Garfinkel 1
Will Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Help us Explain the Developments Surrounding COVID-19
and Environmental Policy? by Adam Harrison Garfinkel
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfilment of the requirements necessary to attain an honors distinction upon graduation Department of Political Science April 5, 2021
Committee Members:
Dr. Nancy Billica, Department of Political Science
Dr. Janet Donavan, Department of Political Science
Dr. Alison Hatch, Departments of Sociology and Women & Gender Studies
Garfinkel 2
Garfinkel, Adam Harrison (B.A., Political Science)
Will Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Help us Explain the Developments Surrounding COVID-19
and Environmental Policy?
Thesis Directed by Dr. Nancy Billica
Abstract: This project is titled, “Will Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Help us Explain the Developments
Surrounding COVID-19 and Environmental Policy?”. As the title suggests, the research question will be regarding the effects of COVID-19 on the punctuated equilibrium theory, specifically relating to environmental policy in the
United States of America. Punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that in both American and specific foreign governments, the policies that get created and passed tend to be rather steady and unchanging, until a major event occurs, which disrupts the normally homogenous system in a large way. An example where we have seen this theory hold true in the past was in the aftermath of 9/11, when the United States Government passed a series of new laws regarding air flight safety and other anti-terrorism acts, something that the country had not seen in policy until that point. This project will test this theory in the modern context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and seek to understand whether or not environmental policy has experienced a large shift after the major event that is the COVID-19 pandemic.
This project is important because of the new nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. The world knows so little about what has happened so far and what will happen in the future from a policy perspective in response to the pandemic, so trying to predict the future of environmental policy has become very difficult. If this project can conclude that Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is in fact relevant for the COVID-19 pandemic, then this information could prove useful in predicting the United States Governments’ future response to major events, as well as help describe the current status of environmental policy in the United States. This information could then also potentially be used to help adjust new and future environmental policy, so that it best serves the American people and their future interests.
Garfinkel 3
CONTENTS:
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10
3. RESEARCH DESIGN SECTION ...... 24
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING POLICY TOPICS.29
5. COVID-19 FACTORS...... 56
6. CASE STUDY #1 ...... 61
7. CASE STUDY #2 ...... 75
8. LARGER DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ...... 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………..…………………………………………. .. 101
APPENDIX
A. INTERVIEW RECRUITMENT INFORMATION ...... 106
B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 107
Garfinkel 4
FIGURES
Figure
4.1 Most Prevalent Alternative Energy Source by State: 2007 vs. 2017……….32
4.2 How a Hydroelectric Dam Works…………………………………………..34
4.3 An Example of Offshore Wind Turbines…………………………………....35
4.4 A Variety of Biomass Sources………………………………………………37
4.5 An Example of Private Solar Energy………………………………………..38
4.6 State Government Trifectas Vs. Carbon Emissions…………………………40
4.7. Example of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure…………………………………42
4.8 How the Cap-and-Trade System Ideally Works…………………………….43
4.9 Areas With the Most and Least Popular Transportation Systems…………..45
4.10 Fracking and Venting Regulations by State………………………………...47
4.11 The Delicate Nature of Fracking: is it Occurring too Close to the Water Supply?...48
4.12 The Deepwater Horizon Disaster: a resource Conservation Nightmare…….51
4.13 The Water recycling Process………………………………………………..53
5.1 Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Numbers of Environmental Policy in Each State..58
Garfinkel 5
TABLES
Table
6.1 Case Study #1 Environmental Bills Pre and Post Pandemic ...... 73
6.2 Case Study #1 Environmental Bills Versus COVID-19 Bills……………...74
7.1 Case Study #2 Environmental Bills Pre and Post Pandemic……………….87
7.2 Case Study #2 Environmental Bills Versus COVID-19 Bills……………...88
Garfinkel 6
Chapter 1: Introduction
There were not many things that all 50 states were the same in, or even agreed on in
2020. Political factors, cultural differences, and geographic location all play a role in creating these not so uncommon differences between states. One thing that is true for all 50 states, however, is that not a single one experienced an increase in the amount of environmental legislation introduced between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020, compared to their own legislature’s number of introductions exactly one year prior. Not a single one. Not only that, but there were 3 state legislatures which did not even introduce a single environmental policy in that time span. Nearly everyone who is up to date with modern policy making knows that the environment has been an increasingly pertinent issue amongst legislatures across the world. This scenario raises the simple question, why is this occurring?
The question that this paper seeks to answer is: what has caused environmental policy to seemingly go by the wayside during the timeframe between March 11, 2020, and December 31,
2020? There could be multiple explanations for this occurrence, and the most obvious place to begin to look is the COVID-19 pandemic, which began on March 11, 2020, when the World
Health Organization declared it a global pandemic. The novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, is an easily spread, flu-like disease, which is currently a leading cause of death in the United States
(Cox, 2021). The question of how are COVID-19 and environmental policy related is then raised. They are seemingly unrelated at surface level, but when looked at in the context of the punctuated equilibrium theory, the connections between the two begin to appear. The punctuated equilibrium theory can be defined as: after major disruptions to society, we expect a quick and vast alteration in which policies are introduced, as well as which policies are passed throughout all levels of government (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). If this theory were to be occurring in Garfinkel 7 the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, legislators would be introducing and passing a plethora of bills related to mitigating the effects of the pandemic (such as healthcare related legislation or unemployment benefit related legislation) and policy areas not related to the pandemic including environmental policy would be receiving little to no attention. Then, sometime after the end of the pandemic, both environmental and COVID-19 related policies would return to their normal levels of introduction.
Another explanation for the noticeable decrease in introduction of state-level environmental policy could be the usual factors which have always impacted environmental policy since its creation as an issue area. These could include political factors, geographic location factors, cultural factors, and other factors which are relevant when discussing state-level policy. It is also possible that a combination of these normal factors and the punctuated equilibrium are occurring, or that it is another explanation all together. This paper attempts to address this irregular policy occurrence by following the plan of the below outline:
Chapter 1: Introduction- This section outlines the overarching themes of the project while introducing the main question.
Chapter 2: Literature Review- This chapter addresses the literature that already exists within the areas of environmental policy, state-level policy in general, and the punctuated equilibrium theory. Due to the recent nature of the introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic, this chapter is mostly used as background information to set the stage for the following chapters.
Chapter 3: Research Design- Chapter 3 outlines the way in which data for this project will be gathered, introduces the 5 hypotheses integral to this completion of this project, and describes the methods that will be used to attempt to answer these hypotheses. Garfinkel 8
Chapter 4: Key Background Information Regarding Five Important Environmental Policy
Topics- This chapter describes the five policy areas within the broader term ‘environmental policy’ this project will focus on. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader background into why these specific categories were chosen to represent the category of environmental policy, why these policy areas are important for environmental health, and to describe what the reader can expect the data in the following chapters to be based on.
Chapter 5: COVID-19 Factors- Chapter 5 introduces how COVID-19 has impacted various state legislatures’ environmental policy, and will also introduce some key data that is pertinent to the hypotheses of this project. This chapter introduces the most significant finding of this project.
Chapter 6: Case Study #1- This section explores the results of the first case study comparing
Colorado and Arizona. It first provides an explanation for why these states were chosen, and then delves into a detailed description of each state’s environmental policy before and after the pandemic before comparing the two states to attempt to answer the 5 hypotheses. The results of interviews conducted with state level senators and representatives that are a part of each states’ respective environmental committee will also be discussed in this section.
Chapter 7: Case Study #2- This chapter explores the results of the second case study comparing
North Carolina and Virginia to expand upon the results found in chapter 6. It is set up in the same way as chapter 6, and provides a new set of interviews amongst state legislators from North
Carolina and Virginia on their respective environmental committees.
Chapter 8: Larger Discussion and Conclusion- Chapter 8 is the final chapter, and its purpose is to compare across all four states selected for case studies, while adding some information gathered from all 50 states. After this discussion, the conclusion includes a recap of the bigger Garfinkel 9 question, where this project fits into the already existing literature, limitations of the project, and some possible next steps for future research.
Garfinkel 10
Chapter 2- Literature Review
Introduction:
The COVID-19 outbreak has led to numerous changes in the way the United States operates, including within the realm of public policy. This project addresses how different states have handled their respective environmental policies since the COVID-19 outbreak. To understand the discrepancies between various states’ environmental policies after COVID-19, the factors which contributed to the pre-existing differences across states policy and in state environmental policy prior to COVID-19 must be understood first. Because COVID-19 is not the first major disruption to affect public policy in the United States, exploring the United States’ government experience with disruptions by looking at punctuated equilibrium theory is also valuable when trying to understand the current state of environmental policy. Punctuated
Equilibrium Theory states that after major disruptions to society, we expect a quick and vast alteration in which policies are introduced, as well as which policies are passed throughout all levels of government (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). An example of this occurred after 9/11, when this tragic event led to extensive changes in travel safety and foreign affairs legislation, which then had various ripple effects on other parts of society and other areas of legislation. The following literature review provides background on existing schools of thought that influence general public policy, environmental public policy, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, to try and better understand the current state of environmental policy in the United States.
Factors Which Influence General Public Policy in the United States:
Public policy is affected by countless and changing conditions that vary across the states.
However, there are a few specific societal factors that are widely agreed upon to be integral to the policy making process in every state. Each of these factors has varying effects on public Garfinkel 11 policy in the United States, and various sources rank these factors with differing levels of importance. Sources that claim societal factors are the most important aspect of public policymaking tend to have similar variables mentioned as having the most importance, which include but are not limited to: public opinion, economic conditions, technological advancements, and interest groups (Gittel et. al., 2020; Sharkansky, 1969; Schnier, 2019; Christiansen, 2001).
While these scholars recognize non-societal factors that also influence public policy, many of these are related to individual law makers, so they are difficult to quantify and be described as explanatory variables for public policy throughout the United States. An example of this is the individual personality of a lawmaker, which can heavily influence public policy but changes significantly between sates and politicians. There are also more societal factors than just the ones in the list above, however these factors are the most prominent and widely spoken about when discussing how public policy is created.
Public opinion can influence policymaking in the United States in various ways, but this mainly occurs through agenda setting (Gittel et. al., 2020). One of the most recent examples of this is the actions taken by local governments to reduce funding to police departments due to the
Black Lives Matter movement gaining traction throughout the country. Prior to the massive protests and attention being drawn to the issue by the public, defunding police departments was not a common agenda item for legislatures, but now this outcome could reasonably occur nearly anywhere in the country. Once an issue is popularized throughout a state, governments
(including local ones) are forced to address these problems, or else risk losing the support of their constituency. Garfinkel 12
Other sources believe that the largest factor in determining varying state policies on a state-by-state basis is economics (Sharkansky, 1969). One study utilized a test that tried to asses whether or not state political systems impacted policy making outcomes, but instead found that:
There are occasionally high correlations between individual measures of voter turnout, party competitiveness, or the character of state legislatures and some aspects of governmental spending. But these political-policy correlations seem to disappear when the effect of socioeconomic development is controlled (Sharkansky, 1969, p. 867).
An example of economics affecting state policy making includes the United States government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in which both federal and state governments made adjustments to their unemployment policies and tax codes to try to stimulate the struggling
American economy. This same trend also occurred during the Great Depression, when various policies were changed to ensure that another stock market crash would not occur. Economics are also the primary factor that is discussed during a cost/benefit analysis, which is a typical step conducted on a policy before it is passed. Economics are embedded into our public policy creation, and have been since the United States’ founding.
Technological advancements certainly influence public policymaking in a variety of ways, but there is less consensus on how it impacts public policy specifically, especially compared to some aforementioned factors. Nearly all sources agree that technological advancements are related in some way or another to public policy. An example of this are the advancements that have been made to solar panels to make them a viable energy-collecting alternative to carbon-based technologies, leading to the implementation of policies supporting solar panel distribution. The discrepancies surrounding this issue are primarily related to which comes first, the technological advancement, or the policy change. Some scholars argue that technology comes before the policy, and that policy may even be currently behind where it needs to be in regards to technological advancements (Schneier, 2019). An example of this relationship Garfinkel 13 can be seen when discussing artificial intelligence (AI), where it can be argued that the government has too few regulations in a field that is rapidly expanding (Schneier, 2019). Other sources, however, would argue that the creation of new policies have led to advancements in technology over time, and not the other way around (Christiansen, 2001). This article argues that without the proper policies allowing for technological innovation, especially regarding new clean energies, companies would not have the ability to create these new technologies (Christiansen,
2001). While the direction of influence between technological advancement and policy change remains in dispute, there is general agreement that a strong relationship exists between the two.
Interest groups are organizations that attempt to influence political decisions to favor their concerns. Interest groups include a number of organizations, ranging from businesses to cause-oriented citizen groups and labor unions (Gittel et. al., 2020). Interest groups can influence public policy in a variety of ways, from financial lobbying to spreading awareness about an issue and setting the public agenda (Gittel et. al., 2020). These impacts can be seen as positive or negative depending on the perspective of the lawmaker and the individual citizen. For example, sometimes a successful effort to influence policy is one that results in maintaining the status quo, or holding off attempts by other groups in society to adopt new public policies. One clear way in which policy is impacted by interest groups includes the policy creation process, where policy makers often consider who will be the most affected by a policy (Pirie, 2015). This includes considering how interest groups that represent these different subsets of people will respond to this legislation, ranging from backlash to support of the policy. Lobbying is another way in which policy making can be directly affected by interest groups, who have the ability to fund campaigns and support candidates, thus increasing their sway over public policy (Pirie, 2015).
An example of this occurring is a hairdressers’ union lobbying for increased licensing Garfinkel 14 requirements for hairdressers, which would help keep the prices high for current hairdressers by discouraging competition from easily entering the market (Pirie, 2015). There is broad agreement among scholars that interest groups have substantial impact on policy making, especially because one of the reasons for the existence of interest groups is to influence public policy.
Factors Influencing Environmental Policy in the United States:
Environmental policy on the state level is impacted by many of the same factors described as influencing public policy in general, but there are some factors unique to environmental policy that are not as widely agreed upon by existing literature in general public policy. Some of the overlapping factors that environmental policy and general public policy have include economic motivations, public opinion, and interest group activity. These factors have a very similar impact on environmental policy as they do on general public policy. Some of the environmental policy specific factors include the role of the governor, demographics, risk perceptions, and the United States Supreme Court (Gieseke, 2020; Wan, 2017; Howe, 2015;
Jordan, 2001). Each of these variables have varying effects on environmental policy outcomes, ranging from getting environmental issues on the policy agenda, to influencing who gets elected as a representative in each state. It should be noted that there are other factors considered important to predicting the success of environmental policy mentioned in the academic literature, including some factors which are politician-specific that cannot be used to explain phenomena that are more generally true across the United States. An example of this is a particular candidate’s worldview, which is individual and does not affect everyone the same way.
The role of the governor in environmental policy is complex as it varies widely between states, but in general, the governor can create avenues for collaboration on environmental policy, is held accountable for the environmental actions of the state, and can reduce confusion Garfinkel 15 regarding a complex environmental issue (Gieseke, 2020). The governor’s agenda has been seen by existing literature as an avenue to increase state-wide activity regarding environmental policy, and the governor can work with other members of the state government to create new laws and regulations which can either benefit or hinder the environment. Who is elected governor is also reflective of the states’ opinions about environmental policy, as Republican governors have tended to favor economic progress over an environmentally friendly agenda, and the opposite is generally true of Democratic governors (Hess, 2016). The governor is looked at as the leader of an individual state, and as such the responsibility of the state’s actions is often associated with them. Individuals or interest groups may blame the governor first if policy does not meet their standards, or goes against their beliefs. The governor is also important in helping introduce policy to the public, as they are seen as the figurehead of the state (Gieseke, 2020). Because of the varying nature of the governor’s role across the states, the governor may be more or less inclined to explain laws in simpler terms to the public, depending on the situation. If the law that they are explaining would be perceived as popular by their constituency, then he or she may be more encouraged to help clear up confusion regarding complex terminology and plans described by a specific environmental policy. However, if the concept may not be popular in the state, such as a pro-business centered law that would result in increased pollution being passed in a state like
California that generally prefers environmental protection, then the governor may be less likely to reduce confusion surrounding the topic, as well keep the proceedings surrounding the policy less public to maintain their popularity amongst their constituents.
