The Experts below are selected from a list of 117 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kenneth C. Johnson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
circumventing the weight versus footprint tradeoffs in vehicle Fuel Economy Regulation
2010Co-Authors: Kenneth C. JohnsonAbstract:China, Japan, and the European Union use weight-based Fuel Economy standards, whereas the U.S. Department of Transportation has rejected such an approach in favor of footprint-based standards. Can these two approaches be reconciled? Weight-based standards tend to focus regulatory incentives on technology rather than downsizing, but they provide no incentive for weight reduction. Footprint-based standards, by contrast, motivate vehicle manufacturers to reduce weight without reducing footprint, but only to the extent that they are also motivated to increase footprint without increasing weight. Neither approach discriminates between beneficial and detrimental weight-changing strategies. Weight-based standards neutralize incentives for both, while footprint-based standards encourage both. However, the tradeoffs between weight and footprint can be circumvented by employing a weight-based standard, which does not create weight-changing incentives, in combination with complementary regulatory measures that would be focused specifically and exclusively on motivating beneficial weight reduction strategies. This regulatory strategy would preserve the benefits of both weight- and footprint-based standards while avoiding their drawbacks.
-
Circumventing the Weight-Versus-Footprint Tradeoffs in Vehicle Fuel Economy Regulation
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2010Co-Authors: Kenneth C. JohnsonAbstract:China, Japan, and the European Union use weight-based Fuel Economy standards, whereas the US Department of Transportation favors footprint-based standards. In this paper we offer a way of reconciling these approaches. Weight-based standards tend to focus regulatory incentives on technology rather than downsizing, but they provide no incentive for weight reduction. Footprint-based standards, by contrast, motivate vehicle manufacturers to reduce weight without reducing footprint, but only to the extent that they are also motivated to increase footprint without increasing weight. Neither approach discriminates between beneficial and detrimental weight-changing strategies. However, the tradeoffs between weight and footprint can be circumvented by employing a weight-based standard, which does not create weight-changing incentives, in combination with complementary regulatory measures that would be focused specifically and exclusively on motivating beneficial weight reduction strategies.
James A. Dunn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Punctuated Equilibrium and Advocacy Coalitions: Toward a Post Carbon Policy Paradigm for the Automobile in North America
2009Co-Authors: James A. Dunn, Anthony PerlAbstract:Addressing climate change will require breaching the well-fortified redoubts of America’s energy and transportation policy monopolies. This paper explores how such policy transformation might actually unfold, drawing upon the case of recent policy innovations in automotive Fuel Economy Regulation. Even before the economic crisis triggered a government led restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors, the advocacy groups in America’s auto policy subsystem recognized that “things are moving,” and that the status quo of 1980s era Fuel Economy standards could not be preserved indefinitely. Following the 2006 Congressional elections, the coalition behind Detroit’s policy monopoly became more open to policy changes that would avoid the most damaging outcome of sharp increases in Fuel Economy Regulations. Once Detroit’s lock on policy change was opened, environmental and transportation reform advocates found they needed to quickly elaborate many practical and political details of a “new paradigm” if they were to successfully replace the old policy monopoly, not just add some incremental refinements to a modified status quo. This paper explores the relatively neglected phenomenon of what happens during and soon after the termination of a policy monopoly. This mode (and moment) of policy transformation fits Peter Hall’s (1993) “third order” of policy change when policy goals are refashioned and become the new reference point for subsequent implementation. Such pivotal periods of policy reformulation are, like punctuations, few and far between, at least in American politics. Applying Hall’s typology to this episode of policy punctuation enables us to distinguish between changes in a policy monopoly from changes to a policy monopoly. They represented two different modes of punctuation, we suggest. And they generally lead to different policy outcomes.
-
Reframing Automobile Fuel Economy Policy in North America: The Politics of Punctuating a Policy Equilibrium
Transport Reviews, 2007Co-Authors: Anthony Perl, James A. DunnAbstract:The USA and Canada generate over one‐third of the transportation‐related emissions of carbon dioxide in the world. Motor vehicles produce a majority of these emissions. This paper examines how the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulatory standard for light‐duty vehicles has established an underlying Fuel Economy policy paradigm for the highly integrated North American automotive sector. While these standards pushed North American vehicle Fuel efficiency higher in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the standards have not been significantly increased since 1985. The paper details the institutional, economic and political factors that have blocked higher CAFE standards. It describes difficulties with the legal efforts to shift the main venue of Fuel Economy Regulation from the US federal government to the state of California. In light of the Canadian tradition of establishing voluntary agreements between the government and the auto manufacturers in lieu of formal Regulation, it assesses the possibility that the voluntary agreement on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions signed between Ottawa and Canadian auto manufacturers in April 2005 will be a step toward a new style of negotiated advances in Fuel Economy and greenhouse gas reduction goals throughout North America.
