Understanding the selection of policy instruments in Canadian climate-change policy
    
    David Houle, University of Toronto Douglas Macdonald, University of Toronto
    
    First draft, please do not cite without authorization
    
    Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian political science association Panel L3 (a): Discourse, Evidence and Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy-Making Carleton University, Ottawa, 27 May 2009.
    
    Introduction Climate change policy in Canada is an important subject of concerns and debates at the public and academic levels. Consequently, the absence of extensive study of provincial climate change policy might come as a surprise. To be sure, some aspects of Canadian climate change policy have been extensively studied by scholars. The process of Canada’s Kyoto Protocol ratification is certainly one of those topics (Bernstein, 2002; Harrison, 2007). Studies have also been published on national climate change policy-making (Simpson, Jaccard, and Rivers, 2007; Paehlke, 2008) programs, and intergovernmental negotiations (Macdonald, Houle, and Patterson, forthcoming; Winfield and Macdonald, 2007; Bramley and Hornung, 2000; Bramley, 2002), and the role of different policy actors (Macdonald, Brieger, and Fleck, 2001; Macdonald, 2007). However, the study of provincial implemented measures is still, so to speak, in its infancy. According to Kern (2007), this situation is not unique to Canada and the same observations have been made in the context of Europe and United States. However, recent works have been published on sub-federal climate change policy for those two areas. Studies on Canadian provinces seem to be still lagging despite some recent related contributions (Macdonald, VanNijnatten, and Bjorn, 2004; Houle 2007; Winfield et al., 2008). Houle (2007) limits his inquiry to Québec climate change policy and compare policy instruments used in that case to the ones used in other atmospheric pollutant issues (such as acid rain and ozone-depletion substances). He found measures to be less coercive in the case of climate change policy and explains it by the numerous activities that generates greenhouse gas (GHG), in comparison with other atmospheric pollutant problems that are generated by a smaller number of activities. Winfield (2008) proposes a study of the interactions between energy policy and climate change policy in some Canadian provinces. However, it is Macdonald, VanNjinnaten and Bjorn (2004) that might be credited to have provided the more comprehensive and detailed academic work on provincial climate change policy in Canada. However, their work is more descriptive than explicative. The David Suzuki Foundation is also publishing regularly reports that draw a picture of provincial initiatives and recommend further actions (see for instance Marshall, 2008). A possible explanation for the few studies on climate change policy in Canadian provinces might be the lack of action on that issue at the provincial level. However, this observation seems increasingly debatable as provincial governments adopt climate change plan and, in some cases, legislation. Some provinces have been active for a while. For instance Québec, have adopted is first climate change plan in 1995. To be sure, before 2002, when Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol occurred on December 17th, most Canadian provinces did not propose climate change action plan (see annex, table A1). However, since then, all provinces presented their own plan and some of them have adopted legislation 1. Consequently, it is increasingly difficult for an attentive analyst to discard the efforts made by Canadian provincial governments to adopt an implement meaningful mitigation or adaptation measures. Those plans include a large number of selected instruments, including regulation, fiscal incentives, taxes, and voluntary measures. However, each province has adopted a particular mix of policy instruments. In this paper, we study those differences in instrument choices among Canadian provinces and propose a first explanation. In order to do so, we used the theoretical framework proposed by Rabe (2004), which insists on the framing of the issue of climate change, by policy-makers and policy entrepreneurs, as the main explanation for instruments selection in climate change policy in sub-federal jurisdiction. Although Rabe (2004) develops is typology to explain variation in instruments choice between American States, we argue that it can be applied to Canadian provinces and propose a first operationalization of this theory in the context of Canadian province. Also, this research is based on the
    1 Last to date is Nova Scotia who presented is climate change plan in January 2009. Among the territories Nunavut did not seem to have an action plan on the topic but Yukon and Northwest Territories have one. However, this paper only addresses the cases of Canadian provinces and the territories are left aside for further study.
    
    3
    study of climate action plans to determine both the selected instruments and the framing adopted by policy-makers. There are important reasons why we should study provincial initiatives on climate change and propose an explanation of the selection of policy instruments. First, climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time. Canada, despite its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, has received many criticisms, domestically and internationally, concerning its climate change policy. However, without a precise knowledge of what have been achieved, the assessment of the efficiency or the effectiveness of the past and actual policy of Canadian governments can only be tentative. The first necessary step is to make a survey of the initiatives selected by all governments, including the provinces. Second, any proposition of action for Canadian governments on climate change must first acknowledge the driving forces that have shaped the policies on that issue so far. An explanation of the evolution of climate change policy is necessary to understand the obstacles that particular propositions might face. Beside their theoretical merits, the adoption of particular policy instruments and their implementation is driven by political forces. We reject the view, implicit in many criticisms of the actual Canadian climate change policy, that policy-makers are simply irrational and incapable to understand the benefits of proposed measures (for instance, carbon tax or cap-and-trade system). Rather, we contend that policy-makers are influenced by frames and the particular context that take place at the moment where they take their decisions. Policy-makers are in the middle of a struggle between various powerful actors proposing contradictory causal stories about the problems. Many objectives and constituencies have to be satisfied. Proposals of particular policy instrument often encounter powerful forces, interest groups that oppose changes that they perceive as having adverse impacts on them. As we mentioned it, in this study we will focus our attention on the study of policy frames and their influence on policy instruments choice. Third, recent literature on public policy has focused on comparative studies in order to develop and test theories. This ‘comparative turn’ is seen as an important development in that literature and has shown promising results compare to single case studies, which often characterize the study of public policy. Canadian provinces have been pointed out as cases susceptible to generate interesting comparative studies that could foster our understanding of public policy development and provide empiric tests for public policy theories (Imbeau et al., 2000). Despite having the same political institutions, and be embedded in the same federation, Canadian provinces have various contexts that might provide interesting independent variables that might be observed across ten different cases. In the first section of this paper, we stated our research questions and the hypotheses that we proposed to test. In the second section, we define more precisely the content of climate change policies and in particular the policy instruments that are selected to achieve their objectives. The fourth section addresses the framing of the issue of climate change and presents our observation in the case of Canadian provinces. In the final section we discuss the impact of the framing observed in each on the selected policy instruments and assess the overall utility of our operationalization of Rabe (2004) theoretical model for the study of provincial climate change policy. I. Research Questions and Hypotheses
    
    In this paper, we propose a first survey of provincial initiatives on climate change that will focus on selected policy instruments mentioned in provincial climate change plans. Our two basic research questions are the following: 1. which policy instruments are included in provincial climate change plans? 2. what explanation might be proposed for the difference between climate change plan in term of policy instruments selected? The first question might be answered by a survey of the different measures mentioned in provincial climate change plans. At first glance, that task might seem straightforward. However, some theoretical and methodological considerations are nonetheless important if we want to produce a useful survey that will include the critical characteristics of the chosen measures. Similarly, inspired by the literature on comparative public policy, a vast array of explanations for the observed variations might be proposed. However, as a first step, we will discuss primarily an
    
    explanation proposed by Rabe (2004) in its seminal studies on climate change policy in American states, the framing of the climate change issue in each jurisdiction. In this paper, we propose a first empirical test of framing in climate change policy in Canadian provinces and, in particular, the effect of several framings of that issue on policy instrument choices. Our hypotheses are the following: H.1: When policy-makers consider climate change as a serious environmental threat, coercive policy instruments will be used (such as regulatory norms and standards). H.2: When policy-makers consider climate change as offering economic development opportunities for their province, market-based instruments will be used (such as carbon markets and financial disincentives—which include carbon taxes). H.3: When policy-makers consider efforts to mitigate greenhouses gas emissions as a threat to the economic growth of their province, they will use non-coercive policy instruments (such as voluntarism) or no policy instruments at all. Finally, we discuss other possible explanations for the variation observed in climate change policy in Canadian provinces and propose future steps that might be taken to expand the study of this topic. II. Defining Climate Change policy
    