Many sources agree that demographics are a good measure of the efficacy of an environmentally minded resolution within a state. Demographics can include many variables, but the most commonly mentioned in relation to environmental policy include age, education, Garfinkel 16 gender, and income (Wan, 2017). Scholars of public opinion generally find that young people are more likely to approve of an environmental resolution than elderly people, so a state with a younger population is far more likely to pass an environmentally friendly law. This is related to which candidate is more likely to be in office in that state due to a younger population, as well as the opinions of the electorate, which often heavily impacts political decision making (Wan,
2017). Education is another important demographic factor which is correlated with environmental policy, and studies show that those who have higher education are more likely to support environmental legislation (Wan, 2017). This may be due to the fact that scientists have made the assertion that climate change is caused by humans and that we have the ability to positively impact outcomes through policy, so those with an education would be more likely to believe these statements and have access to these scientific sources in the first place. There are also other resource-related reasons for the difference in support of environmental policy, mostly regarding access levels and motivation levels for engagement with environmental issues (Wan,
2017). Individuals who have access to information exposing issues caused by pollution, such as those learned in current curriculums in public schools, are more likely to believe in and care about the adverse effects of climate change. While gender is also considered to be a factor that has some impact on an individual’s likelihood to support environmental legislation, this variable is much less predictable (Wan, 2017). Some studies show that women are more likely to support paying higher taxes for environmental purposes as well as being more likely to support environmental actions (Hunter et. al., 2004; Zelezny et. al., 2000), but other studies show that women are less actively engaging in pro-environmental behaviors compared to men (Blocker and
Eckberg, 1997). Just like gender, income is also a very inconsistent predictor of environmental support. From one perspective, wealthier individuals have the resources to combat climate Garfinkel 17 change and thus should be adopting higher levels of environmental response. Consistent with this, individuals residing in countries with higher gross domestic product (GDP), or greater economic activity, have been found to devote more efforts towards climate change mitigation
(Franzen 2003; Inglehart, 1995). At the same time, however, some studies show that wealthier individuals on the whole do not necessarily perform environmentally conscious behaviors, regardless of the fact that they may have the resources to do so (McCright and Dunlap, 2013;
Mostafa, 2012). Environmental policy and socio-economic status are even further intertwined by the fact that often those who have less money are sometimes the most affected by environmental risks. This occurs because those who have the least amount of money often have the least amount of resources to combat adverse environmental factors in their communities (Bhardwaj,
2016).
Risk perceptions play a large role in the success of environmental legislation, especially because individuals that do not view environmental concerns as a human-caused phenomenon face little risk in the short term by ignoring climate policy recommendations, especially compared to someone who agrees with scientists that climate change due to human activity does exist (Howe, 2015). A study showed that about half of the residents in Wyoming and West
Virginia believe that climate change in general is a hoax, so environmental legislation would most likely fail in these states, and has before in some cases (Howe, 2015). Even more of the electorate throughout the states do not believe that humans are the cause of climate change in the first place, also reducing risk perceptions surrounding climate change in these areas (Howe,
2015). There is also a large segment of the population in various states that do not believe that climate change is happening in the first place, thus muddying the waters even more when it comes to risk perceptions regarding climate change. It is difficult for politicians to pass Garfinkel 18 successful climate change regulation when most of their respective state is not willing to cooperate with the new regulation. Adding on to this difficulty is the fact that politicians are elected officials, so they must cater to their constituents for job security. A politician in a state that does not agree with scientists about climate change is far less likely to vote yes on a law that could be used against them in the next election, as well as being less likely themselves to actually believe that preventing climate change is the right move for their respective state. This is all related to the risk perceptions of the individual law maker, who may have to weigh the risk of re- election with the risk of doing nothing about climate change.
As the reviewing body in the United States government, the Supreme Court has a large impact over which laws are constitutional and which ones are not, and their decisions then directly affect which regulations can be made regarding environmental activity thereafter. The
Supreme Court also decides federalism disputes, including whether to favor the federal government, or to allow the state governments to make their own decisions when there are competing laws regarding environmental legislation. In the case of environmental regulation, the
Supreme Court has ruled differently depending on the specific environmental issue, but the effect on state regulation is nonetheless an important one. There are competing schools of thought about why Supreme Court Justices make the decisions that they do regarding environmental policy and federalism (Jordan, 2001). One theory is the ‘Attitudinal Model’ which states that justices allow their personal views to impact the decisions they make on the court (Morton, et. al., 1995). This school of thought competes with ‘New Institutionalism’ which states that justices weigh other factors besides their own opinions when making decisions about which laws to uphold (Epstein and Knight, 1998). These other factors include rational choice theory, the preferences of other actors, and legal norms (Jordan, 2001). The decisions that are made by the Garfinkel 19
Supreme Court only carry as much weight as the actors below them are willing to allow it, as the
Supreme Court has no enforcement power of their own. One way these decisions are helpful includes providing strategic resources which may be used by social movements, including movements related to environmental responsibility (Jordan, 2001). Precedent set by the Supreme
Court is a tool that can be used to mitigate or increase climate change, depending on the individual decision itself. The overall impact of the Supreme Court is a highly debated topic, but the effects of its rulings can be seen throughout the United States.
Disruptions and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory:
COVID-19 is hardly the first major disruption that the United States has had to endure, so looking back at what happened in previous times of distress is an important piece of understanding what should be expected from policies formulated throughout the states during these unprecedented times. While studying these events in the past, some theories have been created and applied to various phenomena that occur after a major disruption. An underlying question when confronted by a major disruption is whether policymaking proceeds in a business- as-usual set of steps (being affected by the same kinds of societal and other factors that more generally influence policy), or if disruptions themselves have an independent effect on policy processes.
Punctuated equilibrium theory is one of the most significant theoretical attempts to explain how a major societal disruption affects public policymaking. Punctuated equilibrium theory asserts that after major disruptions to society, we expect a quick and vast alteration in which policies are introduced, as well as which policies are passed throughout all levels of government (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory focuses on two aspects of the policy making process: agenda setting and issue definition (Baumgartner and Garfinkel 20
Jones, 2018). When one of these areas is impacted by a new issue, there is a good chance that
Punctuated equilibrium theory may come into play. When an issue is on the political agenda, small changes in objective circumstances can lead to large changes in public policy, which has been referred to as a positive feedback process (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). This process also includes increased spending within this particular policy area. Words such as “bandwagon”,
“feeding frenzy”, “cascade”, “landslide” and “momentum” have all been used to describe this part of the theory (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018, p. 57). Negative feedback, on the other hand, is when the opposite is true— a system’s stability is maintained over a long period of time
(Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). Just like humans, it can be claimed that governments also have short attention spans, which translates into periods of vast change in various policies followed by no change at all for extended periods of time afterwards (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). There are two ways in which a landslide in policy can occur, either the buildup of small policies over time leads to it, or one large event suddenly causes it. COVID-19 legislation is consistent with the latter.
It can be argued that all environmental policy began as Punctuated equilibrium itself in
1970 with the first ever Earth Day (Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). The first Earth Day was followed up with quick action from the federal and state governments regarding environmental regulation and safety, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act (Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). While the environmental protection movement got off to a fast start through the beginning of the 1970s, by the 1980s, the United States shifted towards favoring economic protections instead of environmental protections. The 1980 election which brought Ronald Reagan into office can be considered a focusing event itself (Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). Since this focusing event Garfinkel 21 launched in the early 1980s, environmental policies have often been directly pitted against business interests, causing contention throughout local and national courts as well as within political debate. This trend has led to an “equilibrium” with little sustained movement in either direction (Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). This trend of little change in a policy area can also be referred to as “stasis” (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). While environmental policy has been characterized as Punctuated Equilibrium itself, other large focusing events have also altered environmental policy in the past.
Policy altering events such as 9/11 have taken attention away from climate change policy
(Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). This happened because when policy makers are put under pressure from a new public agenda being set, they must react to it quickly or risk losing their support. A focusing event can happen in a variety of ways, and some sources believe that we are heading for another climate change focusing event, so as a result of this, our policies will then generally be directed more towards mitigating climate change, at least for a short time (Repetto and Baumgartner, 2006). COVID-19 is definitely a focusing event, but is certainly not an environmentally centered one. It is more likely that the COVID-19 crisis is taking attention away from environmental issues, just as 9/11 did in 2001.
Conclusion:
While trying to gain clarity on the current situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and environmental policy, it is important to understand the factors which were previously important to public policy and environmental policy, as well as how the United States has responded to other large disruptions in the past. Prior to 2020, public opinion, economic conditions, technological advancements, and interest groups were all integral factors when discussing general public policy in the United States, while the role of the governor, Garfinkel 22 demographics, risk perceptions, and the Supreme Court are factors which specifically impacted environmental policy more. These factors can overlap, meaning that some of the factors which influence general public policy may also influence environmental policy and vice versa, but based on already existing literature, these factors are the most influential within their designated categories. During prior disruptions, the local and federal governments in the United States have experienced rapid and large change in various policy areas, a phenomenon referred to as
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. This theory can explain a shift in attention and resources various policy areas receive when public interest is shifted towards or away from them. During the aftermath of 9/11, policies regarding travel and terrorism were heavily addressed, leaving topics such as environmental policy relatively untouched. The opposite is true during the 1970’s, where essentially a green revolution caused a vast and rapid change in United States environmental policy, both on a state and federal government level.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen different states treat various policy areas in vastly different ways, and this may have been expected due to the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the punctuated equilibrium theory predicting this rapid change. This paper attempts to discover the factors that are the underlying cause of the differences between how the various states have handled their environmental policies since the pandemic began. It is clear that we expected a change and even some variance between the states’ environmental policy response.
Drawing on the broad set of policymaking research findings, this analysis starts with an assumption that environmental policy has continued through the pandemic period to be affected by the same factors that were previously considered important in describing environmental and general public policy support and development. States are addressing issues of environmental Garfinkel 23 policy in very different ways. Is this because of well-established policy-relevant differences across the states themselves, or is the punctuated equilibrium theory a better way to understand environmental policy in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic? This is an important topic for at least a couple of reasons. First, COVID-19 creates an important test of the punctuated equilibrium theory and thus our ability to better understand how policy might be sidelined when disruptions occur. Second, and equally important, this research into finding the real factors which are causing the discrepancies in state environmental policy activity could be a catalyst for getting all if not most of the states back onto a path of repairing the environment.
Garfinkel 24
Chapter 3: Research Design/Methods Section
How have state governments handled their environmental policy since the COVID-19 crisis began in March 2020? While scholars have examined similar cases where disruptions occur in the policymaking cycle, this analysis will examine to what extent those assumptions can help us to understand environmental policy in this current time. The following presents both the hypotheses and methods that will be used to examine this question.
Hypotheses:
As the literature review highlights, researchers suggest that we should expect a variety of factors to influence public policy in general, and environmental policy in particular. There are pre-existing factors which influence any kind of policy, as well as environmental policy. For example, these factors can include societal conditions such as public opinion and demographics, but also include more government-based factors such as the role of the governor and economic conditions. In addition, there are other factors that can arise in a crisis which can interfere with the policymaking cycle, and COVID-19 is a circumstance in which this phenomenon can be expected. Scholars have described a theory that is labeled as the punctuated equilibrium theory to help explain what happens when a crisis or disruption occurs in policymaking. The punctuated equilibrium theory asserts that: after major disruptions to society, we expect a quick and vast alteration in which policies are introduced, as well as which policies are passed throughout all levels of government (Baumgartner and Jones, 2018). This analysis will look at the combination of pre-existing factors along with the influence of a disruption on the development of environmental policy, and in particular in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to better understand policymaking in general, and under the crisis conditions spawned by the COVID-19 crisis in particular, the following hypotheses will be tested: Garfinkel 25
Hypothesis 1: The factors that determined the differences between states’ environmental policies prior to COVID-19 are the reason we see a difference in how states are treating environmental policy through the pandemic, not because of differences that may be expected during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sub-Hypothesis 1a: The most prominent factor in determining how states handle their environmental policies through the COVID-19 pandemic is the ideology of the state’s legislature, including the majority political party in power in the state, the margin of said majority, and the party of the governor.
Hypothesis 2: Although the main cause of the change in environmental policy specifically may not be due to the expected changes from the COVID-19 crisis, punctuated equilibrium is still occurring, especially in other areas of policy.
Sub-Hypothesis 2a: Punctuated equilibrium occurring in another area of policy will take attention and money away from environmental policy in all states.
Hypothesis 3: States did not increase environmental policy spending since the beginning of
COVID-19.
Research Methods:
Three methods are used to test the hypotheses: First, state environmental policy records from across the 50 states are compared from the pre-COVID-19 period to the pandemic period – comparing state policy records from 2019 versus 2020. Second, drawing on the results of the 50- state comparison through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic, the records and experiences in four states will be selected for more in-depth case-analysis to better understand what factors might explain similarities and differences in policy responses. Third, interviews with state Garfinkel 26 legislators or state legislative aides on the environmental committees in the four states selected for case analysis will be conducted to add greater context to the official records.
All three of these methods will allow for drawing insights on how state environmental policy making has been affected by changes due to COVID-19, and will be used to test the several hypotheses. In particular, all five hypotheses will be tested throughout all three phases of the analysis.
The 50-state comparison through the lens of the COVID-19 crisis will begin by assessing the issues of environmental policy being addressed across the 50 states and organizing these into different environmental policy topics to be considered for the analysis. This will take place in chapter 4. After that, in chapter 5, the data on how many policies in each of these 5 previously determined environmental policy topic sections have been introduced before and after the
COVID-19 pandemic in all 50 states will be gathered using the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) online database. The pre- and post-COVID-19 numbers will be kept separate, and then placed onto a map of all 50 states. This will show the drastic decrease in environmental legislation each state has seen since the beginning of the pandemic on March 11,
2020. The noticeable increase in COVID-19 related policy throughout all 50 states will be mentioned in chapter 5 as well.
The purpose of the case studies is to better understand the political and environmental circumstances in certain states which represent different segments of the United States population, and to better understand the differences in environmental policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. States will be chosen for the case study based on the results of the
50-state comparison done through the lens of COVID-19, and these states will intentionally differ in some key factors, while remaining the same in others (such as geographic region), to Garfinkel 27 attempt to control for as many unrelated variables as possible. The case study will delve deeper into an individual state’s policies before and after the COVID-19 pandemic began, as well as the results of the interviews described above. The case study will also provide an opportunity to gain information regarding the monetary variable in the chosen states (i.e., how much do states budget for environmental programs?), as it will be easier to track monetary trends and activity through a smaller lens. The states which are chosen for the case study will also be utilized as a guide for choosing the interviewees.
Interviews will be conducted to better understand factors in environmental policy which cannot be found through statistics alone. These factors include the level of enforcement of environmental policies, the general feelings of the legislature towards environmental policy, and the impact the pandemic has had on day-to-day operations of the legislature. Interviewees will either be a representative themselves, or someone who works for a representative on the environmental committee in a state which was chosen for the case study. The interviews will be conducted via telephone or Zoom call, and participants will be invited initially through email.
Interviewees will not be named specifically during the project due to various requests to remain anonymous from the interviewees and/or their staff members. Interview recruitment information can be found in Appendix A, and interview questions can be found in Appendix B.
Understanding environmental policy across the 50 states can be best understood using a variety of methods. First the 50-state analysis through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic will be conducted, and its results will determine which states will qualify for the case study. Along with the case study, interviews will be conducted with leaders from these chosen states to gain full insight into the status of environmental legislation after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Garfinkel 28 results of the three analyses will shed light on hypotheses 1-3, and their respective sub- hypotheses.
Garfinkel 29
Chapter 4- Key Background Information Regarding Five Important Environmental Policy
Topics
What kinds of environmental policy issues were on the agendas of state governments before the COVID-19 crisis arose? Before we can test the effects of COVID-19 on state policymaking agendas, we first need to establish the agenda focus. This chapter identifies five key environmental topics that dominate state policymaking and reviews the range of state proposals and approaches under consideration or enacted into state policy. This information will establish the platform for assessing the hypotheses focused on what has influenced state environmental policy agendas, including whether or not COVID-19 has served as a major disruption.
Environmental policy is a vast field, which shows itself within many different facets of the United States’ government. There are five topics, however, which are usually left to the state governments to handle, which is not the case with all kinds of environmental legislation. These five topics include renewable energy policy, greenhouse gas emission policy, resource extraction policy (fracking), resource conservation policies, and recycling policies. None of these state- level environmental policy topics are cut and dry, and each have controversies associated with them, which fuel the variety of policies we see between the different states. Often the varied nature of these topics allows for different timelines as well. Some states are more progressive in the way they handle their environmental policy, while others are more conservative and are not on the cutting edge of environmental policy. Some of the aforementioned topics gain traction as environmental movements and become popular legislative topics for periods of time, and then lose popularity and seemingly become afterthoughts throughout many of the state legislatures.