Kara M. Kockelman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Household energy use and travel: Opportunities for behavioral change
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2011Co-Authors: Sashank Musti, Katherine Kortum, Kara M. KockelmanAbstract:Abstract This study examines personal travel decisions and residents’ opinions on energy policy options in the Austin metropolitan area. The vast majority of respondents recognized global warming as a problem, and most agreed that lifestyle changes are needed to combat climate change. Many also believe that climate change can be combated by application of stricter policies in the areas of vehicle technology, Fuel Economy, and building design. Results of the study illuminate the importance of home-zone attributes on vehicle ownership, vehicle miles, and emissions. Most households agree that energy Regulations should be pursued to curb global climate change, and most prefer caps on consumption over taxation. The results suggest that substantial US energy and greenhouse gas savings are likely to come from vehicle Fuel-Economy Regulation, rebates on relatively Fuel-efficient vehicle purchases, caps on maximum household energy use, and long-term behavioral shifts.
-
Household Energy Use and Travel: Opportunities for Behavioral Change
2010Co-Authors: Sashank Musti, Katherine Kortum, Kara M. KockelmanAbstract:Home and personal travel decisions have important consequences for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet there has been little data on and investigation into the connections between such decisions and decision makers’ opinions on energy policy options. This study examines such data for the Austin metropolitan area and attempts to infer directions for fruitful energy policy. Nearly all respondents recognized global warming as a problem (95%), and most agreed that lifestyle changes are needed to combat climate change (85%). Many also believe that climate change can be combated by application of stricter policies in the areas of vehicle technology (68%), Fuel Economy (86%), and building design (85%). Results of the study illuminate the importance of home-zone attributes on vehicle ownership, vehicle miles, and emissions. Most (56%) households agree that energy Regulations should be pursued to curb global climate change, and most prefer caps on consumption over taxation. Data and empirical results suggest that substantial U.S. energy and greenhouse gas savings are likely to come from vehicle Fuel-Economy Regulation, rebates on relatively Fuel-efficient vehicle purchases, home heating and cooling practices, caps on maximum household energy use, and long-term behavioral shifts.
Anthony Perl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Punctuated Equilibrium and Advocacy Coalitions: Toward a Post Carbon Policy Paradigm for the Automobile in North America
2009Co-Authors: James A. Dunn, Anthony PerlAbstract:Addressing climate change will require breaching the well-fortified redoubts of America’s energy and transportation policy monopolies. This paper explores how such policy transformation might actually unfold, drawing upon the case of recent policy innovations in automotive Fuel Economy Regulation. Even before the economic crisis triggered a government led restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors, the advocacy groups in America’s auto policy subsystem recognized that “things are moving,” and that the status quo of 1980s era Fuel Economy standards could not be preserved indefinitely. Following the 2006 Congressional elections, the coalition behind Detroit’s policy monopoly became more open to policy changes that would avoid the most damaging outcome of sharp increases in Fuel Economy Regulations. Once Detroit’s lock on policy change was opened, environmental and transportation reform advocates found they needed to quickly elaborate many practical and political details of a “new paradigm” if they were to successfully replace the old policy monopoly, not just add some incremental refinements to a modified status quo. This paper explores the relatively neglected phenomenon of what happens during and soon after the termination of a policy monopoly. This mode (and moment) of policy transformation fits Peter Hall’s (1993) “third order” of policy change when policy goals are refashioned and become the new reference point for subsequent implementation. Such pivotal periods of policy reformulation are, like punctuations, few and far between, at least in American politics. Applying Hall’s typology to this episode of policy punctuation enables us to distinguish between changes in a policy monopoly from changes to a policy monopoly. They represented two different modes of punctuation, we suggest. And they generally lead to different policy outcomes.
-
Reframing Automobile Fuel Economy Policy in North America: The Politics of Punctuating a Policy Equilibrium
Transport Reviews, 2007Co-Authors: Anthony Perl, James A. DunnAbstract:The USA and Canada generate over one‐third of the transportation‐related emissions of carbon dioxide in the world. Motor vehicles produce a majority of these emissions. This paper examines how the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulatory standard for light‐duty vehicles has established an underlying Fuel Economy policy paradigm for the highly integrated North American automotive sector. While these standards pushed North American vehicle Fuel efficiency higher in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the standards have not been significantly increased since 1985. The paper details the institutional, economic and political factors that have blocked higher CAFE standards. It describes difficulties with the legal efforts to shift the main venue of Fuel Economy Regulation from the US federal government to the state of California. In light of the Canadian tradition of establishing voluntary agreements between the government and the auto manufacturers in lieu of formal Regulation, it assesses the possibility that the voluntary agreement on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions signed between Ottawa and Canadian auto manufacturers in April 2005 will be a step toward a new style of negotiated advances in Fuel Economy and greenhouse gas reduction goals throughout North America.