    As mentioned by Howlett and Ramesh (2003) general definitions of public policy insist to describe them as oriented toward specific goals and including actions to achieve them. If such understanding is correct, climate change plans published by governments appear to be an archetype of a public policy. They all provide some sort of objectives2 and specify which measures or programs will be implemented to achieve them. In most cases, they also specified the policy targets—or the societal actors that are targeted by the proposed actions. Consequently, we argue that the study of climate change plans provides an accessible formulation of the climate change policy of a given jurisdiction. Therefore, they are the principal focus of our study. An advantage to rely on climate change plan as a description of the policy formulation is their availability and the fact that each Canadian province has adopted one. They also offer boundary to the domain of climate change policy in each jurisdiction. Drawing boundaries between policy domains is a difficult but necessary task to conduct policy analysis. Many researchers have adopted an expansive view of climate change policy and have tended to include a large number of activities. In focusing on climate change plans, we adopt a more limited view of climate change policy as defined by the intended actions of policy-makers to address the issue of climate change. Then, the boundaries of the policy domain have not to be traced by the researcher but are simply taken for granted, once the initial choice to rely on climate change plan is made. To be sure, laws and regulations related to climate change would also, ideally, be taken into account and can provide useful information on the policy formulation. However, not all provinces have adopted climate change related legislation and/or regulation (see table A1). The element of the formulation of a policy that is perhaps the most useful to develop hypotheses is the policy instruments selected3. Howlett and Ramesh (2003: 87) propose the following definition of policy instruments (also called policy tools or governing instruments): “[…] actual means or devices governments have to their disposal for implementing policies, and among which they must select in formulating policy.” This simple definition appears to be consistent with most works on the field. However, more precise definitions have been developed for different categories of instruments (e.g. regulation, market-based instruments, etc.). Many classification and typologies of policy instruments have been proposed insisting on various
    2 Objectives in climate change policy might be defined in terms of intensity or real—“hard cap”—reduction. Governments can also put emphasis on the necessity to mitigate—or reduce GHG emissions—or adapt to the consequences of climate change. 3 However, it is also possible to formulate hypotheses for policy objectives and targets. We choose to focus on policy instruments because, arguably, this component is the more debated. Each policy instruments create its own political economy and have a direct impact on the fortune or the misfortune of different policy actors. Regulatory norms, for instance, might require new investments that will have an impact on the profit and/or the competitiveness of an industry. If overall objectives are sometimes debated, it is only in the perspective that if they are ambitious, actors fear that coercive or costly instruments will be imposed.
    
    5
    dimensions. In this paper, we insist on the degree of coercion of the selected policy instruments (Hood, [1983] 1986; Macdonald, 2001; Vedung, 2003). A. Instruments for Climate Change Policy Jaccard, Nyboer, and Sadownik (2002) have presented an overview of the policy instruments available for GHG emissions reduction, in the Canadian context. They classify policy instruments on a continuum according to their “degree of compulsoriness” (or coercion) which express “[…] the extent to which a certain behaviour is required by external forces.” (Jaccard, Nyboer, and Sadownik: 2002, 177). According to them, a fully compulsory policy specifies exactly what must be done and severely punishes noncompliance. Less compulsory policy may require some action of the society in general. However, it confers certain flexibility for the firm and the household. Finally, policies are fully noncompulsory if the firm or the household has the option to do nothing, without incurring any negative consequence (Jaccard, Nyboer, and Sadownik: 2002, 177). In that perspective, ‘information and moral suasion’ is the less compulsory instruments, followed by ‘financial incentive and subsidies’, ‘cap-and-trade’ (not showed on their original continuum but mentioned at p.182), ‘financial disincentive (taxes)’, and ‘command-and-control regulation’ (which is the more coercive) (Jaccard, Nyboer, and Sadownik: 2002, 177-178). Of course, those are only the general types of policy instruments and a long list of examples can be provided for each. However, in our research, we simply make prediction for the type of instruments that will be use. Indeed, predicting the particular program that will be implemented in a given province is very hard since governments innovate and adapt a particular type of policy instruments to their particular circumstances. Based on our review of the literature we propose the following instruments types: command-andcontrol (or regulatory norm) (5); financial disincentive (taxes) (4); cap-and-trade systems (3), fiscal incentives (subsidies) (2); and information and moral suasion (voluntarism) (1). Instrument types 5, 4, 3 also represent market-based instruments (see Jordan, Wurzel, and Zito, 2003). Finally, there is no reason to believe that the type of policy instruments used to reduce GHG emissions will be different from the ones used in adaptation strategies. In other words, we contend that the proposed typology is general enough to apply to both adaptation and mitigation strategies B. Instruments in Canadian Provincial Climate Change Policy Table A1 and A2 in the annex provide a first overview of the various climate change plan and policy instruments adopted by Canadian provinces. For the purpose of this paper, we conduct a comprehensive review of policy instruments included in provincial climate change plans. Overall, about eighty different policy instruments were identified and classified under each instrument types. We identify twenty regulatory instruments including: GHG emissions standards (absolute caps), energy efficiency norms for buildings (private or public-owned), GHG emissions standard for fuels, and renewable energy regulatory targets (port-folio standards). We also identify nearly forty market-based instruments (including fiscal incentives—which include subventions, fiscal disincentives—which include carbon tax) including: funding for research and demonstration for various form of energy (biofuels, hydrogen, wind, etc.), cap-and-trade system, carbon tax, tax incentives for energy efficient building and appliances, and funding for public transit. Finally, we identify sixteen instances of information and moral suasion-based policy instruments (voluntarism) including: public information campaigns on various topics and voluntary emissions reduction agreements between provincial government and particular industries4.
    4 The format of this paper did not allow us to present all our data (although the table A2 summarized them). They will be provided upon request to david.houle@utoronto.ca.
    