An example of this is fracking policies, which gained popularity as an issue between 2010-2015 Garfinkel 30 in most states, but are currently not frequently discussed compared to its peak in popularity
(DuBois, 2021).
When discussing environmental policy, it is also important to note that a lack of introduced and/or passed bills surrounding a particular topic can point to the general feeling that particular state government has towards that topic. An environmental policy topic which is largely ignored by a state can indicate that legislature’s ambiguity towards that subject, divided public opinion on the topic, or even a disdain for that topic’s introduction into society. For many environmental topics, there are two major issues preventing unanimous support from all of the state legislatures: first, switching to renewable energy can damage various state economies in the short term due to a reliance on the jobs that non-renewable fuels such as coal and natural gas have created; and second, a lack of belief in the saliency of scientists’ claims that climate change is an important topic which needs to be addressed. Why would a state waste time and money on an issue that a majority or a large portion of a legislature does not believe even exists?
The following paragraphs break down each of these five environmental policy categories into more than just numbers. This background information is key to understanding the differences that are currently seen at the state government level in the United States, both before and after the COVID-19 crisis.
A. Renewable Energy Approaches and Policy Options
Renewable energy policy primarily consists of three variations—policies which reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy, policies which increase the consumption of renewable energy, and policies which favor the production of non-renewable energy. Policies which increase the consumption of renewable energy most commonly refer to policies which increase the use of biomass energy, solar energy, wind energy, and hydroelectric energy, but Garfinkel 31 there is a plethora of other alternative renewable energy sources that have also been explored within and outside of the United States. Policies which favor the use of non-renewable energy sources commonly indulge the usage of coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, gasoline, and petroleum. These sources of energy have been scientifically proven to be harmful to the environment (“U.S. Energy”, 2020), and this fact often serves as a catalyst for state-level government interest in renewable energy sources. Another common reason for renewable energy policy in states includes the fact that non-renewable energy sources are dwindling in abundance over time, so United States citizens may not be able to access energy in the future without relying on alternative energy sources.
The controversy regarding renewable energy policy often arises because of a general contempt for economic change. Often the state legislatures which oppose the introduction of renewable energies have large swaths of constituents who work in the non-renewable fuel industry, and for a multitude of reasons do not want to affect the livelihoods of these individuals.
Most prominently, elected officials are in the business of getting re-elected, and opposing their constituents’ views regarding anything is a difficult task. Another reason for contempt from elected officials towards renewable energy policies can be the level of importance an elected official or an entire legislature puts on economic abundance, as there is usually a short-term economic gain associated with pursuing non-renewable energy sources in a state. Lastly, there are personal monetary interests for legislators who support non-renewable energy. This can include lobbying money for their respective campaigns and/or foundations that is earned through a loyalty to promoting non-renewable energy. While some elected officials would value the health of the environment and the long-term safety of their constituents over an economic gain, not everyone agrees with that line of thinking. Garfinkel 32
The most common renewable energy source in the United States is hydroelectricity,
which accounts for 7% of the yearly energy production nationwide (“U.S. Energy”, 2020). Wind
energy is slowly gaining popularity and effectiveness, however, and is expected to overtake
hydroelectric energy in production soon. Figure 4.1 shows this trend by depicting each state’s
number one utilized renewable energy source by color, and by also showing the number of states
which rely on each renewable energy source as either their first or second most common
renewable energy source for a particular year. Notably, both wind (shown in green) and solar
(shown in yellow) have seen substantial gains as state renewable energy sources. These shifts
over time are likely due to both state policy and economic changes.
Figure 4.1: Most Prevalent Alternative Energy Source by State: 2007 vs. 2017
Figure 4.1: The image above shows the most popular renewable energy source by state, and the color of the state corresponds with the renewable energy source described by the same color in the bar graphs below the image. The bar graphs themselves first show how many states have that particular kind of renewable energy as their most popular renewable energy source, and then the number of states which claim that kind of renewable energy as their second most popular form of renewable energy. Source: Ingram, Hydro Review (2018).
Hydroelectricity- in 2007, hydroelectricity was by far the most common form of renewable
energy in the United States, and still maintains a large market-share of all of the renewable Garfinkel 33 energy sources produced in the United States today. This form of harvesting energy has ancient roots, and can be traced back to Ancient Greece where farmers used the energy from flowing water to turn mills which assisted in farming (National Geographic Society, 2019).
Hydroelectricity usually operates from an impoundment facility, where a dam is used to control the flow of a body of water. Energy is created by the dam slowly releasing water, and then gravity moves this water through a turbine. As the turbine spins, it powers a generator (National
Geographic Society, 2019). There are two other types of hydroelectric powerplants, called diversion facilities and pumped storage facilities respectively (National Geographic Society,
2019). These forms of hydroelectric energy are less common relative to impoundment facilities, but both rely on gravity and the power of flowing water, just like impoundment facilities
(National Geographic Society, 2019). Figure 4.2 provides an example of how an impoundment facility works.
Figure 4.2: How a Hydroelectric Garfinkel 34 Dam Works
Figure 4.2: This image shows how a hydroelectric dam operates through an impoundment facility, with the downward flow of water causing the turbine to turn, and that movement then generating electricity. Source: Hanania, Energy Education (2018).
Wind Powered Energy- Wind powered energy is quickly gaining popularity amongst may states, especially in areas with open plains where there is fairly consistent wind and few obstacles to slow it down, such as in the Central and Midwestern regions of the United States.
This trend is occurring because it is often not windy enough in other areas of the country to allow for substantial wind farms (windy areas with large quantities of wind turbines). There are three means of harvesting wind energy: utility scale wind, distributed wind, and offshore wind
(“Basics”, American Wind Energy Association, 2020). Utility scale wind includes wind turbines that range from 100 kilowatts to several megawatts, and the harvested energy is then distrusted to large energy companies that are in charge of distributing the energy to citizens and companies Garfinkel 35 throughout the United States (“Basics”, American Wind Energy Association, 2020). Distributed wind systems are stand-alone wind turbines which serve the purpose of powering a single household or small business, and are not connected to the power grid. These do not ever exceed
100 kilowatts of energy produced (“Basics”, American Wind Energy Association, 2020).
Offshore wind energy systems are wind turbines located in a body of water. These systems are located offshore because often some of the strongest winds are found over open bodies of water.
These offshore turbines are generally larger than both kinds of on-shore turbines, meaning they produce the most power of the three kinds (“Basics”, American Wind Energy Association,
2020). Wind turbines work due to wind blowing the blades of a turbine, causing the turbine to capture kinetic energy from the rotation. The blades are connected to a gearbox and eventually to a generator, both essential parts of the energy capture process (“Basics”, American Wind Energy
Association, 2020). Figure 4.3 is a visual example of how offshore Wind Turbines are aligned to be the most effective in their energy capturing capabilities.
Figure 4.3: An Example of Offshore Wind Turbines
Figure 4.3: Above is a visual of offshore wind turbines. These turbines are frequently the most effective tools for gathering wind energy because of the lack of obstruction to the wind blowing across the water’s surface. Source: Nervil, Technology University of Denmark (2017). Garfinkel 36
Biomass Energy- Biomass is most popular in the Southeastern region of the United States, but is used across the country as it does not require territory-specific elements such as an excess of wind, water, or exposure to sunlight. Biomass energy can be classified as both a renewable energy source and a non-renewable energy source, depending on the fuel that is being used to generate the power. Biomass energy is energy that comes from living things, and originated during the dawn of mankind, when cavemen used wood to start a fire (National Geographic
Society, 2012). Biomass is fueled by a variety of naturally occurring materials, called biomass feedstocks, and can range from plants and wood to waste. These materials can be burned to create electricity directly, or be broken down into biofuel, such as ethanol or biodiesel (National
Geographic Society, 2012). There are many different methods of creating biofuel, ranging from thermal conversion (burning) to anerobic decomposition (allowing waste to decay in an oxygen depleted area to create methane which can be used as an alternative to fuel), and each varies in regards to their environmental impact (National Geographic Society, 2012). Because there are some biofuels which actually are non-renewable and/or are damaging to the environment, biofuels are often not mentioned in the same breath as hydroelectric, wind, or solar energy, forms of energy generally considered to be 100% renewable. Figure 4.4 is an image showing how broad of a category biomass feedstocks can encompass, and there are still more fuel sources that do not appear in the graphic.
Figure 4.4: A Variety of Biomass Garfinkel 37 Sources
Figure 4.4: Shown here are examples of how diverse biomass feedstocks can be, each with its own environmental consequences and implications. Source: Zafar, BioEnergy Consult (2021).
Solar Energy- Solar energy panels can be found throughout the United States, especially in areas which receive a lot of sunlight. Due to a lack of efficiency that solar energy offers compared to other renewable energy sources, it is rarely the most common form of renewable energy in a state, but is more commonly used to supplement an already existing renewable or non-renewable power grid. Solar energy is harvested through three different means: photovoltaics, solar heating and cooling, and concentrating solar power (“About Solar Energy”,
Solar Energy Industries Association, 2021). Photovoltaics generate energy directly from sunlight through an electronic process, and can be used to power anything from a stopwatch to a business or home. Solar heating and cooling uses heat from the sun to provide space or water heating.
Concentrating solar power also uses the heat generated by the sun, but instead to power Garfinkel 38 traditional electricity generating turbines. Solar power is expanding quickly, and so is the technology surrounding it. The solar market in the United States has grown by an average of
49% each year since its initial implementation (“About Solar Energy”, Solar Energy Industries
Association, 2021). Figure 4.5 shows an example of a private-use solar energy grid rooftop system. Figure 4.5 An Example of Private Solar Energy
Figure 4.5: The image above provides a visual example of solar energy panels being used to provide power for a singular private home. Source: Direct Energy Solar, Direct Energy (2016).
As can be seen by this brief overview of renewable energy options, different approaches and technologies might be more appropriate in some states and regions than in others based on a variety of geographical and other considerations. However, development of renewable energy has also been affected by policy choices and the willingness of state policymakers to advance policy to encourage or support various options. The question considered in future chapters will examine which of these were under consideration by state policymakers, and the extent to which
COVID-19 interrupted policy development.
Garfinkel 39
B. Greenhouse Gas Emission Policies
Policies focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in each state include those which advocate for cars utilizing alternative fuels, policies encouraging polluters to reduce carbon emissions, policies encouraging the utilization of public transportation, and many other tangentially related policies which have the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This large subdivision of policies also includes those which favor greenhouse gas emissions (or which result in increased levels of greenhouse gases), such as policies which help the production of oil for fuel, favor traditional car production, and/or expand the amount in which corporations are permitted to pollute. By far the most motivating factor in encouraging law-makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions comes from the perceived damaging effects that carbon-based emissions can have on the environment.
Often, politics are a good indicator when determining which form of greenhouse gas emissions policies a state usually passes. States that are more liberal (or Democratic-leaning) often introduce policies which favor alternatives to greenhouse gas emissions, while more conservative states (Republican-leaning) tend to favor policies protecting the status quo in industry and transportation practices which result in continued release of greenhouse gas emissions. Figure 4.6 uses two maps to compare state-government trifectas (the map on the left side), and the amount of carbon emissions that each state generates per year (the map on the right side). A state-government trifecta is when a state’s majority in the legislature and governor are all associated with the same political party. States that have a Democratic trifecta appear in blue, while states with a Republican trifecta appear in red, and states which have mixed state governments appear in grey. In the map on the right, the darker the shading, the higher level of carbon emissions per state. This informal visual comparison is suggestive in terms of some level Garfinkel 40
of correlation between having a Democratic trifecta and lower carbon emissions. For example,
all of the lowest carbon-emitting states are Democratic trifecta states (including California,
Oregon, New York, and others). Similarly, many of the highest carbon-emitting states have a
Republican trifecta, or a mixed state-level government. Notably, these highest-emitting states are
also ones that rely on fossil fuel extraction as an important part of their state economies (such as
North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming).
Figure 4.6: State-Government Trifectas Vs. Carbon Emissions
Figure 4.6: These two maps compare majority party in each state’s government on the left, with carbon emissions each state has on the right. This comparison suggests some visual correlation between a state having either a Republican trifecta or mixed party control in state government and having increased greenhouse gas emissions. Sources: Ballotpedia (Current State Government Trifectas”, (2021) and Ali Zifan, The Environmental Protection Agency (“CO2 Emissions oer Capita per Year per State”, 2017).
Most law-makers who agree with the popular assessment that humans have affected, and
continue to affect the environment will see the value in reducing the output of greenhouse gas
emissions in their respective state. Most of the controversy surrounding this topic becomes
visible when lawmakers do not see eye-to-eye about the impact which humans have on global
warming, and whether or not various lawmakers believe that an environmental crisis is
impending, like many scientists predict (“The Biggest Environmental Problems of 2020”,
Earth.org). Also, just like with renewable energy policy, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Garfinkel 41 could lead to less business for the producers of coal, natural gas, and oil, all industries that certain lawmakers have an interest in protecting.
Policies Which Advocate for Alternative Fuel Use in Cars- These policies can look different depending on the topic, but have mainly revolved around the introduction of electric cars into society within the last 5 years (DuBois, 2021). Examples within this category include policies which give tax benefits to users of electric vehicles, the creation of infrastructure to ease the recharging process for electric vehicle owners, and replacement of government-sanctioned vehicles (including public transportation and school busses) to be completely electric by a certain date in the somewhat near future. Some states have imposed higher taxes on non-renewable fuels with an overall goal of encouraging residents in their state to move away from non-renewables.
On the other side of this policy topic, some states have passed policies removing tax benefits from electric vehicle owners, or have not mentioned tax rebates for electric vehicles at all. Other states have doubled-down on their already existing laws which favor carbon-based emissions by passing policies which remove taxes from these resources or allow for more production of non- renewable resources. Louisiana even went so far as to create a state-wide “liquified natural gas day” which occurs on May 14th. 2019 marked the seventh annual occasion of this holiday in the state (DuBois, 2021). Figure 4.7 depicts an example of electric vehicle infrastructure, a primary focus of state legislatures that are focusing on ways to reduce the use of carbon-based emissions in their states. Garfinkel 42 Figure 4.7: Example of Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Figure 4.7: This image shows a visual example of electric vehicle infrastructure, providing easy public access to electric recharging for private vehicles. This infrastructure is a key part of state government options for encouraging state citizens to switch to cars which utilize renewable energy. One of the factors preventing increased usage for electric vehicles is a lack of charging stations. Source: McCauley, Government Technology (2017). Policies Which Discourage Prominent Polluters from Further Pollution- These kinds of policies are slightly rarer compared to electric vehicle policies, but are still valid and relevant policy topics throughout state legislatures. These policies usually revolve around the reduction of pollution from corporations, because individuals are normally not responsible for noticeably large amounts of carbon-based emissions themselves. In states that are more progressive with their greenhouse gas emission legislation, cap-and-trade carbon emission policies have been put in place to reduce the state’s overall emission output. A cap-and-trade system is when the state gives out a limited amount of “licenses to pollute” within a given amount in a certain amount of time (usually annually), with the total allocation not exceeding a total cap on a statewide emissions limit. They can either pollute the exact amount they are initially given, trade with Garfinkel 43 other companies to add licenses, or sell their licenses to other companies if they think that they will not use all of their initial licenses. This system allows for a limit on the amount of total carbon emissions in the state, while allowing for companies to participate in an open marketplace if they believe that the regulations are too strict for their company’s operations. Other legislation surrounding this topic includes company-specific pollution legislation, and legislation which taxes polluters for their carbon emissions. Figure 4.8 depicts how a typical cap-and-trade system works to control carbon emissions. Figure 4.8: How the Carbon Cap-and-Trade System Ideally Works
Figure 4.8: The image above is a good example of how a carbon cap-and-trade market works. Some progressive states, such as California, have already adopted these cap-and-trade systems, while others are considering moving to this generally effective system. Source: Poulos, CalWatchDog, (2016).
Garfinkel 44
Often state legislatures that do not favor a reduction in carbon emissions in the state will ignore this category of legislation targeting industry pollution. This is an example of a kind of legislation where no legislation means no regulations, so having little to no legislation regarding this topic is a telltale sign that a state legislature is okay with carbon-based emissions from corporations in the state.
Policies Which Encourage the Use of Public Transportation- These policies are important for states to reduce their overall carbon emission output because the less vehicles used by individuals means fewer emissions are created. These polices can include any enhancements made to the public transportation system to make it more accessible to citizens, such as reducing public transportation pricing, increasing the number of areas which are served by public transportation, increasing the fleet of public transportation vehicles, and cleaning up already existing bus stops and vehicles used for public transportation. Some argue that these policies can also include policies which add taxes to fuel, as these taxes could encourage citizens to take more public transportation based on cost. Like other policy categories in this sub-set, a lack of legislation regarding public transportation from a state legislature can potentially point to a lack of interest in reducing carbon emissions overall. However, sometimes state legislatures will leave public transportation decisions up to the city-level government, but this is not always the case. It is worth noting that these policies have been especially dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic, which discourages the gathering of strangers in small places, but many states have managed to keep their public transportation options running throughout most of the pandemic. Also, some states do not have as robust public transportation systems as others because of a lack of large cities which make public transportation more feasible and popular. Figure 4.9 shows the areas Garfinkel 45
across the United States with the most popular public transportation systems, versus the areas
with the least popular public transportation systems as of 2013.
Figure 4.9: Areas With the Most and Least Popular Public Transportation Systems
Figure 4.9: The maps above compare the areas with the most utilized and least utilized public transportation systems as of 2013. The more a state legislature encourages the utilization of public transportation, the less carbon emissions its residents create. Source: Fischer-Baum, FiveThirtyEight (2014).
Garfinkel 46
C. Resource Extraction Policies (Fracking)
Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ as it is commonly referred to, means to inject liquid at a high pressure into underground rocks and boreholes to force open existing fissures with the intention of extracting oil or gas. A lot of the controversy surrounding fracking is due to the many environmental hazards that are associated with the process, including concerns about contamination of public water supplies and surface-level water systems with toxic chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and other negative human health and ecological consequences. Other concerns focus on the excess use of water (a limited resource) associated with fracking, and the damage to the landscape that occurs because of fracking (“The Truth”,
2021). Every well used for fracking requires millions of gallons of water, and some argue that the same water could and should be used for wildlife instead of for the exploitation of more fossil fuels. Another debated issue within the topic of fracking is ‘venting’. Venting is the process of removing methane from the natural gas extraction procedure that occurs when fracking, and often the produced methane is released directly into the atmosphere after the fracking process has been completed. Methane has 30 times the greenhouse gas effect as carbon dioxide (Weber, 2020).
It is important to note that fracking does not occur in every state, only in states with natural gas wells, so some legislatures have not addressed fracking for this reason. There are some states which have natural gas wells and little to no fracking regulation, and this phenomenon points to a lack of conviction from that state’s legislature to address fracking as an environmental concern. Amongst the states that have addressed fracking at all, there is a large division about the requirements associated with fracking and venting. Some states require official disclosure from the natural gas company doing the project before it begins, while others Garfinkel 47 do not. Some states have banned venting altogether, while others have not passed any regulation at all regarding venting. The lack of uniformity from state legislatures on the subject is another debated topic within conversations related to fracking, as there are strong proponents on both sides of the fracking spectrum. Natural gas and oil companies almost always prefer fracking to continue, while environmental groups throughout the nation are strongly opposed to the idea.
Figure 4.10, below, shows the various state regulations when it comes to fracking and venting. Figure 4.10: Fracking and Venting Regulations by State
Figure 4.10: The graphic above shows two maps, with the left hand map depicting each states’ disclosure rules before a company can begin a fracking project, and the map on the right showing each states’ level of venting regulations. A state colored orange means that it has no regulations, and a state colored navy means that it has the highest level of regulation. States that are highlighted in red have no natural gas wells, and states that are highlighted in yellow are in the top 5 for natural gas wells in the nation. Source: Weber, Fractracker (2020).
While hydraulic fracturing has been around since the 1940’s, there was little to no realization of risk by the Environmental Protection Agency or any state governments until the
2010’s (Everly, 2018). Some of the more progressive states, especially states in which fracking was prominent such as Colorado, began passing bills that instituted fracking limitations right at the end of the first decade of the 2000’s, and then continued to pass regulations throughout the
2010’s. Fracking was a highly-discussed topic in the mid 2010’s, but has since taken a back seat to other environmental initiatives in many state legislatures (DuBois, 2021). The COVID-19 Garfinkel 48 crisis has also sapped momentum from this already shrunken topic, and many states (even generally progressive states) have passed zero fracking legislation since March of 2020 (DuBois,
2021), but this is not the case for every state. In the future, fracking could make a resurgence as a popular topic, especially if a focusing event occurs. A focusing event related to fracking would possibly entail the destruction of a large water source from a fracking operation. Figure 4.11 shows the delicacy of a fracking project in regards to possible channels of contamination of drinking water.
Figure 4.11: The Delicate Nature of Fracking: is it Occurring too Close to the Water Supply?
Figure 4.11: The image above shows one of the primary risks associated with fracking, potential contamination of a fresh water supply. The well and damage to the shale associated with fracking goes directly under a drinking water aquifer, and a small leak caused by the fracturing of rock above the intended fracking area can lead to chemicals being introduced to the freshwater supply. Another risk that the image alludes to is if leaking occurs in the piping associated with the well, the water could also become easily contaminated. Source: Kentucky Environmental Foundation (2021). Garfinkel 49
D. Resource Conservation Policies
Resource conservation policies are policies that generally include methods and reasons for conservation of natural resources in a state. These resources could include water, forest areas, mountains, natural gas, oil, animals, and other naturally occurring resources. An example of a resource conservation policy are the policies passed by the California state government to prevent fires from spreading in the state. These laws were designed to keep their forests from burning down, to keep wildlife alive and thriving, and to save human lives as well. Preserving forests and other natural spaces is becoming a popular environmental topic in America, with images of the deforestation of the Amazon circulating on the internet (Ortiz, 2019). A way in which resource conservation policies are important is for human health. We rely on many of these natural resources to survive, such as water and food products. Also preserving the environment in which we live has been proven to improve human health and safety. An example of this occurred in Love Canal, New York, throughout the 20th century. A housing development was built adjacent to a waste site filled with dangerous chemicals and pesticides in the 1950’s, and there were many horrid health effects that occurred to the residents of the town, including elevated cancer rates and other impacts in babies and others living in the area (Dabkowski,
2018). Eventually, a state of emergency was declared in the 1970’s, and today no one lives in the area. The dangerous chemicals that were dumped in the Love Canal adversely affected the health and lives of the local citizens, and no doubt wildlife in the area as well, something that modern- day resource conservation policies seek to avoid.
Some of the controversies surrounding this topic are once again financial, and about believing in the human impact on ecological and climate damage. It is often financially advantageous to ignore the environmental impact that logging has for example, as wood is a Garfinkel 50 necessity to make paper and other profitable goods. It is also profitable to take shortcuts when disposing of hazardous materials, as it is expensive to follow all of the environmental regulations associated with the disposal of hazardous products. Legislators who value economic advancement and freedom above all else are examples of those who cause controversy in this topic. Additionally, legislators who do not believe in the environmental impacts that humans can have on natural resources are people who tend to not value resource conservation policies.
However, even those who do, in fact value environmental interests and are concerned about the environmental impacts of various economic practices might have difficulty advancing new policy due to cost considerations and concerns about job impacts.
The political agendas of some state policymakers and some state party organizations might create direct conflicts with resource conservation policy. For example, those who seek the least amount of government regulation in general will typically be opposed to new resource conservation policies as they almost always involve more government intervention. Based on examples that have occurred in the United States regarding hazardous material exposure, such as
Love Canal and the BP oil spill1, it is difficult to deny the environmental impacts humans can have on resource conservation. Figure 4.12 shows a glimpse of the environmental impacts that the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (BP Oil Spill) had on the ocean, an important and protected natural resource. Legislation has been passed since to avoid a repeat of this terrible event, but oil spills have occurred since then, despite the best efforts from legislators in many states. Important as well is to consider the shared responsibility by both the federal and state governments over
1 The BP Oil Spill is the largest marine oil spill in history, caused by the explosion of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. More information can be found here: https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater- Horizon-oil-spill. Garfinkel 51 natural resource protection, and thus shared sets of policies coming from both the federal and state levels.
Figure 4.12: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster, a Resource
Conservation Nightmare
Figure 4.12: The image above shows a small segment of the Gulf of Mexico that got damaged from the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (the BP Oil Spill). This event damaged a protected natural resource: the ocean. It negatively impacted the wildlife in the area, and also had adverse effects on the livelihood of Gulf Coast fisheries, tourism, and other ocean-related businesses in the area. Source: Beltra, The New Yorker, (2011).
Resource and land conservation policies vary significantly depending on the state legislature passing the policies, especially because of the variety of resources throughout the
United States. States with ocean borders often pass legislation related to ocean and beach conservation, while landlocked states frequently pass legislation related to forest or desert Garfinkel 52 conservation. An example of this phenomenon is Utah passing salt-flat preservation laws
(DuBois, 2021). This type of natural resource conservation policy nearly stands alone across the states, largely due to the fact that other states do not have similar naturally occurring salt-flats.
Flat states like Kansas have no need for the mountain preservation laws that are common in
Colorado or Wyoming, but have more farming and pesticide regulations than less agriculturally rich states.
Regardless of political orientation and population, all states have various forms of resource conservation laws (DuBois, 2021). This is probably because even non- environmentalists see the need to conserve water and land, at least for human use, if for no other reason. The difference in this form of legislation comes in the details of the writing and the frequency of legislation passed related to resource conservation. Some states pass resource conservation legislation often and with conviction, while others are keener to allow the resources to regulate themselves, or even get damaged or destroyed. As it has been previously alluded to, topics like water conservation are more universal than others. On that topic, however, different states have more rigorous or relaxed legislation, depending on factors such as politics, resource access, and state location. While resource conservation has been a relevant topic for many years, some states have resisted aspects of this type of legislation, while others have fully embraced it.
E. Recycling Policies
Recycling policies are any policies that in some way effect a state’s recycling system. This can include policies that increase a state’s recycling efficiency, policies that classify what types of things can be recycled, and policies that regard compensation or tax details for those working in a recycling plant. Items that can usually be recycled are things made from paper, glass, aluminum and other metals, cardboard, and certain kinds of plastics. Some states (including Garfinkel 53
California, Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa,
Michigan, and New York) have passed recycling incentive laws, encouraging residents to trade in recyclable items for compensation (DuBois, 2021). The value per-item is usually five cents, but can fluctuate depending on the particular rule adopted by the legislature.
While a relatively new focus, recycling policies can also include water recycling policies.
Because water is an increasingly depleted resource, water recycling is becoming a popular topic in environmental policy. Figure 4.13 depicts how a water recycling process works. In the United
States, most instances of water recycling have been considered or adopted at the local level rather than at the state level. Figure 4.13: The Water Recycling Process
Figure 4.13: The figure above shows a brief explanation of how the water recycling process works. The recycling of water is becoming a valuable part of the recycling processes throughout the United States, especially in water-strained areas such as the Southwest. Source: Malama Honua, (2020). Garfinkel 54
Often states leave city-level governments to decide the details of their recycling programs, but this is not always the case (Higgins, 2020). Usually a recycling system works as follows: the recyclable items are collected, then the items are brought to a recycling center and put into a large machine to separate the items by type, then the items are purchased (recyclables are a popular commodity for large corporations and other entities), and lastly the items are taken to be processed into raw materials and make them into new products. The value of recycled good has increased over time due to a rise in environmental awareness (Higgins, 2020).
Recycling began as a primarily progressive issue, but has gained wide-spread popularity and support from both Democrats and Republicans over the years. The little controversy surrounding the topic of recycling once again is regarding whether or not someone believes in the impact humans have on the environment and whether or not there is already or will soon be an environmental crisis. If one does not believe that humans are the cause of climate change, or that consumption and waste production have a negative impact on the environment, then they are more likely to question the efficiency of diverting energy and resources into recycling policies and plants. Those who agree with most scientists about the status of the environment tend to understand the importance of recycling, as not only a means of helping the environment through its own, but also as a vital part of spreading awareness about the state of the environment.
Recycling symbols and cans are widespread, and are utilized as a valuable symbol of protecting the environment throughout the United States.
All five of these environment-related policy areas have entered into recent state legislative discussion: renewable energy policy, greenhouse gas emission policy, resource Garfinkel 55 extraction policy (fracking), resource conservation policies, and recycling policies. As noted throughout this review, there are many factors that lead to different state positions and responses to the underlying issues. Among these are both political orientations as well as geographic location and related access to and importance of various natural resources.
Similar legislative issues might rise and fall at different times in different states. States, after all, are learning from each other in dealing with common issues. This chapter has laid the foundation of state environmental policy that will be considered in evaluating the effects of
COVID-19 as a possible policy disruptor. What factors are generally important in explaining state environmental policy agendas? To what extent have these agendas been sidelined by
COVID-19? These are important questions to be addressed in the next chapters.
Garfinkel 56
Chapter 5: COVID-19 Factors
In what ways has COVID-19 impacted environmental policy in a broad sense? Before we dive into more specific case studies, it is pertinent to see how COVID-19 has impacted all 50 states. This chapter identifies and provides evidence to support ways in which state legislatures have been altered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially from an environmental policy standpoint. This information will help address some of the hypotheses made in chapter 3, while setting the stage for the two sets of comparative case studies that are to follow this chapter.
COVID-19 has taken attention away from environmental issues (the dependent variable) throughout the United States. This assessment is backed up by the information provided by the
National Conference of States Legislatures (NCSL). This database lists every bill introduced, debated, and enacted by all 50 state governments throughout recent history. To test the impact that COVID-19 has had on environmental legislation, the date March 11, 2020 was chosen to represent the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, as this was the day the World Health
Organization declared COVID-19 an international pandemic. As previously mentioned in chapter 4, the dependent variable ‘environmental legislation’ was broken up into 5 broad categories: renewable energy policy, greenhouse gas emission policies, resource extraction policies, resource conservation policies, and recycling policies.
The findings of this test were very profound. Every state had reduced introductions of environmental legislation between the dates of March 11, 2020 and December 31st of 2020, compared to the amount of environmental legislation introduced and/or enacted between March
11, 2019, and December 31, 2019. Out of all 5 environmental legislation categories (renewable energy policy, greenhouse gas emission policies, resource extraction policies, resource Garfinkel 57 conservation policies, and recycling policies) across all 50 states (a total of 250 different legislative opportunities), only 7 times did a state have an increase in the number of environmental bills introduced within a singular environmental category post-COVID-19. Even states which are generally considered to be strong proponents of environmental legislation, such as Hawaii and California, had large reductions in their environmental legislation since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the year leading up to the pandemic, 233 climate- related bills were introduced in the California legislature, but since the beginning of the pandemic, this number had reduced to almost half, and is currently only at 130 climate change- related bills. There are even some states, such as North Dakota, Alaska, Wisconsin, and New
Mexico that have introduced zero new environmental bills since the beginning of the pandemic.
While this rapid decline in policy is an interesting one, it is also important to note that these same states that have passed zero environmental legislation in an entire year have also introduced a plethora of bills related to COVID-19 in that same time frame, so legislatures are not simply just coming to a halt because of the pandemic. It seems that, in general, states have shifted their focus away from environmental legislation since March 11, 2020.
The sharpest decline in environmental legislation since the beginning of the pandemic has been seen in the state of Hawaii, where the state legislature went from 258 bills introduced in the year before the pandemic (the most of any state), to a measly 25 since the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 5.1 is a map showing the number of environmental bills introduced in each state legislature pre- and post-COVID-19, with the pre-pandemic numbers appearing in green, and the post-pandemic numbers appearing in red. As can be seen, in every state, the post-
Covid-19 numbers are smaller than the pre-Covid-19 numbers.
Garfinkel 58 Figure 5.1: Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Numbers of Environmental Policy in Each State
NH- 116, 27 18, 3 70, 22 VT- 41, 12 31, 15 21, 0 67, 2 155, 63 MA- 56, 37 206, 57 29, 0 8, 1 59, 25 RI- 77, 9 11, 6 CT- 80, 27, 9 85, 38 NJ-6242, 53 20, 4 20, 15 25, 6 23, 4 20, 6 99, 6 66, 13 DE- 13, 2 104, 83 MD-114, 15 57, 13 233, 130 18, 1 52, 17 17, 5 55, 1 26, 2 52, 2 39, 8 29, 5 54, 0 12, 2 20, 7 8, 2 27, 6
53, 7 13, 6 96, 13 15, 0
258, 25
Figure 5.1: The image above shows the number of environmental policies introduced by each state before the COVID-19 pandemic (appearing in green), compared to the number of policies introduced by each state after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (appearing in red). In all 50 states, the green number is larger than the red number.
The differences in the numbers prior to COVID-19 and afterwards are flagrant. Across all states in the year before the COVID-19 outbreak, a total of 3,121 pieces of environmental legislation were introduced, averaging out to 62.42 pieces of legislation per-state. In the year after the COVID-19 outbreak, a meager 810 pieces of environmental legislation were introduced nationwide, averaging out to only 16.2 pieces of legislation introduced per-state. This means that only approximately 26% of the total environmental legislation introduced between March 2019-
December 2019 was introduced between March 2020-December 2020, a notable drop off. This Garfinkel 59 also means that the number bills that were enacted into law, not just legislation that was introduced, was down significantly in that same time frame.
While the amount of environmental legislation introduced and considered in each state has clearly decreased following the March 2020 onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, legislation focused on the pandemic itself has increased vastly in the same timeframe. Topics such as general health, long term health, and unemployment benefit legislation have all had a massive uptick in interest within every state legislature. A new category of legislation has been recognized during this timeframe, commonly referred to as “COVID-19: General Legislation”, in which over 6,000 pandemic-related bills have been introduced nation-wide since March 11,
2020. These numbers point to an obvious shift in attention from law-makers away from environmental legislation, and towards COVID-19 related legislation. Many would argue that this shift was necessary, especially to help individuals and businesses that were struggling due to the pandemic.
There are a few explanations as to why there was a shift in the bills that were being introduced in the legislatures, and not all of these explanations apply to all 50 states. The primary explanation is probably that due to the various unknowns regarding the virus, as well as the surprising yet quick nature of its spread, legislators were forced to adjust their attention to virus- related topics, an explanation tangentially related to the punctuated equilibrium theory. Another important factor as to why there was such a quick shift in legislation is the pressure law-makers were getting from their constituents to provide pandemic relief as soon as possible. This pressure at the state government level was most likely amplified because many would argue that there was not enough support from the federal government to reduce the negative impacts of the pandemic. Had the federal government diverted more effort and aid to pandemic relief, then state Garfinkel 60 governments may have had the ability to carry on addressing other pertinent legislative topics throughout the pandemic, such as environmental legislation. Lastly, state legislatures had to quickly alter their traditional means of debate, lawmaking, and discussion because of the pandemic, and in some cases these institutions had been in place for over one hundred years.
Holding debates and hearings with public testimony over a platform such as Zoom is a constant reminder to these legislators that there is something different about legislative proceedings that needs to be addressed, a factor that should not be underestimated. It could be hard to focus on other topics when there is so blatantly something off with the normally consistent procedures within a state legislature.
The impact that COVID-19 has had on state legislatures is a dynamic topic. Over time and with an effective vaccination effort, state legislatures will most likely find the ability to focus on other issues besides COVID-19-related legislation, and will find legislative responses on these other issues more attainable. This chapter has explained how COVID-19 has impacted state legislatures and state level law-makers throughout the United States throughout the first year of its existence. The following chapter will be addressing the impact that COVID-19 has had on individual states through case studies by using specific data and information collected from interviews of state-level legislators and their aides.
Garfinkel 61
Chapter 6. Case Study #1: Comparing the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic
on Environmental Policy in Arizona and Colorado
The purpose of this chapter is to deepen our understanding of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected state policymaking, guided by the hypotheses stated in the research design section. In particular, what effect, if any, did the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic have on state environmental policy? One effective way to do this analysis is to conduct case studies which compare two states across various facets, especially in how they handled environmental policy through the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter lays the groundwork for these case study comparisons, and then explores the first two states: Colorado and Arizona.
The hypotheses outlined in chapter 3 (the research design section) address factors that are often assumed to affect state support for public policy, as well as disruptions in support. The underlying question is whether or not changes in support for state environmental policy under the
COVID-19 pandemic conditions can be best explained using a punctuated equilibrium explanatory framework, or if any observed disruptions can instead be explained by reference to well-established factors used to predict differences in public policy support (such as politics, economics, and demographics).
The punctuated equilibrium framework singles out how a sudden change in objective circumstances can lead to large changes in public policy. (See the review in Chapter 2 for further discussion of this analytical framework). If punctuated equilibrium were to be in effect, state governments would have shifted their focus almost entirely away from environmental policy towards COVID-19 related policy once the pandemic began. This pattern would continue until pandemic relief is effective and widespread. On the other hand, if only normal political factors were at play, policy would be somewhat similar to prior years in each state, with the variations Garfinkel 62 throughout state-level policy being made mostly on the basis of political feasibility and applicability in any given state. It is also possible that a mix of these explanations is occurring throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. To explore these three possibilities, case studies have been designed to compare how certain states have handled their environmental policy throughout the pandemic.
For the first case study, Colorado and Arizona were chosen for a multitude of reasons. To get the most accurate comparison, I attempted to control for as many variables as possible, including population size, general terrain in the state, general numbers of natural resources, and the general region of the state. Things that were intentionally left uncontrolled for included the political party leaning of each state government (Arizona leans Republican at the state level, while Colorado leans Democratic), and the general amount of time and energy that each state legislature tends to allot towards environmental issues (Colorado tends to be in the upper echelon of states when talking about environmental policy considerations, and Arizona is not at the bottom, but cannot compare to Colorado’s dedication to environmental efficacy). These decisions were made in an attempt to minimize the amount that unaccounted for variables alter the results of the study.
Some variables can be measured thoroughly through online resources and numbers alone, but there are some variables which must be explored in a more in-depth manner to truly understand what has happened to them since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. To try and explore these more complex variables, interviews of state-level politicians and some of their legislative aides were conducted within each state selected for a case study. To gather interviewees, the decision to ask all of those on the environmental committee (both Democrats and Republicans) in each case study state was made, and at least two participants from each state Garfinkel 63 legislature responded and were interviewed. In total, 105 offices of legislators across all four states chosen for case studies were contacted. This breaks down into: 19 Colorado offices, 24
Arizona offices, 32 Virginia offices, and 30 North Carolina offices. Many of the respondents in each state were Democrats, despite the recruitment email’s wording and the interview itself being completely non-partisan. There was one Republican participant out of twelve total participants. This may have occurred due to the likelihood that Democratic representatives care more than Republican representatives about environmental outcomes and developments relative to other issues under consideration by the state legislatures. The interview questions themselves can be found in appendix A, and the email used to recruit the participants can be found in appendix B. The relevant details of the interviewees’ responses will be discussed in each state’s individual section below.
Analysis of Colorado State Environmental Legislative Activity in the Time of COVID-19:
Colorado is a relatively environmentally minded state, and this assertion can be shown by the data previously discussed in chapter 5, amongst other supporting pieces of evidence. In the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Colorado introduced 57 pieces of legislation at the state level, putting it in the top 20 states in the country. Colorado was also a relatively resilient state through the COVID-19 pandemic, introducing 13 pieces of environmental legislation in this timeframe, putting them in the top 16 states in the country. It should be noted that a drop-off of
44 pieces of legislation introduced in the span of one year is very significant, and points to evidence of punctuated equilibrium occurring in the state. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Colorado state legislature has introduced two bills concerning renewable energy policy, six bills concerning greenhouse gas emission policies, zero bills related to fracking, four bills concerning resource conservation, and one bill regarding recycling policy. Clearly, the Garfinkel 64 legislature in Colorado did not come to a complete halt because of the pandemic, so the following describes some of the bills that were considered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic itself has been a top issue commanding attention across all states. In
Colorado, an important piece of legislation that was introduced and then quickly signed into law in January 2021 was SB21-002, which extended the limitations on debt collection for anyone experiencing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other bills introduced in early
2021 have had similar financial relief goals to SB21-002, including SB21-001, which provides financial relief to small businesses that have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important piece of legislation that the Colorado legislature introduced because of the COVID-19 pandemic includes HB21-1003, which allows the state legislature to conduct its duties through online means, and provides other measures to ensure that the legislature can run relatively smoothly throughout the pandemic. Bills such as the ones discussed above have taken up a lot of the legislature’s time in both the Colorado State House and Senate.
Not every bill has been COVID-19 related, as it has been noted that the Colorado state legislature has passed 13 environmental related bills between March 11, 2020 and December 31,
2020. The following reviews some of the bills that were considered important enough to address during the COVID-19 pandemic, and were eventually signed into law.
Soon after the pandemic began in early March, the Colorado legislature enacted SB20-
167, which increased consumer access to electric vehicles by allowing for manufacturers to sell them directly to consumers (introduced in the Colorado State Senate on February 13, 2020, and signed into state law on March 23, 2020). This bill is considered to be one of the six greenhouse gas emission related bills that have been introduced in Colorado since the COVID-19 pandemic. Garfinkel 65
More important in terms of evaluating the effects of COVID-19 on state environmental policymaking is another bill, HB20-1143, which raises fees for air quality and water quality violations from polluters, and allocates the fines to environmental mitigation projects. HB20-
1143 was introduced in the State House on January 17, 2020, several weeks before pandemic conditions were considered relevant in Colorado. Then, in spite of subsequent COVID-19-related disruptions in legislative activity, this bill was signed into law on July 2, 2020. This bill is classified as one of four resource conservation related bills passed in the state of Colorado since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
One of the two renewable energy related bills addressed in Colorado since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was HB20-1155, which requires builders of new residences to provide renewable energy options for buyers when building in the state of Colorado. This bill was introduced in the Colorado State House in the first days of the legislative session on January
17, 2020. It was reviewed in both State House and Senate committees in March, taken up again in May when the State legislature reconvened for business, and then signed into law by the
Governor on June 30, 2020.
The only recycling policy addressed in Colorado since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is SB20-55, which enhances the recycling market in Colorado by creating a Recycling
Market Development Center. This bill is considered a significant step in terms of increasing
Colorado’s statewide recycling record and was backed up with an appropriation of nearly $1 million. Introduced in the State Senate in the pre-pandemic period on January 8, 2020, it was finalized and signed into law on July 13, 2020.
As previously mentioned, there were zero fracking-related measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Colorado. However, as the several examples of newly- Garfinkel 66 enacted state environmental laws in other areas of environmental focus suggest, environmental issues overall have remained relevant. While it seems environmental policy has taken a step back from normal years in terms of volume of bills introduced in Colorado, the environmental agenda has not completely gone by the wayside.
Additional insight on how environmental policies were treated since the COVID-19 was gained through interviewing three Colorado House of Representatives members and the legislative aides of two additional House members, all of whom served on the environmental committee. Some common things mentioned during these interviews tended to be how quickly and drastically their day to day lives and the legislation that was addressed changed from a variety of topics to COVID-19 related topics specifically. Soon after mid-March 2020, everything transitioned to online, and many policies (a few legislators indicated about 2/3 of all bills) had to be dropped because of both the pandemic taking up time and attention, and also due to the adjustment period associated with carrying out legislative tasks online. Nearly all of the legislators said that they plan on addressing policy issues that were forced to be ignored during the 2020 pandemic conditions in the current 2021 session, and a good number of these policies are at least tangentially environment related. One Colorado legislator mentioned that he believed the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic was increased by the fact that the environment is so damaged, an interesting connection that no legislator from any other state mentioned during their interviews. All five interviewees agreed that attention has been taken away from the environmental committee because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is an important thing to note.
Analysis of Arizona State Environmental Legislative Activity in the Time of COVID-19: Garfinkel 67
Arizona is a state in which certain environmental issues (especially water rights-related issues) have gotten the lion’s share of the attention from legislators in prior years. Arizona would be considered relatively fragile through the pandemic as far as environmental legislation goes, as it experienced a harsh drop off in this category. In the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 54 pieces of environmental legislation were introduced, compared to a mere two pieces of legislation introduced in the year of the pandemic. Arizona was in the top 23 states in the country regarding the amount of environmental legislation that was introduced between March 11, 2019 and December 31, 2019, but during the pandemic, these numbers dropped significantly. Between
March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020, Arizona did not break the top 40 in total amount of environmental legislation introduced. This blatant trend possibly points to the punctuated equilibrium theory occurring within the state legislature. Between January 1, 2020 and March 10,
2020, an astounding 42 pieces of environmental legislation were introduced in the Arizona state legislature. This number was reduced to just two pieces of environmental legislation introduced within the remainder of 2020, and no state-level government elections or other alternative explanations for this drop off occurred in this timeframe, other than the pandemic occurring.
Even traditionally popular environmental issues within the state such as water rights issues did not receive attention once the pandemic began.
In general, the Arizona legislature had a significant slowdown in the total number of bills introduced, especially in 2020 after the beginning of the pandemic. This is another fact which may point to the influence of punctuated equilibrium within the state legislature. There were only
14 bills passed that were related to COVID-19 in Arizona in 2020, a number much lower than the national average of 120 pandemic-related bills per state. These bills were related to a variety of issues, including the creation of a Public Health Emergencies Fund, other emergency funds Garfinkel 68 allocated for specific segments of the population, and public school related issues. The day after the pandemic began, on March 12, 2020, AZ S 1051 was passed, which established an emergency fund to provide immediate resources to individuals struggling due to the pandemic.
Shortly after this, on March 28, 2020, the legislature passed AZ S 1690, which divided these funds more specifically. The funds addressed in this bill were intended to specifically help individuals who could not afford their mortgages/rents, small businesses, the homeless, and food banks. On the same date that AZ S 1690 was passed, a bill related to the closure of schools and school budgets called AZ H 2902 was enacted to manage school-related matters, which were quickly changing at the time. While most of the short list of bills introduced in this timeframe were COVID-19 related, there were a couple of environmentally related bills introduced as well.
Two days after the pandemic began on March 13, 2020, AZ H 2771 was passed, and this bill was only tangentially climate related. It provided definitions of what corporations could be considered for a tax credit involving renewable energy usage, along with a plethora of non- climate related sections being addressed within the bill as well. This bill is considered to be
Arizona’s only renewable energy-related bill passed in the year during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The only other environmentally related bill enacted into law in this timeframe was another loosely related bill to the environment. This bill was AZ H 2841, which regulated environmental standards for affordable housing buildings being built, along with addressing affordable housing problems in the state itself. This bill is considered to be Arizona’s only resource conservation policy introduced since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on this information, it can be argued that environmental regulation has taken a back seat to other issues during the pandemic. This, combined with a loss of efficiency from the Arizona legislature in response to the pandemic, led to a slow year in regards to environmental policy in Arizona. Garfinkel 69
While seeking interviews for the Arizona case study, 24 state representatives and senators, all members on their respective environmental committees, were sent emails requesting their participation. Only two state senators completed interviews, both from the Democratic caucus. These participants did provide some valuable information regarding the state of environmental affairs in the state legislature since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Both legislators mentioned that their day to day lives have been impacted by the pandemic, both referencing Zoom sessions as becoming the primary means of communication within the legislature. This has led to a loss in soft relationship building, as well as a lack of public involvement with the policymaking process according to the senators. As far as environmental legislation itself goes, neither mentioned any progress that was significant since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. One issue that was dually mentioned in the interviews was a fear that the governor had a monopoly on power due to an excess of emergency orders brought on by the pandemic. This issue could potentially be a partisan one, as it makes sense that Democratic legislators would be against the reallocation of power to a Republican governor. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if this imbalance of power persists in the future, and whether or not it will impact future environmental legislation. Lastly, an interesting fact mentioned during both of the interviews was that they used to have two separate committees that handled environmentally related issues in the Senate, but this number was reduced to just one during the pandemic.
Neither mentioned any adverse effects because of this, and one even stated that this made things more efficient with regard to environmental legislation.
Analysis of the Findings: Review and Comparison of Colorado Versus Arizona in the
Effects of the COVID-19 on State Environmental Policy Activity Garfinkel 70
The following section compares the Colorado and Arizona state legislatures on their environmental activities throughout the pandemic. Several questions are guiding the research:
What effect, if any, did the COVID-19 pandemic have on state efforts to address environmental policy? To what extent were any observed effects similar or different across states? And, what explains any observed differences? The review and comparison provide answers to the previously introduced hypotheses in chapter 3, the research design section. These hypotheses posed the following:
Hypothesis 1: The factors that determined the differences between states’ environmental policies prior to COVID-19 are the reason we see a difference in how states are treating environmental policy through the pandemic, not because of differences that may be expected during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sub-Hypothesis 1a: The most prominent factor in determining how states handle their environmental policies through the COVID-19 pandemic is the ideology of the state’s legislature, including the majority political party in power in the state, the margin of said majority, and the party of the governor.
Hypothesis 2: Although the main cause of the change in environmental policy specifically may not be due to the expected changes from the COVID-19 crisis, punctuated equilibrium is still occurring, especially in other areas of policy.
Sub-Hypothesis 2a: Punctuated equilibrium occurring in another area of policy will take attention and money away from environmental policy in all states.
Hypothesis 3: States did not increase environmental policy spending since the beginning of COVID-19. Garfinkel 71
In Reference to Hypothesis 1: As noted earlier in this chapter, Colorado and Arizona were slightly different with regard to climate related policy before the COVID-19 pandemic, so the fact that they handled environmental policy differently through the pandemic comes as no surprise. Colorado had an 88% drop off in environmental legislation introduced since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis (almost surely due to the pandemic occurring), while Arizona experienced a massive 97% drop off in the same category since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, also most likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These facts, along with the fact that
Colorado was considered to be more environmentally minded before the pandemic, possibly point to a mixture of the punctuated equilibrium theory taking effect, combined with other variables that were important pre-pandemic playing a role in how states treated environmental policy through the pandemic. It makes sense that Arizona, a Republican majority at the state level of government (Republican legislators tend to introduce less environmental legislation than
Democratic legislators), experienced a higher drop-off in environmental legislation than
Colorado, a state with a Democratic majority at both the state and federal levels. This observation about political party being a determining factor of how states treated environmental legislation through the pandemic still leaves a question unanswered: if only normal factors said to influence policy development were at play, then why did Colorado experience an 88% drop- off in introductions of environmental policy in the span of a year? The answer is that normal factors were not the only things at play in the 2020 legislative calendar. There is evidence that punctuated equilibrium occurred, causing Colorado to introduce 59 COVID-19 related bills, compared to only 13 environmentally related bills in the same time span.
In Reference to Sub-Hypothesis 1a: This hypothesis was shown to be partially true. The observations made by comparing Colorado and Arizona point to the political ideology of each Garfinkel 72 state being a significant factor in determining how a state legislature handled environmental legislation through the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is not the largest determining factor. Political party majority of the state may be the most prominent factor besides the pandemic, but punctuated equilibrium theory and other COVID-19 related issues are clearly the most influential factor within the timeframe of March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020.
In Reference to Hypothesis 2: This hypothesis was not supported by the evidence, as the main factor affecting changes in state environmental policy developments in Colorado and Arizona during the COVID-19 crisis appears to be the pandemic itself. While there were observed differences across the two states in their levels of environmental policy support that might be attributed to differences in politics and other state-specific factors, both states saw significant drops in legislative activity related to the environment. Punctuated equilibrium appears to provide useful explanation of what has occurred during the pandemic.
In Reference to Hypothesis 2a: Analysis of state legislative activity in both Colorado and
Arizona during the COVID-19 pandemic period provides support for this hypothesis. Punctuated equilibrium associated with the pandemic did in fact remove attention and some funds away from environmental policy related issues in both states. While there was no online database which reported individual states’ financial decisions through the pandemic, more than one legislator in each state referenced a reduction in funds to the environmental committee or environmentally related issues during the interviews of legislators from both Colorado and
Arizona.
In Reference to Hypothesis 3: Evidence from this case study, as well as evidence from chapter
5, suggest that this statement could be true. As mentioned in the answer to hypothesis 2a, there is no reliable and/or accurate database that depicts every individual state governments’ budgetary Garfinkel 73
decisions during the pandemic, so this question cannot be fully answered from this comparison.
In the case of Arizona and Colorado, neither state had an increase in environmental spending
since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The tables below make the information discussed above more accessible. Table 6.1
depicts each state’s environmental bills before and after the pandemic that were both passed and
introduced. It shows that even before the pandemic, Arizona had a plethora of bills die in either
the State House or Senate, or got vetoed by the Governor compared to Colorado. Since the
pandemic started, these numbers were exacerbated even further, as Arizona only passed one
environmentally related bill. The pre-pandemic dates for both tables range from March 11, 2019-
December 31, 2019. The post-pandemic dates for both tables range from March 11, 2020-
December 31, 2020.
Table 6.1: Case Study #1 Environmental Bills Pre and Post Pandemic
Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Introduced Pre-Pandemic Introduced Post-Pandemic Passed Pre-Pandemic Passed Post-Pandemic Colorado 57 13 19 9
Arizona 52 2 4 1
Table 6.1: This table shows both Colorado and Arizona’s number of environmentally related bills introduced and passed before and after the pandemic began. The information in this table clearly depicts a loss in both the rate of bill introductions and the rate of bills that have passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The information in this table was gathered from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)(Dubois, 2021).
Table 6.2 depicts the number of each state’s environmental legislation introduced before
and after the pandemic, as well as each state’s COVID-19 related legislation introduced before
and after the pandemic. The information in this table points to COVID-19 related legislation
taking attention and time away from environmentally related issues, as both states experience a
significant drop off in environmental legislation introduced after the pandemic began. This
points to a change in the general agenda for both legislatures, with Arizona experiencing the
greater impacts on their environmental legislation numbers. Garfinkel 74
Table 6.2: Case Study #1 Environmental Bills Versus COVID-19 Bills Environmental Environmental COVID-19 Related COVID-19 Related Legislation Pre-Pandemic Legislation Post- Legislation Pre-Pandemic Legislation Post- Pandemic Pandemic 57 13 0 59 Colorado 52 2 0 14 Arizona
Table 6.2- The table above shows the numbers of environmental legislation and COVID-19 related legislation introduced before and after the pandemic in both Colorado and Arizona. It seems as though Colorado directly replaced its environmental legislation agenda with its COVID- 19 agenda, as both numbers appear to be very similar before (environmental) and after (COVID-19) the pandemic. Arizona’s legislature, on the other hand, seems to have reduced its legislative activities all around, as their post-COVID-19 numbers are significantly lower in total legislation introduced throughout both categories. The information from this table was found through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)(Dubois, 2021).
Conclusion:
This chapter broke down precise details about how the state legislatures in Colorado and
Arizona handled environmental policy throughout the pandemic, and then closed with a
hypothesis-based comparison between the two states. There is clear evidence that punctuated
equilibrium occurred in both states, with the less environmentally minded state (Arizona) feeling
the worse effects of this phenomenon. Colorado, the more environmentally robust state before
the pandemic, was still impacted by punctuated equilibrium, and saw a sharp increase in
COVID-19 related policy, and a sharp decline in environmental policy. The following chapter
will do a similar case study, but will instead include a comparison of Virginia and North
Carolina.
Garfinkel 75
Chapter 7. Case Study #2: Comparing the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on
Environmental Policy in Virginia and North Carolina
This chapter’s purpose is similar to the purpose of chapter 6, and this is primarily because it also attempts to answer the overarching question: did the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic have an effect on environmental policy at the state level of government? This chapter allows for a deeper understanding of the results discussed in chapter 6 by providing an additional case study, which includes more details and examples of the ways in which environmental policy has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter continues with the themes and methods discussed in the last chapter, while providing new data which will either support or reject the hypotheses discussed in both chapter 3 and chapter 6.
This chapter explores whether or not punctuated equilibrium is at play within state legislatures, or if normal political factors explain legislative patterns observed across the
COVID-19 pandemic period. As shown in Chapter 5, there was a large drop-off in the numbers of environmental policy proposals introduced in state legislatures since the beginning of the pandemic on March 11, 2020. The same identification methods from chapter 6, which attempt to answer the pertinent question of punctuated equilibrium versus normal political factors, hold true in this chapter: if punctuated equilibrium were to be in effect, state governments would have shifted their focus almost entirely away from environmental policy towards COVID-19 related policy once the pandemic began. This pattern would continue until pandemic relief is effective and widespread. On the other hand, if only normal political factors were at play – including political party dominance in key state decision making positions, and partisan divide between the two parties – policy would be somewhat similar to prior years in each state, with the variations throughout state-level policy being made mostly on the basis of political feasibility and Garfinkel 76 applicability in any given state. It remains true that it is possible for one of these explanations to be accurate, or for both of these explanations to be at play during the pandemic.
For the second case study, I chose Virginia and North Carolina. This decision was made because of how similar each state is, other than their respective state-level politics. Their populations, geographic locations, natural resources, general terrains, and state cultures are all very similar. However, while Virginia has a Democratic trifecta (a trifecta means that the governor, majority of the house, and the majority of the senate at the state level of government are all the same political party), North Carolina has divided government with a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled state legislature. Because of all of the similarities between
Virginia and North Carolina, the most possible variables have been controlled for, to attempt to single out the political variables hypothesized as significant in answering the overarching question of this project: is punctuated equilibrium occurring at the state level of government in regards to environmental policy?
The same methods were used to attempt to answer this complex question as were used in the chapter 6 case study, including interviews of state-level politicians and some of their legislative aides. To gather interviewees, the decision to ask all legislators on the environmental committees (both Democrats and Republicans) in each case study state was made, and at least two participants from each state legislature responded and were interviewed. In this particular case study, only Democrats responded, despite the non-partisan nature of both the recruitment email and the overall goal of this project. The interview questions themselves can be found in appendix A, and the email used to recruit the participants can be found in appendix B. The relevant details of the interviewees’ responses will be discussed in each state’s individual section below. Garfinkel 77
Analysis of Virginia State Environmental Legislative Activity in the Time of COVID-19:
Before the pandemic, Virginia could have been considered an example of strong environmental policy. This assertion can be supported by the analysis in chapter 5, as well as in the tracking of environmental legislation across the states done by the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL). In the year before the pandemic, Virginia introduced 104 pieces of environmental policy in their state legislature, putting it in the top 8 states in the country and substantially above the average across all states of approximately 62 bills introduced per state.
Just like other states, Virginia experienced a drop off in environmental policy since the pandemic began in March of 2020. This drop off, however, was far less severe than most states.
The Virginia state legislature was able to introduce 83 pieces of environmental legislation between March 11, 2020, and December 31, 2020. While this is still a drop off of 20.2% in a year’s length of time, Virginia was able to jump into the top two states in the country in introducing environmental legislation since the beginning of the pandemic, only trailing
California (which experienced a much larger drop off in legislation at 44.2%). The 83 environmental bills introduced in Virginia during the pandemic period was five times the average number of 16 bills introduced per state during this time.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, on March 11, 2020, Virginia has been able to introduce 42 pieces of renewable energy legislation, 32 pieces of greenhouse gas related policy, two resource extraction (fracking) bills, one resource conservation policy, and six recycling measures. The Virginia state legislature has been remarkable in its ability to maintain its focus on environmental issues throughout the pandemic, which makes sense based on pre-pandemic variables, and points to a lack of impact on legislation in regards to the punctuated equilibrium theory. Garfinkel 78
Since March 11, 2020, the Virginia legislature has introduced 195 pieces of COVID-19 related legislation. The first pieces of COVID-19 related legislation to be introduced in Virginia occurred on April 22, 2020, implying a complete shutdown in the legislature between March 11,
2020 and April 22, 2020. One of the first bills introduced after this shutdown was VA S 971, which established a COVID-19 relief fund for responding to pandemic-related needs, and was enacted into law on April 22, 2020. Another bill introduced early on in the pandemic was VA
HR 219, which established rules to allow the House of Delegates in Virginia to meet through electronic means during a disaster or emergency. This bill did not make it through the House of
Delegates as of April 22, 2020, but the legislature was able to continue using online means regardless of this outcome due to the introduction of executive orders which had a similar purpose. After April 22, a few bills were passed here and there, but most of the other COVID-19 related legislation was passed on August 18, 2020. An example of a bill passed on this date was
VA HR 517, which creates a schedule for a special session to occur within both chambers of the
Virginia legislature. This special session may be one of the reasons that the Virginia legislature was able to address as many climate-related issues as it did, because the legislature did not let the shutdown time due to the pandemic remain wasted. Instead, they lost some of the pre-planned time off to offset the unplanned shutdown that the pandemic caused. Most states did not create a special session like Virginia did.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, a significant number of environmental bills were introduced in Virginia after the pandemic began. An example of one of these bills was VA S 94, passed soon after the pandemic began on April 11, 2020. This bill establishes a goal of creating net-zero emissions by 2050 in the state of Virginia, and it is interesting because the legislators Garfinkel 79 were able to keep the future health of the environment in mind during in the midst of a global pandemic, which was consuming most of the attention elsewhere in the country. This bill was one of Virginia’s 42 renewable energy related bills introduced since March 11, 2020. Another interesting bill introduced since the beginning of the pandemic in Virginia was VA S 106, which prohibits hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in any well that has been drilled through any portion of a groundwater management area. This bill was enacted on April 2, 2020, less than one month after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also one of only 12 fracking related bills passed in the entire country (at a state level) between March 11, 2020, and December 31, 2020, reestablishing the Virginia legislature’s dedication to the environment in the midst of a pandemic. This bill was one of Virginia’s two fracking related policies introduced since the beginning of the pandemic. Lastly, a key piece of environmental legislation enacted since the beginning of the pandemic was VA H 704. This bill was passed on April 22, 2020, and states,
“…provides that it is the policy of the Commonwealth to promote environmental justice and ensure that it is carried out throughout the Commonwealth” (DuBois, 2021). This is a massive bill to pass for a state legislature during any period of time, but to establish that the policy of the
Commonwealth of Virginia is to promote environmental justice in the middle of a pandemic is both rare and groundbreaking. Virginia made an effort to prioritize environmental health during a time when most states did not address it at all.
To gain perspective on how Virginia treated environmental policy since the beginning of the pandemic, two State Senators were interviewed, both of whom currently serve on the environmental committee. Both interviewees agreed that some attention had been taken away from the environmental committee since the beginning of the pandemic, but cited different issues taking the attention that was previously being allocated to environmentally-related issues. One Garfinkel 80 senator mentioned that the legislature was focusing especially on broadband access to all residents in Virginia, and education related changes brought on by the pandemic. In contrast, the other senator stated that protecting frontline workers with PPE (personal protective equipment) and small business relief due to the pandemic were at the top of the state legislature’s priority list. Both senators agreed that relieving the eviction crisis brought on by COVID-19 was an important task for the legislature since March 11, 2020. The senators mentioned that there was less interaction between the senate and the house of delegates because the senators were able to meet in person at the Science Museum of Virginia, while the house of delegates has been forced to meet remotely. According to the senators, this difference in modality has altered the ability of the legislature to operate as effectively as desired, but has not completely halted operations. The environmental committee seems to be moving along through the pandemic, with one senator citing a newfound focus on aging school buildings brought on by the pandemic. This senator noted that due to the social distancing guidelines and the nature of how COVID-19 spreads, old school buildings, which happened to not be considered environmentally sound, are being torn down and replaced with newer school buildings. These buildings will be environmentally compliant, and allow for increased social distancing and better ventilation within the schools.
The other senator mentioned a recently passed program which will eventually turn old plastics into fuel usable in vehicles. The fact that the senators mentioned such a wide variety of issues, which have all remained relevant in the state legislature through the pandemic, points to the ability of the Virginia legislature to be resilient in its environmental policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.
Analysis of North Carolina State Environmental Legislative Activity in the Time of
COVID-19: Garfinkel 81
Prior to the onset of the pandemic, North Carolina could have been considered a relatively average state regarding environmental policy. After the pandemic, however, North
Carolina made a quick shift to abysmal in its environmental policy introduction level. In the year before the pandemic, North Carolina introduced 55 pieces of environmental legislation, putting it at 21 out of 50 total states. After the pandemic, this number reduced to just one piece of legislation introduced, leaving it tied for 45th out of 50 total states. Between March 11, 2020 and
December 31, 2020, North Carolina saw a 98.18% drop off in the amount of environmental legislation introduced in both chambers of the legislature. It is safe to say that the North Carolina legislature was not resilient throughout the pandemic in regards to its environmental policy.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, North Carolina has only passed one recycling policy and zero other policies in the four other previously identified categories of environmental legislation
(renewable energy policy, greenhouse gas emission policy, resource extraction policy, and resource conservation policy). A 98.18% reduction in policy of any type in the span of one year is concerning, and points to the influence of punctuated equilibrium occurring within the state.
Between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020, has North Carolina introduced 135
COVID-19 related bills, proving that the entire legislature did not shut down entirely due to the pandemic? There was, however, a large gap in time between the onset of the pandemic and the first COVID-19 related bills passing into law. Many of the first COVID-19 related bills were introduced around late April, 2020, but many of these bills were either vetoed, or did not make it out of the State House or Senate. An example of this was NC H 1040, which died in the House
Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House Committee on April 28, 2020. This bill provided healthcare for the underemployed and unemployed workers and their families during the pandemic. An example of a bill that did make it through during the late April time period was Garfinkel 82
NC H 1044, which amended the House permanent rules of the general assembly to allow for electronic adjustments that were necessary because of the restrictions brought on by the COVID-
19 pandemic. This bill was passed on April 28, 2020.
Later in the pandemic, many more COVID-19 related bills were passed, with the bulk of all COVID-19 related bills being introduced in May. Amongst these bills was NC H 1043, which was passed on May 4, 2020. This bill provided financial aid and other opportunities to those in need in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The fact that these relief bills were occurring two months into the pandemic implies that the initial response during March and April was not as successful as other states. Another bill introduced later in the pandemic was NC H 1071, which was passed on June 19, 2020. This bill appropriated funds towards public schools in response to the education impacts of COVID-19. More specifically, these funds go toward increased opportunity for online instruction, along with staff development for online instruction procedures, and a plethora of other uses that are school related.
In North Carolina’s case, there is only one environmentally related bill to discuss that was introduced between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This was NC H 1119, which failed in the House Appropriations Committee on May 18, 2020. The intention of the bill was to enact the food recovery and recycling act, which would have created a state-funded organic recycling program. The fact that no environmentally related bills were passed in the timeframe mentioned above (March 11, 2020-December 31, 2020) shows the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the legislature. Punctuated equilibrium is almost certainly at play within the
North Carolina state legislature.
For clarification on North Carolina’s state legislature activities during the pandemic, three senators from the state were interviewed. All three agreed that most of the attention in the Garfinkel 83 state legislature has been on COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic to varying degrees.
Two of the senators stated that the entire of the focus of the legislature has been towards
COVID-19 since the outbreak of the pandemic, while one thought that there had been a significant shift, but not all of the legislature’s attention was on COVID-19. This senator and one other mentioned that social justice causes such as responses to the murder of George Floyd and other Black Lives Matter related bills have gotten some of the attention from the North Carolina legislature during the timespan between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This fact backs up what the one senator was saying that not all of the attention of the legislature has been on the pandemic. None of the senators mentioned any increase in attention towards environmental policy, however, showing that some attention has been diverted from the topic of the environment in North Carolina during the pandemic. All three senators identified one issue brought on by the pandemic: the lack of ability to connect with constituents and other important stake-holders through online sources such as Zoom. This has led to less of a say from these actors in the policymaking decisions, which the interviewees all agreed has been a negative development brought on by the pandemic. This certainly means that advocators for the environment such as environmental organizations and non-profits have had less attention allotted to them by the state legislature in North Carolina. Another common theme amongst the legislators that were interviewed was the positive response to the money provided by the federal government in the state. One senator even stated that without the federal funds North Carolina received, no pandemic relief could have occurred. The same senator stated that they have a large
‘rainy day’ fund in the state, but refused to touch it during the pandemic, which has some interesting implications for the future of environmental policy. If the state did not use any of those funds in an international pandemic, one must wonder what it will take for the state to Garfinkel 84 access the funds. Maybe in the future, North Carolina may decide to use this fund in response to a climate emergency, but only time can answer this pertinent budgeting question for the state of
North Carolina.
Analysis of the Findings: Review and Comparison of Virginia Versus North Carolina in the
Effects of the COVID-19 on State Environmental Policy Activity:
Similarly to chapter 6, this next section will compare the Virginia and North Carolina state legislatures on their environmental activities during the pandemic. Several questions are guiding the research: What effect, if any, did the COVID-19 pandemic have on state efforts to address environmental policy? To what extent were any observed effects similar or different across states? And, what explains any observed differences? The review and comparison provide answers to the previously introduced hypotheses in chapter 3, the research design section, and then reintroduced in chapter 6, the first case study section. These hypotheses posed the following:
Hypothesis 1: The factors that determined the differences between states’ environmental policies prior to COVID-19 are the reason we see a difference in how states are treating environmental policy through the pandemic, not because of differences that may be expected during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sub-Hypothesis 1a: The most prominent factor in determining how states handle their environmental policies through the COVID-19 pandemic is the ideology of the state’s legislature, including the majority political party in power in the state, the margin of said majority, and the party of the governor. Garfinkel 85
Hypothesis 2: Although the main cause of the change in environmental policy specifically may not be due to the expected changes from the COVID-19 crisis, punctuated equilibrium is still occurring, especially in other areas of policy.
Sub-Hypothesis 2a: Punctuated equilibrium occurring in another area of policy will take attention and money away from environmental policy in all states.
Hypothesis 3: States did not increase environmental policy spending since the beginning of COVID-19.
In Reference to Hypothesis 1: Prior to the pandemic, North Carolina and Virginia treated their environmental policy slightly differently, with Virginia being the more environmentally friendly state. This pattern was exacerbated significantly through the pandemic, supporting the assertion made in hypothesis 1, because the factors that existed prior to the pandemic are proving to be the determining factor in which states were hit the hardest by the punctuated equilibrium theory brought on by the COVID-19 crisis. Virginia only experienced a 20.2% reduction in environmental policies introduced in the year after the pandemic began, proving that its legislature was more resilient than North Carolina’s, which experienced 98.18% drop off in environmental policy introduced in the same time span. A 20.2% drop off is not nearly as extreme as 98.18%, but still cannot go unnoticed. In any other circumstance, this 20.2% percent drop off in legislation introduced would point to a major shift in agenda from the legislature, but because the pandemic occurred, this is actually one of the smallest agenda shifts in the country.
This information is still evidence supporting the theory that punctuated equilibrium theory has occurred in the state, but not to the extent it would have if Virginia was not already environmentally minded prior to the pandemic. Garfinkel 86
In Reference to Sub-Hypothesis 1a: This hypothesis was supported significantly through the findings of this case study. Virginia, a more progressive state than North Carolina, and a state which has a democratic trifecta, was significantly better equipped to continue to handle environmentally related issues throughout the pandemic. North Carolina, on the other hand, was severely affected by the punctuated equilibrium theory, and the fact that they have a more conservative legislature than Virginia’s is no coincidence. While the pandemic was still the biggest change that occurred in the United States during this timeframe, the way in which states handled their environmental policy through this time seemed to be impacted by already existing state politics.
In Reference to Hypothesis 2: This hypothesis was partially supported by the evidence found in this chapter. While the main cause in change in environmental policy was the pandemic, the pre- existing political (and other) factors still played a major role in the individual state responses.
Also punctuated equilibrium was most definitely occurring, even in Virginia, a state where it could be argued it occurred the least in throughout the country.
In Reference to Sub-Hypothesis 2a: The analysis of Virginia and North Carolina provides evidence which mostly supports this hypothesis. Attention and money were diverted from each state’s environmental concerns due to the pandemic, but in varying amounts. Overall, the hypothesis was technically accurate because attention and money were diverted from environmental causes in both states, but the hypothesis does not specify whether or not it matters if this amount is large or small. In reality, the size of the diversion does matter, as 20.2% is significantly smaller than 98.18%. But it still remains that there is evidence to support this hypothesis, especially from the results of the interviews. Garfinkel 87
In Reference to Hypothesis 3: Evidence from this case study, as well as evidence from chapter
5, suggests that this statement could be true. As mentioned in the answer to hypothesis 2a, there
is no reliable and/or accurate database that depicts every individual state governments’ budgetary
decisions during the pandemic, so this question cannot be fully answered from this comparison.
In the case of North Carolina and Virginia, it seems as though there was at least a slight decrease
in funding towards environmentally-related issues, especially based on the results of the
interviews.
The tables below make the information discussed above more accessible. Table 7.1
depicts each state’s environmental bills before and after the pandemic that were both passed and
introduced. This table shows how resilient Virginia was during the pandemic, especially in its
ability to pass environmental legislation. North Carolina, on the other hand, would not be
considered resilient, passing a total of 0 environmental bills since the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. The pre-pandemic dates for both tables range from March 11, 2019- December 31,
2019. The post-pandemic dates for both tables range from March 11, 2020- December 31, 2020.
Table 7.1: Case Study #2 Environmental Bills Pre and Post Pandemic Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Total Number of Bills Introduced Pre-Pandemic Introduced Post-Pandemic Passed Pre-Pandemic Passed Post-Pandemic Virginia 104 83 18 85
North Carolina 55 1 10 0
Table 7.1: This table shows both Virginia and North Carolina’s number of environmentally related bills introduced and passed before and after the pandemic began. The information in this table shows the resilience within the Virginia state legislature, and the lack thereof in the North Carolina legislature. The information in this table was gathered from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)(Dubois, 2021).
Table 7.2 depicts the number of each state’s environmental legislation introduced before
and after the pandemic, as well as each state’s COVID-19 related legislation introduced before
and after the pandemic. The information in this table points to COVID-19 related legislation
taking attention and time away from environmentally related issues, as both states experience a Garfinkel 88
drop off in environmental legislation introduced after the pandemic began. This points to a
change in the general agenda for both legislatures, with North Carolina experiencing the greater
impacts on their environmental legislation numbers. Table 7.2: Case Study #2 Environmental Bills Versus COVID-19 Bills
Environmental Environmental COVID-19 Related COVID-19 Related Legislation Pre-Pandemic Legislation Post- Legislation Pre-Pandemic Legislation Post- Pandemic Pandemic Virginia 104 83 0 118 55 1 0 135 North Carolina
Table 7.2- The table above shows the numbers of environmental legislation and COVID-19 related legislation introduced before and after the pandemic in both Virginia and North Carolina. Virginia had a close difference in the amount of environmental legislation and COVID-19 legislation introduced after the pandemic began, once again pointing to its resilience. North Carolina had a massive difference in their COVID-19 legislation numbers compared to their environmental legislation numbers, showing the impact punctuated equilibrium has had in the state legislature. This information in this table was gathered from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (DuBois, 2021). Conclusion:
This chapter broke down precise details about how the state legislatures in Virginia and
North Carolina handled environmental policy throughout the pandemic, and then closed with a
hypothesis-based comparison between the two states. There is clear evidence that punctuated
equilibrium occurred in both states, but to a lesser extent in Virginia, which may have been the
most resilient state in the United States in regards to environmental policy throughout the
pandemic. North Carolina, the less environmentally minded state in both time segments (before
and after the beginning of the pandemic) experienced a sharp decline in environmental
legislation introduced at nearly 100%. The following chapter will be a discussion encompassing
all four states, and will attempt to draw commonalities and differences between all of them.
Garfinkel 89
Chapter 8. Four State Discussion and Conclusion
The following chapter will compare all four states that were selected for the two case studies to identify commonalities, larger lessons, and make conclusions regarding how various states have handled their environmental policy throughout the pandemic. This chapter will also include a boarder discussion of environmental policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, identify some limitations of the study, the next steps in research for future scholars, and conclude the project with a final statement. The discussion will begin with a reintroduction of the hypotheses, as the four-state discussion will be based upon them. The hypotheses are listed below for reference.
Hypothesis 1: The factors that determined the differences between states’ environmental policies prior to COVID-19 are the reason we see a difference in how states are treating environmental policy through the pandemic, not because of differences that may be expected during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sub-Hypothesis 1a: The most prominent factor in determining how states handle their environmental policies through the COVID-19 pandemic is the ideology of the state’s legislature, including the majority political party in power in the state, the margin of said majority, and the party of the governor.
Hypothesis 2: Although the main cause of the change in environmental policy specifically may not be due to the expected changes from the COVID-19 crisis, punctuated equilibrium is still occurring, especially in other areas of policy.
Sub-Hypothesis 2a: Punctuated equilibrium occurring in another area of policy will take attention and money away from environmental policy in all states. Garfinkel 90
Hypothesis 3: States did not increase environmental policy spending since the beginning of COVID-19.
In Reference to Hypothesis 1: Throughout all four states selected for a case study, this hypothesis had both evidence to support it, and evidence against it. The evidence to support it was that the states which were already environmentally friendly before the pandemic (Colorado and Virginia) were still the most effective at maintaining a relatively high level of environmental policy throughout the pandemic. Evidence that further supports this hypothesis is that at the state level, Colorado and Virginia are both Democratic trifectas, while Arizona and North Carolina lean Republican. State politics certainly count as a factor which influenced how states handled their environmental policy prior to the pandemic, which this hypothesis argues is the most important piece of determining how states handled their environmental policy through the
COVID-19 crisis. The evidence against this hypothesis is that even Colorado and Virginia experienced an 88% and 20.2% drop off in environmental legislation respectively during the pandemic. Considering that these two states were in the upper-echelon of states in their environmental policy prior to the pandemic, it seems as though the differences that may have been expected due to a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic are truly the most influential factors in how states have handled their environmental policy between March 11, 2020, and December
31, 2020.
There is evidence to support the assertion that punctuated equilibrium has occurred in every state during the pandemic, including the four states chosen for case studies. In the case of the four states that were chosen, all four experienced a significant increase in the introduction of
COVID-19 related legislation, while experiencing a decrease (in varying degrees) to their respective environmental policy introductions. Clearly state politics and other pre-existing Garfinkel 91 factors played a role in how extreme this drop off in environmental legislation was, but the overall lesson from the numbers discussed in chapter 5, as well as the case studies in chapters 6 and 7, is that punctuated equilibrium during the pandemic has been widespread throughout the
United States.
In Reference to Sub-Hypothesis 1a: There is evidence to support this hypothesis in all four states included in the case studies. The two states which experienced the largest drop offs in state-level environmental policy through the pandemic were the Republican leaning states,
Arizona (97% drop off) and North Carolina (98.18% drop off). Meanwhile the Democratic leaning states were much more resilient in their levels of introduction of environmental policies throughout the pandemic, experiencing significantly less drop off than their neighboring
Republican states.
On a countrywide scale, questions still remain about the answer to this hypothesis.
Generally, the numbers support the assertion that the largest percentage drop offs in environmental bill introduction occurred in Republican leaning states, but there are examples which support the opposite conclusion, depending on the comparison. Hawaii, a Democratic trifecta at the state level of government, had a 90.3% reduction in environmental policy introductions since the beginning of the pandemic, while Texas, a Republican trifecta, only experienced an 86.8% reduction in environmental policy introduced after the beginning of the pandemic. While this is further evidence to support the occurrence of punctuated equilibrium occurring in all 50 states during the pandemic, this also means that more case studies must be completed on this topic to truly understand if sub-hypothesis 1a is accurate or not. Pure numbers can give us an insight into the way states handled their environmental policy throughout the pandemic, but the best way to get insight into state agendas and recovery time (length of time Garfinkel 92 until environmental policy is back to normal levels of introduction), is through case studies with interviews of specific legislators who have insight that numbers alone cannot tell us. Although on the surface Hawaii’s environmental policy was seemingly more damaged than Texas’ environmental policy, there is a good chance that Hawaii’s environmental policy will be quicker to rebound than Texas’ after the pandemic ends, just based on legislator agendas in the two states alone.
In Reference to Hypothesis 2: There is evidence which disproves the first statement in this hypothesis between the two case studies. All four states in the case studies experienced a decrease (varying in size) in the number of introductions of environmental policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, while increasing the total number of COVID-19 related policies during the same timeframe, showing evidence that the main cause of change in environmental policy since the introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the pandemic itself. There is evidence, however, to support the second half of the hypothesis, as punctuated equilibrium is almost certainly occurring in many areas of policy. The extreme increase in the introduction of COVID-19 related legislation combined with the wilting numbers of the amount of environmental legislation introduced between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020 points to this second part of the hypothesis being true.
In Reference to Sub-Hypothesis 2a: The evidence found in the four states selected for the case studies supports this hypothesis. All four states experienced losses of varying degrees in their environmental policy outputs (legislation introduced and passed) and inputs (budgetary considerations). While one of the limitations of this project is that not every state could be selected for a case study, the evidence from the existing case studies does show this rapid decrease in attention and money (information regarding environmental budgets was found Garfinkel 93 through the interviews alone, as an applicable online database of state environmental budgets does not exist) from environmental policy since the beginning of the pandemic. While at face- value this trend is true, it seems as though Republican-leaning states (at the state level of government) experienced the harshest decline in both attention and fund allocation towards environmental policy, while Democratic leaning states at the state level experienced less harsh declines. While all of this information points to the hypothesis itself being accurate, it should definitely be noted that the pandemic did not affect all states’ environmental policies with the same level of potency.