Masahiko Iguchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Construction of Japanese Fuel Economy Regulations for Passenger Cars
Divergence and Convergence of Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations, 2015Co-Authors: Masahiko IguchiAbstract:This chapter focuses on how Japanese climate policy for automobiles has been constructed. Japan has the highest Fuel Economy Regulation along with the EU in the world. The question is, did Japan adopt the world’s highest Fuel Economy Regulation by same reasons as European case, or are there any distinctive factors? This chapter argues that Japan adopted its stringent Fuel Economy Regulation primarily because of industry competitiveness. The main reason for this rationale to enhance its industry competitiveness by setting stringent Regulation is due to its size of the market. Furthermore, this chapter points out that Japan’s decision-making process, which is characterized as ‘co-Regulation ’ and ‘corporatism’ between government and the industry, enables to maintain its stringent Fuel Economy Regulations. To do so, this chapter looks at the construction of Japanese Fuel Economy Regulations, by focusing on how foreign markets have been impacted on Japan’s Fuel Economy Regulations, as well as how Japan’s ‘co-Regulation’ and ‘corporatism’ have been enhancing the Regulations.
-
Construction of the US Fuel Economy Regulations for Passenger Cars
Divergence and Convergence of Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations, 2015Co-Authors: Masahiko IguchiAbstract:This chapter focuses on the construction of the US Fuel Economy Regulations. In comparison to the stringent European Fuel Economy Regulations introduced in the early 1990s, the US Fuel Economy regulatory standards, originally introduced in 1978, are the lowest among the major automobile manufacturing nations. Indeed, US Fuel Economy Regulations have been stagnant for more than 20 years (since the mid-1980s). The critical change was brought about only recently, under the George W. Bush Administration (Republican, 2001–2007), with an introduction of the 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act, which raised the mandatory Fuel Economy Regulation. Under the Obama Administration (Democrat, 2007—present), US Fuel Economy regulatory standards are now catching up with Japanese and European standards. Consequently, the question is why, despite the US being the world’s first country to introduce Fuel Economy Regulations, has US Fuel Economy Regulation been stagnant for more than 20 years? What political dynamics pushed the former Bush Administration, which had withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol negotiation in 2001, to improve the Fuel Economy Regulation standard? Why are the recent US Fuel Economy Regulations now converging with the Japanese and European standards? This chapter attempts to answer these questions and sketch the logic of the regulatory convergence of the Fuel Economy among major automobile manufacturing nations.
-
Divergence and Convergence of Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations: A Comparative Analysis of EU, Japan and the US
2015Co-Authors: Masahiko IguchiAbstract:This book reveals the mechanism of the regulatory convergence of car Fuel Economy Regulations between Europe, Japan and the United States (US) by drawing upon constructivist theory of International Relations and literature that focus on business competition and environmental Regulations. It offers new understandings on the topic of ‘cars and carbon’ by: (1) dealing with the emerging phenomenon of convergence of car Fuel Economy Regulations; (2) addressing the role of the business actor in pushing towards solution of climate change issue; (3) proposing the new model of ‘Agency with and beyond the states’; and (4) providing rich case studies from Europe, Japan and the US. Chapter 1: Introduction highlights the automobile industry and global climate change in order to provide an issue background. Chapter 2: Business Actors and Global Environmental Governance shows where the proposed monograph stands in the discipline of political science, and demonstrates how this book would advance the study of business actors in global environmental governance. Chapter 3: Construction of European Fuel Economy Regulations for Passenger Cars looks at how Europe' s climate policies for car CO₂ emissions have been constructed. It asks, how and why has the European Union (EU) introduced these standards, even before Japan and the United States? What factors influenced these Regulations, and which actors were instrumental in the decision-making process? Chapter 4: Construction of Japanese Fuel Economy Regulations for Passenger Car argues that Japan adopted its stringent Fuel Economy Regulation primarily because of industry competitiveness, which are motivated by stringent environmental Regulations in export markets and encouraged by its tradition of 'co-Regulation' and 'corporatism' to enhance the Regulations. Chapter 5: Construction of the US Fuel Economy Regulations for Passenger Cars addresses why, despite the US being the world's first country to introduce Fuel Economy Regulations, has US Fuel Economy Regulation been stagnant for more than 20 years? What political dynamics pushed the former Bush Administration, which had withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol negotiation in 2001, to improve the Fuel Economy Regulation standard? Why are the recent US Fuel Economy Regulations now converging with the Japanese and European standards? Chapter 6: Comparative Assessment compares and contrasts Fuel Economy Regulations that draw implications to the target for 2015 and beyond, by comparing and contrasting Fuel Economy Regulations among three case studies. Chapter 7: Conclusion provides broader implications to theories, explores applicability of ‘agency with and beyond the state’ model to other sectors, and to climate governance as a whole, by answering research questions.