    In general, some instruments have been selected by most Canadian provinces. For instances, most provincial governments engage their public service to adopt measures that aim the reduction of government’ GHG emissions, propose investments in public transit, adopt regulation for energy efficiency of appliances and buildings. Finally, many provide funding for research on the consequences of climate change and/or new technologies. The adoption of those measures is significant but unsurprising since they do not encounter any opposition, in most cases. They rely mostly on public spending (or fiscal incentives) and their overall cost is spread across the entire society. However, some measures are adopted only by few provinces. The first example is the adoption of most advanced market-based instruments and fiscal disincentives which include carbon tax and cap-andtrade. Only Manitoba (2008), Québec (2006), Ontario (2007), and British Columbia (2008) have committed so far to implement this type of policy instruments, alone or in collaboration with other Canadian provinces or American states. In their most recent climate change plan, Québec, British Columbia, and Manitoba have already adopted a carbon tax (the one of Québec being very modest and the one of Manitoba not fully implemented) and the four jurisdictions are involved in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)5 and are committed to the objective of implementing a cap-and-trade system. Toward the industrial sector, some provinces have opted for no action (Newfoundland and Labrador), voluntary agreements (such as Québec 1995 and 2000 plans), or spending on research of new technologies (Saskatchewan 2007). Some provinces, such as British Columbia (in its 2008 plan) and Nova Scotia have included reduction targets in legislation. Meanwhile, Alberta in its 2007 plan adopts an intensity-target regulation for its industry. In the energy sector, many provinces have adopted renewable energy port-folio standards or have commit to expand their use of renewable energy (hydro, tidal, solar, biomass, etc.). For instance, Nova Scotia (2007) included in a recent regulation a renewable energy objective for Nova Scotia Power. Finally, some provinces commit to close their coal-fired plants, such as Prince Edward Island (2001) and Ontario (2007). Others have preferred to rely on carbon capture and storage technologies to reduce the impact of their coal-fired plants such as Alberta (in both its 2002 and 2008 plans) and Saskatchewan (2007). Finally, Manitoba, in its 2002 plan, proposes to convert its coal-fired power plants on natural gas. How those important variations might be explained? III. Using Policy Framing as an Explanation
    
    In the context of American states climate change policy, Rabe (2004) insists on two dimensions to explain their climate change policy choices. The first one is the framing of the climate change issue and the second is the policy labelling of initiatives. Framing has been addressed by many authors since the seminal contribution of Tversky and Kahneman (1986), including—in political science—Fisher (2003) and Druckman (2004). Basically, at least in the original interpretation of Tversky and Kahneman (1986), framing has been seen as a psychological phenomena that constitute and obstacle to rational reasoning. Depending on how a problem is frame, in terms of saved or sacrificed lives for instance, the preference of individual decision-maker will change and the action chosen will vary accordingly. With Fischer (2003) and many others, the concept of framing have been expanded and applied to the study of public policy. Following the definition of van Gorp (2001), Fischer (2003) contends that frames are “organizing principle that transforms fragmentary information into a structured and meaningful whole.” Such frames in policy provide the selection of information useful to make normative judgment and guide action. To be sure, if some information are selected and included in a particular frame, some are not. Rabe (2004: 29) offers a more precise definition contending that issue framing “[…] reflects the most common way in which a policy issue has come to be characterized—or defined—in a given political system […].”
    5 The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is a regional initiative in which some American States and Canadian provinces that is committed to develop a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions.
    
    7
    He also contends that, in the case of climate change policy among American States, it is possible to identify three framings of the climate change issue: environmental threat, economic development opportunity, and economic threat (Rabe, 2004: 30-32). One should add that it is possible that several frames are present, simultaneously, in a given jurisdiction, even that they are in competition, with different groups of actors or policy entrepreneurs lobbying for their adoption. However, it appears unlikely that all frames will be present or, at least, equally important when the final policy formulated, since their implications are often contradictory in terms of policy objectives and instruments. It is why we focus in our research on the dominant framing that we have indentified in reviewing climate change plans of Canadian provinces. Then, we use it as an independent variable to explain the observed variations in Canadian provinces regarding policy instruments selected. Rabe (2004: 30) also uses the variable of policy labelling which “[…] describes the explicit language used to describe policies that may be attempted, given the opportunities provided (or constraints imposed) by issued framing.” He argues that in some states, where public opinion is particularly hostile to climate change science and the Kyoto Protocol, some policy entrepreneurs and elected officials have chosen, until recently, to downplay the effect of the measures they advocate in terms of GHG reductions even if it is an important outcome of their policy (e.g. Texas’ renewable energy port-folio standard). In those cases, policy label will be implicit rather than explicit. However, in Canada, all provinces explicitly address the issue of climate change through action plans, and some cases legislation. Consequently, the concept of labelling is of little use in this context. Moreover, if policy are not explicitly recognized (or labelled) as climate change policy, we argue that they should not be included in a study of climate change policy but rather as elements of other policies that might interact with climate change policy instruments and goals. In our hypotheses we used the three types of framing mentioned by Rabe (2004). We intend to observe them in reviewing climate change plans and, in our subsequent research, in conducting interviews with policy-makers. Of course, as we mention it, it is possible than more than one framing be present in a given plan and we ask what is the dominant framing. There is many ways to observe the prevailing framing. In this paper, we focus on the arguments presented by policy-makers in climate change action plan. Another possibility will be to conduct a content analysis relying on the identification of keywords, (e.g. “adaptation”, “sea level”, “water”, “storms”, “drought”, “inundation”, “health”, etc.), expressions (e.g. “necessity to adapt”), data mining techniques (comparing the similarity of all the words used in climate change plans), or the coding of each paragraph. The difficulty of most of these methods come from the fact that researcher have to start from scratches since there is no indication in the literature on climate change policy (and, more specifically in Rabe, 2004) on the keywords that should be used or the coding that should be applied to those documents. In its study, Rabe (2004) relies mostly on interviews with public servants to identify the prevailing frames and is research rely on instances were particular frames are used. In this paper, we simply start to address this central problem in proposing to rely on climate change plans, which provide a similar type of document in all Canadian provinces. However, we are conscious of the fact that our argument would be more convincing if we were able to use rigorously one of these methods and that our research remains based mostly on examples. We hope to be able to address this important flaw in subsequent research.
    
    A. Climate Change as an Environmental Threat In the first case, when climate change is perceived as an environmental threat, Rabe (2004: 31) contends that under such frame officials “[…] determine that climate change is a serious environmental problem: if ignored, the accumulation of greenhouse gases may pose a significant environmental threat to that [jurisdiction]." Rabe (2004: 31) contends that a policy response designated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is warranted. However, the jurisdiction response “will be tempered by an attempt to minimize economic disruption and will, to the extent possible, use any intervention available to foster economic development.” Policy entrepreneurs have, in that context, maximum latitude to frame climate change as an issue that require a serious response and to craft significant policies. In general, the arguments that characterize this framing vary along the line that climate change will have impacts on particular vulnerable groups, on infrastructures, water supply, or particular industries (fishing, tourism, forestry, and agriculture are often mentioned). Often, a mechanism is proposed that link GHG emissions, to GHG accumulation in the atmosphere, to change in climatic conditions, extreme weather events and/or sea-level. It is those changes that have an impact on the jurisdiction6. In climate change plans where this framing is dominant, numerous instances and observations are given of changes in average temperatures, rise in sea-level, and extreme climatic events (tropical storms, drought, heat waves). One has to be careful about how likely consequences are described. They can be indicated as benign or positive, which will be inconsistent with the framing. Finally, a distinction might be draw between perceiving climate as a global threat or as a threat to the jurisdiction. It is plausible that a global threat might be recognized but also seen as having little or no consequences on a particular jurisdiction. In that view, climate change is essentially perceived as the problem of someone else. The consequences of the adoption of the frame “climate change as an environmental threat” for selected policy instruments are numerous, according to Rabe (2004). Sub-federal jurisdictions, in the context of United States, described as under the influence of this framing, adopt ‘prime-time strategies’ such as CO2 and GHG regulatory standards, mandatory CO2 reporting, state-wide GHG reduction commitments, industry reduction covenants, social benefits charge for energy, and energy efficiency (Rabe, 2004: 30). In other words, the most coercive instruments will be used. Also, it can be argued that the policies proposed by the jurisdictions where this framing is present will tend to focus more on adaptation to climate change than mitigation of GHG, although this last point is not mentioned by Rabe (2004). Another possibility, as Rabe (2004) seems to assume, is that policymakers who see their jurisdiction as particularly vulnerable to climate change might enact stringent mitigation policies in an effort to lead by example and encourage other jurisdictions to act. Reviewing climate action plan of Canadian provinces, the Maritime Provinces (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador) appear to be the most concerned by the impacts of climate change on their jurisdiction. Their action plans contain numerous examples of the framing of ‘climate change as an environmental threat’ that appears to be dominant, in the five climate change that they have adopted (two, in the case of Prince Edward Island). Referring to the 2007 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the government of Nova Scotia contends that: “[we] can expect warmer average temperatures, rising sea levels, and more-frequent extreme storms. Nova Scotia is particularly susceptible to these changes because most of our population lives along the coastline, and much of our infrastructure is
    6 Reading the recent report of the Government of Canada, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate (Bourque et al., 2007), it appears that all provinces are expected to experience important consequences for climate change. Consequently, the decision to indicate or not some of those consequences in the climate change appears to be a good example of framing in the sense of Fischer (2003).
    
    9
    located in vulnerable areas.” (Government of Nova Scotia, 2007: 1) The government of Nova Scotia also argues that the location of the province is “[…] at the northern end of the Atlantic hurricane track, where more storms similar to Hurricane Juan could hit us as the planet warms […]” and that “[with] 7600 km of coastline, [Nova Scotia is] exceptionally vulnerable to rising sea levels caused by climate change.” (Government of Nova Scotia, 2007: 3). Similarly, in its 2008 climate change action plan, the government of Prince Edward Island (PEI) contents that “[…] as an Island with a highly sandstone bedrock, an indented sandy shoreline with many estuaries and marshes, and the ongoing submerge of its coast, Prince Edward Island has been identified as one of the area most vulnerable to sea level rise in Canada.” (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2008: 6). According to the Government of Prince Edward Island (2008: 7), the impact global warming will affect the island natural environment, islanders’ health and safety, economic prosperity, and overall quality of life. The framing of climate change as an environmental threat was also dominant in the first climate action plan of PEI (2000). The major difference between both plans is the presence of the frame of climate change mitigation as an economic threat in the 2000 plan, which we discuss later. The New Brunswick climate action plan presents similar arguments. From the start, it contends that “[climate] change has already had impacts on New Brunswick communities and further changes are already unavoidable, even if all nations were to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately.” (Government of New Brunswick, 2007: 4) Furthermore, it is argued that New Brunswick already experienced “significant economic losses due to the impacts of extreme weather events in recent years” (Government of New Brunswick, 2007: 8). New Brunswick’s government provide a list of a series of observations and expected future changes, which include: rising sea level and temperature, coastal erosion, decreasing snowfalls, and flooding (Government of New Brunswick, 2007: 9). Impacts on water supplies and water quality are also anticipated (idem). Newfoundland and Labrador represents an interesting case. First, the climate change plan did mention numerous negative impacts of climate change on the province regarding sea levels, invasive species, dramatic weather events, human health, and ecosystem health (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2005: ii; 11-15). The impact on the fishing industry seems to be an important concern of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, it also contends that some of these changes might also have positive impacts, notably for the oil and gas industry (that will benefit from thinner sea ice (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2005: ii). Overall, the portion of the climate change describing the impact of climate change is important compared to the rest of the plan and the framing of ‘climate change as an environmental threat’ can be described as dominant. Second, the framing of ‘climate change mitigation as an economic threat’ is also present especially when the climate change plan address the impact of mitigation measures on the industry and, in particular, the oil and gas sector. The frame of climate change as an environmental threat is also dominant in the case of the second Québec climate change plan (Québec publish three action plans, in 1995, 2002, and 2006) and the first Manitoba 2002 action plan. Finally, the framing of environmental threat is also present in the third climate change plan of Québec (2006), the second climate change plan of Manitoba (2007), Saskatchewan (2007), and British Columbia (2008) but to a lesser extent and could not be qualified as the dominant framing. Consequently, the framing is absent or marginally present only in the cases of Ontario (2007), Québec (1995) and Alberta (2002 and 2008). Overall, provincial governments seem quite preoccupy by the impact of climate change on their jurisdiction and adaptation is mentioned in almost every climate change plan and especially the one that use environmental threat as the dominant framing of the issue of climate change. B. Climate Change as an Economic Opportunity In the second case of issue framing, climate change is conceived as an opportunity for economic development. According to Rabe (2004: 31), sub-federal governments “[…] may not view climate change as a major environmental challenge but may instead identify promising opportunities for economic gain
    
    by enacting policies that reduce greenhouses gases.” The principal economic opportunity to seize is often perceived in relation with the participation to national, regional, or international carbon market. Finally, according to Rabe (2004: 33), in those sub-federal governments, without the presence of economic benefits, actions on climate change are unlikely. According to Rabe (2004), the opportunistic strategy of those sub-federal jurisdictions include: agricultural carbon sequestration, forestry carbon sequestration, and technology transfer agreements. However, in this paper, we concentrate on market-based instruments and more particularly cap-and-trade systems and fiscal disincentives (such as carbon tax). We understand that, in the context of United States, carbon tax is rarely, if never, implemented (at least under an explicit form). However, this is not the case in Canada and some provinces have recently enacted such measures. Moreover, propositions of cap-andtrade systems, at the regional level, have been developed quite recently. That explain probably why those two instruments were not explicitly mentioned by Rabe (2004). Acknowledging those recent developments, we argue that those instruments, along with fiscal incentives, are the most consistent with the frame of climate change as an economic opportunity. In general, the arguments that underline the frame of ‘climate change as an economic opportunity’ are that a future where carbon emissions have to be drastically reduce or sequestrated open interesting opportunities for jurisdictions who have the capacity to produce zero or low-carbon energy, develop new technologies, and capture vast amount of carbon. The perspective to obtain carbon offsets or early actions recognition and credits in the framework of a cap-and-trade system or to become the leader of new industries is attractive to many policy-makers. They argue that climate change represent new opportunities of economic developments for their jurisdiction, enhancing their capacity to attract new investments. Reviewing climate change plans of Canadian provinces, the framing of the issue of climate change as an economic opportunity is very clear from the beginning in the case of the most recent plan presented by the Government of British Columbia. The plan starts contending that “[a] study by the University of California Berkeley estimated the state could gain as many as 89,000 new jobs and realizes (sic) an annual economic benefit of up to $74 billion by pursuing its climate action goals. We can expect to see similar benefits here in B.C., as people seek efficiencies to help reduce costs, and businesses emerge to capture new opportunities in fields such as clean energy and energy-efficient technology.” (Government of British Columbia, 2008: ii). The British Columbia government contends that one of the main goal of the plan is to position the province favourably in the clean energy technologies market that is expected to worth 1 trillion dollars by 2030 (Government of British Columbia, 2008: 4). Taking action on climate change is also believed to provide to the province an important competitive advantage (Government of British Columbia, 2008: 3). However, insisting on the economic opportunity of acting on climate change did not prevent the B.C. government to acknowledge the significant threat posed by climate change. They are presented at two occasions. First, in a two pages section entitled ‘the challenge’ it is written that “British Columbia is one of the places feeling the greatest effects from global warming.” (Government of British Columbia, 2008: 6-9). However, only a brief section presents the impact of climate change on the province (water shortages, land loss on coastal communities, challenge to critical infrastructures, increased stress to forest and fisheries, higher insurance costs, and spreading of the pine beetles) (Government of British Columbia, 2008: 6-9). This section is immediately followed by another one entitled ‘the opportunity,’ which insists that the province is a leader in many clean technologies (fuel cell technology, hydropower, and biomass) important in the context of a low carbon future. Also, it is mentioned that British Columbia’s forests present important opportunities for carbon storage. It is argued that those technologies can play an important role in “[…] a fast-growing sector of the global economy, worth an estimated $30 billion in 2006” (Government of British Columbia, 2008: 10). Finally, a short section addresses the question of adaptation. In the rest of the plan, the overwhelming concern is jobs and economic opportunities created by the issue of climate change. Also, impacts of climate change on human health are not mentioned, which appears to be an important difference with Maritime Provinces who insist on that aspect.
    
    11
    The first plan presented by British Columbia in 2004 was brief (9 pages) and provide only the actions without much discussion on the issue of climate change. Overall, most of the actions were addressing the question of energy production (expanding renewable energy), new infrastructures (transport and building), and carbon sinks. Only a minority of actions (13 on 40) were addressing the impact of climate change (pine beetle, extreme weather, and flood). In both cases, the 2004 and 2008 plans the framing of climate change as an economic opportunity appears to be dominant. Similarly in the case of Manitoba first (2002) and second (2008) action plans, the framing of economic opportunity is also present, alongside the framing of environmental threat. However, if the framing of economic opportunity might be described as dominant in the second plan; it was not the case in the first one, where the framing of climate change as an environmental threat prevailed. In the case of Manitoba 2008 plan, an entire section is devoted to business opportunities offered by climate change. It contends that “Manitoba business can […] make and save money by implementing climate friendly practices and work toward a green economy development.” (Manitoba, 2008: 41) In the case of Québec, an important evolution might be observed between its three climate change plans. In the 1995 climate actions plan, the Québec government appears to be concern by the impact of coercive instruments on the competitiveness of Québec industries and presents climate change as having little impact (responsible for what is described as a “light warming”) (Québec, 1995). Insisting on the relatively good performance of Québec in term of GHG emissions (because of its reliance on hydroelectricity), few concrete measures were included, only a call for voluntarism and voluntary partnerships with the industrial sector. In Québec second climate change plan (the 2000-2002 plan), the Québec government still understand coercive climate change policy as an economic threat. It is argued that “[il] convient de préserver –voire améliorer– la compétitivité de notre économie. Dans cette optique, l’attitude et le comportement de nos principaux partenaires économiques, et particulièrement de nos partenaires commerciaux nord-américains, doivent faire l’objet d’une attention spéciale dans la sélection et la mise en œuvre des mesures et des gestes du gouvernement. Il faut éviter de placer les entreprises face à des coûts supérieurs à ceux de leurs principaux concurrents.” (Québec, 2000: 21). However, impacts of climate change on Québec occupy now an important place and constitute the dominant framing. In the 2000-2002 plan, the approach of Québec is still very much oriented toward voluntarism, with the ÉcoGESte program—a voluntary registry of actions made by industries and institutions—and voluntary reduction agreements with the aluminum industry, even if some experimentation of market-based instruments are included. However, a decisive turn is taken in the Québec 2006-2012 plan. The segment devoted to the discussion of the impacts of climate change appears to be scaled down and the framing of climate change as an economic opportunity appears and occupy a significant place (and the framing of economic threat disappears). Contrarily, to the view expressed in previous plan, the 2006-2012 Québec plan contends that climate change provides opportunities to improve the competitiveness of the Québec economy. In that perspective, the central purpose of the strategy is “[de] renverser la tendance à la hausse dans [les] secteurs [du transport et des bâtiments] en entreprenant des actions qui permettront à l’ensemble de l’économie québécoise d’améliorer sa compétitivité et de diminuer sa dépendance aux énergies fossiles.” (Québec, 2006: 14). Moreover, a section of the plan is now devoted to market-based instruments. Also, a ‘redevance sur les hydrocarbures’ (fee on fossil fuels, which is often described as a carbon tax with the purpose of financing the actions of the plan) is proposed along with the stated intention of the Québec government to prepare Québec business to the inclusion of the province in a carbon trading system. Such system is said to have the potential to “générer des occasions d’affaires pour certains organismes et entreprises québécois qui sont actifs dans les secteurs de la valorisation des biogaz, de la biomasse agricole, forestière et municipale, de la séquestration de CO2, de l’énergie renouvelable et de l’efficacité énergétique.” (Québec, 2006: 28-29). It said to be “dans l’intérêt du Québec de préparer ses entreprises à ces marchés potentiels et d’encourager la réalisation de projets de réduction d’émissions de GES.” (idem). Finally, in the case of Ontario, who adopted only recently a first plan on climate change, the framing of economic opportunity is clearly dominant. The only mention of consequences of climate change on Ontario is a general contention that “climate change will impact on public and private
    
    infrastructure, the natural environment, people and other species” (Ontario, 2008: 34). The province seems also to be particularly concerned by Ontario’s polar bears (“most southerly population of polar bears in the world”) (Ontario, 2008: 35). However, from the start, after a brief acknowledgment of the issue of climate change, it is written that “this environmental crisis is also an economic opportunity. As a province, with a strong manufacturing sector, plenty of natural resources, and a smart, educated, skilled workforce, there are opportunities for Ontario.” (Ontario, 2008: 3) To be sure, it is common in the jurisdictions who frame climate change as an economic opportunity that environmental consequences of climate change are included in their action plan. It is the case in British Columbia, Québec, and Manitoba. However, the fact that they insist on the opportunities that a low carbon economy represent for them distinguish them from jurisdiction who frame climate change only as an environmental threat. Provinces such as Saskatchewan (2007) and Alberta (2002 and 2008) represent interesting cases. In the case of Alberta, in both plan the province frame climate change as an economic threat. However, Alberta also contends at several occasions that some opportunities are offered by the issue mainly to develop carbon and storage technologies and improve the efficiency of Alberta industries. In its first and only climate action plan, Saskatchewan (2007) also mentions those arguments. However, if it is clear that the dominant framing in the case of Alberta climate change plans is economic threat; this last frame is both more subtle and less present in the case of Saskatchewan’s plan, where the economic opportunities prevailed. However, in both cases the important difference with provinces who present climate change as an economic opportunity is that Alberta and Saskatchewan do not mention the establishment of a carbon regional, national, or international carbon market as offering important economic opportunities. It not surprising, given that it is very likely that they will be buyers in such market, having the higher level of GHG emissions per capita in Canada (and Alberta being the first province in term of total GHG emissions). C. Climate Change Mitigation as an Economic Threat In the third case, sub-federal governments are alarmed by the possibilities that the implementation of coercive climate change policy might have an impact on the growth of their economy and their prosperity; no matter if they believe that climate change is a serious long-term threat or not (Rabe, 2004). According to Rabe (2004: 32), “in these cases, the anticipation of negative economic impacts from any efforts to reduce greenhouse gases clearly outweigh any potential benefit that a state might derive.” American States that have such framing of the issue of climate change have adopted hostile strategies—including bans on any state agency to reduce greenhouse gases and anti-Kyoto resolutions— or indifferent strategies—including disengagement from interstate discussions and failure to apply for federal funds (idem). In Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan might be conceived as instances where serious action on climate change might significant short-term (even long-term) impacts on their economy. Both provinces rely heavily on fossil fuel for economic growth and use coal-fired power station to generate their electricity. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, the threat is posed slightly differently since the province generate large amount of hydroelectricity. However, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador relies on the oil and gas industry to provide economic development opportunities. Not surprisingly, the framing of mitigation as an economic threat appears to be dominant in the cases of Alberta 2002 and 2008 climate change action plans. The Government of Alberta 2002 plan contends that “[…] environmental progress cannot be achieved in isolation of other policy objectives, including the need to maintain economic prosperity” (Government of Alberta 2002: 7) and that “[…] any actions we develop must be compatible with our largest trading partner—the United States—to ensure we maintain a competitive economic advantage.” (Government of Alberta 2002: 8). Moreover, “[…] the United States has not adopted an absolute emission reduction target but is instead focusing on improvements in emissions intensity. Canada’s approach must reflect the trading relationship we have
    
    13
    with the United States.” In order to do so, the Government of Alberta choose to adopt GHG intensity emission targets (Government of Alberta 2002: 11). It contends that “[absolute] emission reduction targets simply force a jurisdiction to bear the costs of emission reductions while displacing investment, jobs and emissions to nations without greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Alberta cannot control the global demand for goods and services (especially fossil fuel) but through emissions intensity improvements, we can ensure that our commodities and services reflect best-in-class performance and result in fewer emissions than similar commodities and services produced elsewhere.” (Government of Alberta 2002: 12). The Alberta 2008 plan continues to affirm the reliance on fossil energy, in that province, to foster economic growth (Alberta, 2008: 13). It contends that “[…] Alberta’s industry and province-wide targets were based on emissions intensity. This approach reflects the realities of Alberta’s strong energy-based economy and is an important step in managing and reducing emissions while, at the same time, not compromising the viability and strength of our economy.” (Alberta, 2008: 23). Examining in more details the actions proposed by the Albertan government to achieve its intensity-based goals, and its projected emissions, it appears evident that: 1) no real reduction will occur before 2020, at beast, 2) the strategy relies mostly on unproven and costly carbon capture and storage technologies, which account for 139 Mt on the 200 Mt reductions anticipated by the Government of Alberta from 2010 to 2050 (Alberta, 2008: 20). In the case of Saskatchewan (2007: 2-3, 6), it is recognized by its Government that the province “is a powerhouse, ” which produce a large amount of fossil energy that have contributed significantly to its economic growth and its rising GHG emissions and that reducing those emissions will be hard. However, the frame of economic opportunity appears to prevail. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador climate action plan, adopted in 2005, the framing of economic threat is also important but did not dominate over the one of climate change as an environmental threat. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2005: 21) contends that “[in] implementing our Action Plan, we must balance the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the need to continue to grow our economy and ensure the competitiveness of our industry […].” The framing is particularly obvious when the impact on the industry and in particular the oil and gas sector is discussed. It is argued that “the Province must […] develop a plan that treats our other industries, such as oil and gas, fairly and recognizes the contribution these industries make to the provincial economy.” (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2005: 21) It is recognized that these industries (oil and gas), “[…] are among the major contributors to GHG emissions in this Province, but are also major contributors to our economic sustainability.” Finally, it is argued that “[local] industries are export-oriented and therefore compete on a world market. This means that the capability of local industries to make large investments to reduce their GHG emissions may be limited. Some industries have indicated that they are already committed to investments on other environmental issues and will need a clear picture of the priority areas.” In the industrial sector the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2005: 21) contends that the balance between economic growth and reducing GHG might be achieved “[…] by first promoting voluntary, ‘no-regrets’ measures that would pay for themselves or achieve other policy objectives not specifically related to climate change.” In the first action plan the Government of Prince Edward Island (2000: 10) argues that “[…] because of the heavy reliance of fossil fuels when the PEI government of the day contended “[because of heavy reliance on fossil fuels that are cited as the main precursors to greenhouse gases (sic), Prince Edward Island may be disadvantaged by economic instruments, such as carbon taxes, that penalize their use.” However, this remains a minor theme in comparison with the framing of climate change as an environmental threat. Finally, as we already mentioned that the only frame present in the first climate change plan of Québec (1995) was the one of climate change as an economic threat and that this frame persists in the following plan before being abandoned in the 2006-2012 plan. The fact the Parti québécois was forming the government during the publication of the first and second plan is an interesting observation. It is far to
    
    say that the framing of climate change as an economic opportunity was present, but marginally, in the 2000-2002 plan. Consequently, a shift in framing toward economic opportunity was present before the arrival of the Parti libéral du Québec in power. However, we should acknowledge that PQ governments had a tendency to frame climate change as potentially harming the economy of Québec, despite the fact that Québec did not have an important fossil industry (with the exception a some oil refineries) and can rely on important renewable energy resources. This observation is puzzling. It is fair to say however that the first Québec plan was adopt early, and that economic instrument for climate change received little publicity at that time. The alternative might have been between command-and-control regulation, basically the approach of the Ministry of Environment of Québec at that time and voluntarism. However, it is also possible that the tendency of PQ governments to put emphasis on economic development rather than environmental protection as play a role. Finally, it should be said that most Canadian provinces, even the most reluctant such as Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, and Saskatchewan are nowhere near the American States that Rabe (2004) qualifies as hostile and who frame climate change mitigation as an economic threat. No legislation have been past in Canada to ban discussion of climate change by public servants and no province ignore the issue of climate change. IV. Impact of Framing on policy instruments choice
    
    Overall, our observations partially support the hypotheses stated at the beginning of this paper. Climate change policy in Canadian province appears to be complex and composed of a large array of policy instruments. All provinces appear to have selected public spending in different fields and instances of regulatory norms (at least on building and/or appliances efficiency). They have been numerous to adopt some kind of voluntary measures (under the form of public awareness campaigns, GHG reduction voluntary agreements or inventories of measures taken by their industries). However, only few of them have selected carbon tax or/and cap-and-trade system (only British Columbia (2008), Manitoba (2008), Québec 2000 and 2006, and Ontario 2007). All those provinces have in common a dominant frame of climate change as an economic opportunity, in conformity with our second hypothesis. Moreover, provinces proposing the most thorough action plan on climate change (British Columbia 2008, Manitoba 2008, and Québec 2006; see Marshall, 2008: 9), using a large number of policy instruments from all types, frame climate change both as an economic opportunity and as an environmental threat, even if this last framing is lest pervasive. However, in the case of our first hypothesis, it appears that provinces that frame climate change primarily as an environmental threat do not always used a coercive approach. It is the case of Nova Scotia 2009 (who used regulatory norms and sets real GHG reduction objectives and renewable energy standards) but not the case of PEI 2001, PEI 2008, New Brunswick 2007, Newfoundland and Labrador 2005, and Québec 2000. Moreover, when the framing of climate change as an economic threat is also present (but not dominant), like in the cases of PEI 2001, Newfoundland and Labrador 2005, and Québec 2000, the instruments selected are particularly weak, relying only on public spending and voluntarism. However, in all cases, adaptation is a primary concerns for those jurisdictions and an important number of policy instruments are selected to that aim. The context of the Maritimes provinces is arguably difficult for strong mitigation action given the comparatively weak level of economic development that characterize the region and the vulnerability of some of its most important economic activities to climate change (such as the fisheries). Also, in the case of Nova Scotia, the fact that the provinces are one of the important users of coal to generate electricity (along with Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario) might be an additional obstacle. Consequently, despite a framing of the issue of climate change as an environmental threat dominant in all climate change plans of this region, it is not surprising to observe that instances of coercive instruments are somewhat limited. Finally, in the case of the third hypothesis, it appears that the Government of Québec in its 1995 plan, where the dominant framing is climate change mitigation as an economic threat, did in fact select
    
