The development of climate institutions in the United States

References

• BP, 2019. Statistical review of world energy. Available at: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
   Google Scholar
• Brulle, R.J., 2020. Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States. In:  David Konisky ed. Handbook of US environmental policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 328–341.
   Google Scholar
• Cashore, B. and Howlett, M., 2007. Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51 (3), 532–551. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubash, N., 2021. Varieties of climate governance. Environmental Politics. This issue.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R.E., McCright, A.M., and Yarosh, J.H., 2016. The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58 (5), 4–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2018). EPA 430-R-19-001.
   Google Scholar
• Gilfillan, D., et al., 2019. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Appalachian State University, Boone North Carolina. Available at: https://energy.appstate.edu/research/work-areas/cdiac-appstate
   Google Scholar
• Karapin, R., 2016. Political opportunities for climate policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, F.N., 2016. Avoiding transitions, layering change: the evolution of American energy policy. In: Carol Hager and Christoph Stefes eds. Germany’s energy transition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 111–131.
   Google Scholar
• Layzer, J., 2007. Deep freeze: how business has shaped the global warming debate in congress. In: M. Kraft and S. Kamieniecki, eds. Business and environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 93–125.
   Google Scholar
• Layzer, J.A., 2012. Open for business: conservatives’ opposition to environmental regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K., eds. 2009. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E., 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52 (2), 155–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meckling, J., 2011. Carbon coalitions: business, climate politics, and the rise of emissions trading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mervis, J. 2012. Why NOAA is in the commerce department. Science Magazine. Available online at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/why-noaa-commerce-department
   Google Scholar
• Mildenberger, M., 2020. Carbon captured: how business and labor control climate politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mooney, C., 2007. An inconvenient assessment. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 63 (6), 40–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2007.11461119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M., 2011. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, G.P., Davis, S.J., and Andrew, R., 2012. A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences, 9 (8), 3247–3276. doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3247-2012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, G.P., et al. 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108.
   Google Scholar
• Piltz, R., 2005. Toward a second US national climate change assessment. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 86 (52), 550–551. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO520003.
   Google Scholar
• Rabe, B., 2018. Can we price carbon? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabe, B.G., 2004. Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, L., 2016. Reclaiming the atmospheric commons: the regional greenhouse gas initiative and a new model of emissions trading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, S., 2008. Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, L., 2020. Short-circuiting policy: interest groups and the battle over clean energy and climate policy in the American States. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC, 2019.National inventory submissions 2019. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/reporting-and-review-under-the-convention/greenhouse-gas-inventories-annex-i-parties/national-inventory-submissions-2019
   Google Scholar
• Weart, S., 2008. The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar