manitoba, l'Ontario et le Nebraska ont démontré qu'on pourrait éventuellement appliqucr ces principes de rechanpe pour l'emplacement des installations traitant les déchets radioactifs.     

Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation

The Bush administration entered office in 2001 pledging to supportactive collaboration with states in environmental protectionand pursued this approach in some early initiatives and appointments.This emphasis was rapidly abandoned, however, in favor of aneffort to recentralize oversight in a manner consistent withhistoric attempts to establish an administrative presidencymodel. In response, states have demonstrated that they are notprepared to take a back seat to the federal government, probingfor areas to pursue innovative opportunities at the same timethat they challenge any instances of federal overreach or disengagementthat they deem problematic. The result has been a steady increasein intergovernmental conflict from the previous decade.