    15
    voluntarism to address the issue of climate change. Consistent with our hypothesis, the first Alberta climate change plan (2002) relies mostly on voluntary norms and public spending. However, in its second action plan (2008) intensity-based norms are proposed, despite only a marginal presence of the frame of climate change as environmental threat and the continuing dominance of the frame of climate change mitigation as an economic threat. This instrument is a surprising policy innovation. In doing so, Alberta can appears to use coercive instruments for addressing climate change, without preventing growth of its intensive carbon economy. However, it is quite clear that those intensity targets will not curb Alberta emissions, at least not before a long time, and consequently did not meaningfully address the problem of rising Albertan emissions, which now represent a third of total Canada GHG emissions. This fact is acknowledged by the Government of Alberta (2008) that anticipates no real reduction before 2020. This innovation has yet to find an explanation. Why it is important for Alberta to enact such regulation despite not conceiving climate change as an important environmental threat (beyond stating that the problem exists)? Our hypothesis, explored elsewhere (see Houle, 2008) is that occupying the jurisdiction, before the federal government, was an important concern giving the timing of the announcement of the first action, only weeks before the Kyoto Protocol ratification by the federal government. A legislative approach was identified as the way to go, securing provincial jurisdiction over climate change in the case of a judicial challenge from the Federal government. Such move was important in order to prevent the implementation of a coercive instrument from the federal government that, according to many Albertan officials, would have hurt Alberta economy (idem). Conclusion In conclusion, it should be clear that our hypotheses on the impact of framing on selected instruments in Canadian provinces are, at best only partially confirmed, as show in table A2. Overall, on the sixteen climate change plans adopted by the ten provinces, our hypotheses predicted the instruments selected in four of those plans, partially predicted the instruments selected in most of them (9 times over 16), and make false prediction in two cases. Québec have adopted few regulatory norms in its 2000-2002 plan (the most significant being norms on methane capture in landfills, on ozone-depletion substances, and mandatory inspection of vehicles, the last being still not implemented nine years later). The second is the case of intensity-based regulation in Alberta already discussed. The principal problem being the fact that regulation related to GHG emissions is more common that we first thought especially in the case of provinces who frame climate change as an economic opportunity. In some case, such a regulation for biofuels or renewable energy might be conceived as instruments to help certain industry to growth in creating markets for their products. Policy instruments selected relies often in more than one type, and there is a lot of instances of policy mix where, for instances, the development of new industry, such as biofuels is pursued by financing research in that domain, information campaign addressed to the general public on alternative fuels, and creation of markets by adopting norms to ensure that gasoline content a percentage of ethanol. Another possibility is that framing is more complex and that we should address more than only the dominant framing. In that case, the presence of regulatory in provinces that frame climate change as an economic opportunity might be explain by the presence of the framing of environmental threat (even if it does not prevail). Also, the use of more advanced content analysis might allow us to assess with an increased precision the framing present and their importance. Finally, if the utilisation of the concept of framing in cases of provincial climate changes policy provide some useful insights, it clear that a more sophisticated model is needed. Such a model should pay attention in particular to the influence of policy networks (in and outside the boundaries of the province), of actions (or lack of action) of the federal government, and diffusion of initiatives between level of governments and sub-federal governments in North America. Reviewing provincial climate change plans, we noted plenty of examples of diffusion of ideas or instruments, many of them involving the State of California, often seen as a leader by Canadian policy-makers. However, we have little hope that the
    
    differences across province in the use of policy instruments can be explained by variation in public opinion between provinces. In the third wave of the World Value Survey (WVS) (2000) conducted in Canada in 1999-2000 (before the adoption of most climate change plans), the percentage of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing to give part of their income for the environment vary from 54% to 74% (if we exclude the case of PEI that had a percentage of 91% but with only 21 respondents), the higher percentage being in Ontario (72%), British Columbia (72%), Newfoundland and Labrador (72%) and Alberta (74%). The variation is even weaker in the case of support for an increase in taxes at the condition that money is used to prevent environmental pollution where the percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing vary from 52% to 63% (again excluding PEI with 76%) where Newfoundland and Labrador (64%) is leading followed by Alberta (63%). Provinces that have selected a carbon tax are behind with Manitoba (56%), British Columbia (54%), and Québec (55%). The most recent wave of the WVS will include data precisely on the questions of climate change and the influence of public opinion on policy instruments should at least be rigorously tested. Finally, it should be noted that our study was interested mostly in instruments selection and did not discuss neither the implementation of policy instruments and their efficiency or effectiveness (policy instruments encouraging biofuels production are a good example of an approach that have be called into question in recent years). Cleary, such studies are both necessary and lacking in the case of provincial climate change policy. References Bemelmans-Videc, Marie-Louise, Ray C. Rist, and Evert Vedung, eds. Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, USA; London, UK: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Bernstein, Steven. "International Institutions and the Framing of Domestic Policies: The Kyoto Protocol and Canada's Response to Climate Change." Policy Sciences 35 (2002): 203-36. Bourque, Alain, et al. "From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate": Government of Canada, 2007. Bramley, Matthew "The Case for Kyoto: The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Action." 45: Pembina Institut for Appropriate Development David Suzuki Foundation, 2002. Bramley, Matthew, and Robert Hornung. "Five Years of Failure: Federal and Provincial Government Inaction on Climate Change During a Period of Rising Industrial Emissions." Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, 2000. Druckman, J. N. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)Relevance of Framing Effects." American Political Science Review 98, no. 4 (2004): 671-86. Fischer, Frank. Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices: Oxford University Press, 2003. Gouvernement du Québec. "Le Québec et les changements climatiques. Un défi pour l'avenir." Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, 2006. ———. "Plan d'action québécois 2000-2002 sur les changements climatiques." Ministère de l'Environnement et Ministère des Ressources naturelles, 2000. Government of British Columbia. "Climate Action Plan." 2008. Government of Alberta. "Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy: Responsibility / Leadership / Action." 2008. ———. Albertans and Climate Change. Taking Action, 2002. Government of Canada. "Turning the Corner. Regulatory Framework for Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions." 2008. Government of Manitoba. "Kyoto and Beyond. A Plan of Action to Meet and Exceed Manitoba’s Kyoto Targets." 2002. ———. "Next Steps: 2008 Action on Climate Change." 2008. Government of New Brunswick. "Climate Change Action Plan: 2007-2012." 2007.
    
    17
    Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Climate Change Action Plan 2005: Department of Environment and Conservation, 2005. Government of Nova Scotia. "Toward a Greener Future. Nova Scotia’s Climate Change Action Plan." Nova Scotia Environment, 2009. Government of Ontario. "Go Green. Ontario's Action Plan on Climate Change." 2007. Government of Prince Edward Island. "Curbing Climate Change: Prince Edward Island Climate Change First Business Plan Years 2000/01, 2001/02, 2002/03." PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Environment and PEI Department of Development and Technology, 2001. ———. "Prince Edward Island and Climate Change. A Strategy for Reducing the Impacts of Global Warming." 2008. Government of Saskatchewan. "Energy and Climate Change Plan 2007." 2007. Harrison, Kathryn. "The Road Not Taken: Climate Change Policy in Canada and the United States." Global Environmental Politics 7, no. 4 (2007): 92-117. Harrison, Kathryn, and Sundstrom McIntosh. "Introduction. The Comparative Politics of Climate Change." Global Environmental Politics 7, no. 4 (2007): 1-18. Hood, Christopher. "Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government after Two Decades." Governance 20, no. 1 (2007): 127-44. Hood, Christopher. The Tools of Government. Chatham (New Jersey): Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1983 [1986]. Houle, David. "Le choix des instruments de la politique environnementale québécoise. Le cas des précipitations acides, de l'appauvrissement de la couche d'ozone et des changements climatiques." Université Laval, 2007. Houle, David. "From Resistance to Leadership? A Study of the Use of Climate Change Legislation by the Government of Alberta.", unpublished working paper (2008). Howlett, Micheal, and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Don Mills Oxford university press, 2003. Imbeau, Louis M., Réjean Landry, Henry Milner, François Pétry, Jean Crête, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, and Vincent Lemieux. "Comparative Provincial Policy Analysis: A Research Agenda." Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 33, no. 4 (2000): 779-804. Inglehart, R., et al. World Value Survey. Third Wave 2000 [cited May 3 2009]. Available from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org Jaccard, Mark Kenneth, John Nyboer, and Bryn Sadownik. The Cost of Climate Policy, Sustainability and the Environment, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002. Jordan, Andrew, Rudiger K.W. Wurzel, and Anthony R. Zyto. "Special Issue: New Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects." Environmental Politics 12, no. 1 (2003). Kern, Kristine. "Climate Change Policy in the European Union and the United States: Do Sub-Federal Initiatives Matter?" Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago (IL) 2007. Macdonald, Douglas. Business and Environmental Politics in Canada: Broadview press, 2007. ———. "Coerciveness and the Selection of Environnemental Policy Instruments." Canadian public administration 44, no. 2 (2001): 161-87. Macdonald, Douglas, Tracey Brieger, and Trevor Fleck. "Political Action by the Canadian Insurance Industry on Climate Change." Environmental Politics 10, no. 3 (2001): 111-26. Macdonald, Douglas, David Houle, et Caitlin Patterson. "L’utilisation du volontarisme afin de contrôler les émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur industriel." In La gouvernance environnementale: l'expérience des ententes volontaires dans le secteur industriel, 1990-2000, édité par Jean Mercier and Jean Crête: Presse de l'Université Laval, à venir. Macdonald, Douglas, Debora L. VanNijnatten, and Andrew Bjorn. "Implementing Kyoto: When Spending Is Not Enough." In How Ottawa Spends: Mandate Change in the Paul Martin Era, edited by G. Bruce Doern: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004.
    
    Marshall, Dale. "Provincial Power Play: Breaking Away from Federal Inaction on Climate Change." David Suzuki Foundation, 2008. Paehlke, Robert. Some Like It Cold: The Politics of Climate Change in Canada. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2008. Rabe, Barry G. Statehouse and Greenhouse. The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy." American Political Science Review 87, no. 2 (1993): 334-47. Simpson, Jeffrey, Mark Jaccard, and Nic Rivers. Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge: Mcclelland and Stewart Ltd., 2007. Tversky, A. , and D. Kahneman. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions." Journal of Business 59 no. 4 Part 2 (1986): S251-S78. Van Gorp, B. "The Implementation of Asylim Policy: Which Frame Dominates the Debate?" Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, 29th Joint Sessions, Grenoble (France), 6-11 April 2001. Vedung, Evert "Policy Instruments : Typologies and Theories." In Carrots, Sticks and Sermons : Policy and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers, 2003. Winfield, Mark, Matthew J. Bramley, and Canadian International Council. Climate Change and Canadian Energy Policy : Policy Contradiction and Policy Failure, Behind the Headlines ; Vol. 65, No. 1. Toronto, Ont.: Canadian International Council, 2008. Winfield, Mark, and Douglas Macdonald. "The Harmonization Accord and Climate Change Policy: Two Cases Studies in Federal-Provincial Environmental Policy " In Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy. Second Edition, edited by Herman Barkvis and Grace Skogstad, 266-88, 2007.
    
    19
    
    Annex. Table A1. Climate change plan and legislation among Canadian provinces and territories (Marshall, 2008; Winfield, 2008)
    Provinces Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Québec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Climate change plan First action plan: 2005 First action plan: 2001 Second action plan: 2008 GHG targets under the Environmental Goals First action plan: 2009 First action plan: June 2007 First action plan: 1995 Second action plan: 2000 Troisième plan: 2006 First action plan: October 2007 First action plan: 2002 Second action plan: April 2008 First action plan: June 2007 First action plan: 2002 Second action plan: 2008 First action plan: 2004 Second action plan: June 2008 Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (adoption: 2003, implementation: 2007) Related regulation 2007 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act Climate change and Emissions Reductions Act (adopted?) Regulation under Loi de la protection de l’environnement du Québec and Sustainable Prosperity Act Climate change legislation
    
    Table A2. Framing and instruments selected in Canadian provinces climate change plan
    Dominant framing Ecological threat Provinces New Brunswick (2007) (other framing: none) Nova Scotia (2009) (other framing: none) Newfoundland and Labrador (2005) (other framing: economical threat) Prince Edward Island (2001) (other framing: economical threat) Prince Edward Island (2008) (other framing: none) Québec (2000) (other framings: economic threat and economic opportunity) Manitoba (2002) (other framing: economic opportunity) Economic threat Québec (1995) (other framing: none) Alberta (2002) (other framing: economic opportunity) Alberta (2008) (other framing: economic opportunity) Economic opportunity British Columbia (2004) (other framing: environmental threat) British Columbia (2008) (other framing: environmental threat) Québec (2006) (other framing: environmental threat) Ontario (2007) (other framing: none) Manitoba (2008) (other framing: economic opportunity) Saskatchewan (2007) (other framings: environmental threat and economic threat) Instruments selected (most important) Regulation Market-based (fiscal incentives only) and regulation Voluntarism and market-based (fiscal incentives only) Market-based instrument and voluntarism Regulation Market-based instruments and voluntarism Regulation and market-based instruments (only fiscal incentives) Voluntarism Voluntarism Regulation (intensity-based) Market-based instruments (fiscal incentives only) and voluntarism Market-based instruments (including fiscal disincentives and cap-and-trade) and regulation Market-based instruments (including fiscal disincentives and cap-and-trade) and voluntarism Regulation and market-based instruments (including cap-andtrade) Market-based instruments (including cap-and-trade and fiscal disincentive) and regulation Market-based instruments (only financial incentives) and voluntarism Result As predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted Not as predicted As predicted Not as predicted Partially as predicted As predicted As predicted Not as predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted Partially as predicted

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)