In Reference to Hypothesis 3: The information gathered in the interviews points to this hypothesis being supported, but due to the lack of an applicable online database which contained all of the state-level environmental budgets before and after the pandemic, the possibility of this hypothesis being disproven remains. At least one interviewee in each state of the four selected for a case study stated that there was a financial decrease of some kind in the environmental budget. The states were handling these decreases differently, however. Some states were allocating environmental funds directly towards pandemic relief, while others were saving the environmentally distributed money for later dates, when they most likely will address environmental policy in greater depth. Some states were using federal funds for pandemic relief while cutting taxes and other money-making means for the state legislature, so the money that would have been allocated towards the state environmental budget in a normal budget cycle was not even collected during the unique pandemic budget cycle. Although this scenario did not appear in the four states selected for a case study, it is also likely that some states were already midway through their budgetary cycles when the pandemic first occurred, causing no immediate decrease in environmental spending, as this money may have already been spent. Another Garfinkel 94 scenario that did not occur within the four states chosen for case studies but is certainly possible is the scenario in which some states were never intending to allocate funds towards environmental issues prior to the pandemic beginning, so they were never planning on experiencing an increase in environmental policy spending, regardless of the introduction of the pandemic.
A Non-Hypothesis Based Discussion:
All 50 states experienced a decrease in the number of environmental policies introduced between March 11, 2020, and December 31, 2020, compared to the number of environmental policies introduced between March 11, 2019, and December 31, 2019. In most cases, this drop- off in policy introductions was a significant one, pointing to a major shift in agenda amongst all
50 states. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is punctuated equilibrium, which in this case, was introduced at the same time as the COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020.
Legislators from all 50 states were forced to focus on pandemic relief, causing a decrease in attention towards environmental issues which existed prior to the pandemic.
On a broad scale, punctuated equilibrium was almost definitely occurring, but this does not tell the whole story. The four states selected for case studies were able to provide further insight into why not every decrease in environmental policy was the same throughout all 50 states. It seems as though factors which influenced state politics prior to the introduction of the pandemic remain significant, because this determined the severity in which states’ environmental policy were affected by the introduction of the pandemic. It is most likely true that Republican leaning states (at the state level of government) were hit the hardest by the pandemic as far as environmental policy goes, as it is not uncommon to see many of these states have between zero and five environmental policies introduced after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Garfinkel 95 figure 5.1 in chapter 5 for exact numbers). This trend was supported by the interviews conducted within the case studies, as it seemed as though the interviewees from Democratic leaning states had more in-depth plans for the environmental policy recovery that will most likely occur once vaccines are more widespread and the pandemic has lessened in intensity. These Democratic leaning states also experienced less loss in environmental policy introductions, and interviewees were able to speak about more environmental endeavors that existed throughout the pandemic compared to their peers in Republican-leaning states.
The interviews conducted with state-level representatives or their staff members varied, usually depending on the state that the representative is an elected official in. The individuals who were the most eager to share information were from Colorado and Virginia, and those that defaulted or could not answer more questions tended to be from Arizona or North Carolina
(although this was not always the case). Interviewees form all four states seemed eager to get back to introducing and passing increased numbers of environmental policy, as well as other non-COVID-19 related policies. Across all four states, interviewees mentioned that attention has been taken away from environmentally related topics, with some citing a lack of access to stakeholders, a lack of time, and/or a sharp increase in attention paid to other forms of policy. It was common for interviewees to express frustration with various individuals or government processes that have been stripping attention from environmental topics, an occurrence that could possibly point to increased environmental attention after the pandemic begins to lessen in intensity across all states.
Some common trends existed amongst all states’ environmental policy during the pandemic. It seemed as though the least popular segment of environmental legislation through the pandemic was resource extraction (fracking) policy. The only state to introduce more than 3 Garfinkel 96 fracking policies during the pandemic was Pennsylvania, which had 6 total fracking policies introduced after the pandemic began. This is still a relatively small number of policies, and this trend may point to a shift in the agenda of policymakers when it comes to environmental policy outside of punctuated equilibrium and the pandemic. Another common trend throughout the pandemic was a sharp increase in COVID-19 related policy throughout all 50 states. This broad policy category includes financial relief policy, school related policy, legislature functionality legislation, and a plethora of other legislative actions. The amount of attention these categories received between March 11, 2020 and December 31, 2020 was exponential, and the question remains: will these categories continue to receive as much attention after the end of the pandemic because of a newly noticed deficiency, or is this simply a temporary trend like the punctuated equilibrium theory suggests it will be?
Conclusion:
The overarching question that this thesis attempts to answer is: why have state legislatures experienced such a rapid decline in the introduction of environmental policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic? There are two main explanations as to why this phenomenon exists, with one being the punctuated equilibrium theory, and the other being normal political and non-political factors which have always existed in state legislatures. In this case, if punctuated equilibrium were to be in effect, state governments would have shifted their focus almost entirely away from environmental policy towards COVID-19 related policy once the pandemic began. This pattern would continue until pandemic relief is effective and widespread. On the other hand, if only normal political factors were at play – including political party dominance in key state decision making positions, and partisan divide between the two parties – policy would be somewhat similar to prior years in each state, with the variations Garfinkel 97 throughout state-level policy being made mostly on the basis of political feasibility and applicability in any given state.
The literature surrounding this topic prior to the introduction of this project was generally background information, especially because of the new nature of the pandemic. There was literature about the punctuated equilibrium theory, there was literature about factors which influence state environmental policy, there was some (very limited) literature about COVID-19 and its impacts, but there was no existing literature which brought all three of those things together into a single set of theses. This project seeks to fill this gap in the literature, and tie all three of these concepts into one intertwined idea to show what trends in environmental policy are actually occurring at the state-level of government throughout the pandemic. It is important to note that literature about how the pandemic has impacted environmental health did exist prior to the creation of this project, but hardly any were written from a policy standpoint, with most being written from a purely scientific angle. It is also important to note that because of how recent the pandemic is, new literature is being created every day about its environmental impacts.
It is most likely true that both punctuated equilibrium theory and normal factors which have influenced state environmental policymaking in the past were at play in state legislatures after the introduction of the pandemic. States experienced definitive punctuated equilibrium, but the hardest hit states in terms of environmental policies introduced and passed were the states which were already less environmentally-minded, and a state being environmentally-minded or not is dependent on pre-existing factors, such as the political party lean of the state legislature.
This assessment was shown in the case studies through their ability to single out certain factors such as the political lean of each state. The case studies showed that the states which experienced the most extreme drop-offs in legislation were Republican leaning at the state level. While this Garfinkel 98 may be true for the context of this project, there still remain limitations to this project which do not allow it to be applicable for all 50 states and for an extended amount of time.
One major limitation of this project was time. There was not enough time to conduct case studies on all 50 states, out of which anomalies and a more in-depth understanding of the factors at play almost certainly exist. Also, due to the timing of this project, only an analysis of environmental policy before and during the pandemic was able to be completed, not an analysis of post-pandemic occurrences. This project was only able to speculate on what the future impacts of the punctuated equilibrium at a state level of government might be. Another limitation of this project was the lack of state budgetary resources that were applicable and conducive to the creation of data in the research sections. A lot of the questions about environmental budgets in these states had to be answered through the interviews alone, which means that information regarding all 50 states’ environmental budgets was unable to be obtained, and the information that was obtained could have possibly contained inaccuracies or biases. Had enough time existed in the context of this project, more interviews could have been conducted to gain information on the budgets of all 50 states, not just the four selected for case studies. Something that some would consider to be a limitation of this study was the lack of ability to conduct a true 50-state statistical analysis. It could be argued, however, that the formatting of this project (a more in- depth methodology which provides different information than just numbers would have) was a more effective method of understanding environmental policy throughout all 50 states since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 50-state analysis with numbers alone could not have accounted for the attitudes of elected officials toward environmental policy, the impacts that this lack of policy is having within states, and the actual content of the bills that did exist throughout the pandemic. Lastly, a limitation of this project was the lack of interviews obtained from Garfinkel 99
Republican legislators in the states selected for case studies. This occurrence could have led to biases in the responses obtained from interviewees, but this happenstance was completely unintentional. The methodology used in this project was not perfect, but given the time constraints and other limitations, the results identified in the project were based on paramount methods.
Future research could pick up where this project left off, and continue to conduct interviews of elected officials in states not selected for these case studies, who were in office for the large decrease in environmental legislation which occurred during the pandemic. This method will only be applicable for a certain time after the introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, because these elected officials could potentially forget details about environmental policy during the pandemic over time, and they could also become hard to find after retirement from public office. Another route that could be taken by future researchers would be to conduct a true 50-state statistical analysis. One advantage of time passing is that more resources will become available about state budgets, and more information will emerge about which policies garnered attention before, during, and after the pandemic. Someday, it will be interesting to study the impact that these (most likely) temporary significant reductions in environmental policy at a state level actually have on the environment, if any impact existed at all. Chances are, the results of this massive decrease in environmental legislation will negatively impact the environment, but that is something that cannot be answered until sometime after the end of the pandemic.
This project identified a significant drop off in the introduction of environmentally- related bills brought on by the pandemic, and the potential meaning of this occurrence. This project also dived into two case studies which looked at this policy reduction in greater detail, Garfinkel 100 and came up with some preliminary results to the 5 hypotheses initially introduced in the research design section. The possibility that this project contributes to literature about how the environment was treated during the pandemic is valuable. Over time, we will see the true impacts the pandemic has had on the health of the environment, which this project identifies as a negative one. Potentially, this project will serve as an example of how damaging the punctuated equilibrium theory of government can be to other areas of policy, so future policy makers can learn from this occurrence.
Garfinkel 101
Bibliography
“About Solar Energy.” Solar Energy Industries Association , SEIA, 2021, www.seia.org/initiatives/about-solar-energy.
BallotPedia. “Current State Government Trifectas.” BallotPedia, 2021, 101lobalizati.org/State_government_trifectas.
“Basics of Wind Energy.” AWEA, American Wind Energy Association, 2020, www.awea.org/wind-101/basics-of-wind-energy.
Baumgartner, Frank and Bryan Jones. January, 2018. Theories of the Policy Process. 4th Ed. Pgs. 55-100. Westview Press.
Beltra, Daniel. “The Deep Water Horizon Disaster.” The New Yorker, 7 Mar. 2011, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/03/14/the-gulf-war.
Bharadwaj, Niranjan Dev. “The Relationship between Poverty and the Environment.” Voices of Youth, 5 Nov. 2016, www.voicesofyouth.org/blog/relationship-between-poverty-and- environment.
Blocker T.J., D.L. Eckberg Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey Soc. Sci. Q., 78 (4) (1997), pp. 841-858.
Christiansen, Christer. 2001, Norwegian Research Council , www.files.ethz.ch/isn/96626/01-4- acc.pdf.
Cox , Cynthia. “COVID-19 Is the Number One Cause of Death in the U.S. in Early 2021.” Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, 23 Feb. 2021, www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-is-the-number-one-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s- in-early-2021/.
Dabkowski, Colin. “A History of the Love Canal Disaster, 1893 to 1998.” The Buffalo News, 4 Aug. 2018, buffalonews.com/news/local/history/a-history-of-the-love-canal-disaster-1893- to-1998/article_5df93af9-e5fe-5ae4-be74- efed7dbf43ed.html#:~:text=The%20canal%20was%20built%20by,Upper%20and%20Low er%20Niagara%20Rivers.&text=The%20state%20health%20department%20declared,back %20to%20the%20last%20century.
Direct Energy Solar. “Will Solar Panels Help or Hurt the Resale Value of My Home?” Direct Energy, 16 Mar. 2016, blog.directenergy.com/solar-panels-help-hurt-resale-value-home/.
DuBois, Gretchenn, and Kristy Hartman. Energy State Bill Tracking Database , National Conference of State Legislatures, 2021, www.ncsl.org/research/energy/energy-legislation- tracking-database.aspx. Garfinkel 102
Epstein, L. and J. Knight. The Choices Justices Make. CQ Press, Washington, DC (1998).
Everley, Steve. “You Missed a Spot: A Timeline of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Energy In Depth, 26 Mar. 2018, www.energyindepth.org/you-missed-a-spot-a-timeline-of-hydraulic-fracturing/.
Fischer-Baum, Rueben. “Public Transit Use in Small Cities.” FiveThirtyEight, 31 July 2014, fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/.
“Fracking and Water Contamination.” Kentucky Environmental Foundation, 2021, www.kyenvironmentalfoundation.org/hydraulic-fracking/.
Franzen, A. Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys1993 and 2000 Soc. Sci. Q., 84 (2) (2003), pp. 297-308.
Gieseke, Timothy M. Collaborative Environmental Frameworks. 2020. Taylor & Francis Group. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/books/9780429505973
Gittel, Ross, Matt Magnusson, and Michael Merenda. 2012. Sustainable Business Cases. Vol. 1.0. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sustainable-business-cases/s02- acknowledgments.html
Hanania, Jordan. “Hydroelectric Dam.” Energy Education, 2018, energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydroelectric_facility.
Hess, David and Quan D. Mai, and Kate Pride Brown. Red states, green laws: Ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States, Energy Research & Social Science. Volume 11, 2016, Pages 19-28, ISSN 2214-6296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.007. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961530030X)
Higgins, Courtney Jay. “How Does A Recycling Center Actually Work?” The Good Trade, The Good Trade, 23 Sept. 2020, www.thegoodtrade.com/features/how-recycling-centers-work.
Howe, Peter D., Matto Mildenberger, Jennifer R. Marlon, and Anthony Leiserowitz. April, 2015. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change: Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274732047_Geographic_variation_in_opinions_ on_climate_change_at_state_and_local_scales_in_the_USA
Hunter L.M., A. Hatch, A. Johnson. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Q., 85 (3) (2004), pp. 677-694
Inglehart, R. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit., 28 (1) (1995), pp. 57-72 Garfinkel 103
Ingram, Elizabeth. “Most Prevalent Renewable Electricity Generation Fuel by State (2007 and 2017).” Hydro Review, 9 Nov. 2018, www.hydroreview.com/business-finance/hydro-is- largest-source-of-renewable-energy-in-19-u-s-states/#gref.
MapScroll. “Human Development Index by State.” The Map Scroll, 5 May 2009, mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/05/human-development-index-by-state.html.
Jordan, A. 2001. Environmental Policy: Protection and Regulation. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/policy-process
McCauley, Ryan. “Researchers from Ohio State University Released a Report Chronicling How to Best Determine Where Charging Stations Can Go to Encourage Electric Vehicle Adoption.” Government Technology, 15 June 2017, www.govtech.com/fs/Building-Out- Electric-Vehicle-Infrastructure-Where-Are-the-Best-Locations-for-Charging-Stations.html.
McCright ,A.M. R.E. Dunlap. Bringing ideology in: the conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA J. Risk Res., 16 (2) (2013), pp. 211-226.
Morton, F.L., P.H. Russell, T. Riddell. 1995. The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms: A descriptive analysis of the first decade, 1982–1992. National Journal of Constitutional Law, 5 (1995), pp. 1-60.
Mostafa, M.M.. Does 103lobalization affect consumers’ pro-environmental intentions? A multilevel analysis across 25 countries. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., 19 (3) (2012), pp. 229-237
National Geographic Society. “Biomass Energy.” Resource Library, 14 Nov. 2012, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/biomass- energy/#:~:text=Biomass%20energy%20is%20energy%20generated,heat%20or%20conver ted%20into%20electricity.
National Geographic Society. “Hydroelectric Energy.” National Geographic , National Geographic Encyclopedic Entry, 30 May 2019, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/hydroelectric- energy/#:~:text=Hydroelectric%20energy%2C%20also%20called%20hydroelectric,a%20 waterfall%E2%80%94to%20generate%20electricity.
Nervil, Tom. “Offshore Wind Turbines.” Technology University of Denmark, 7 Apr. 2017, www.dtu.dk/english/news/nyhed?id=5cb4363d-4568-4ed3-a83a-f474896c6eea.
Ortiz, Erik. “How the Amazon’s Fires, Deforestation Affect the U.S. Midwest.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 25 Aug. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-amazon- s-fires-deforestation-affect-u-s-midwest-n1045886. Garfinkel 104
Pirie, Madsen. “The Impact of Interest Groups on Public Policy.” Adam Smith Institute, Adam Smith Institute, 30 June 2015, www.adamsmith.org/blog/thinkpieces/the-impact-of- interest-groups-on-public-policy-2.
Poulos, James. “Carbon Cap-and-Trade System.” CalWatchDog, Aug. 2016, calwatchdog.com/2016/08/12/cap-trade-carbon-tax-showdown-looms/.
Repetto, Robert, and Frank R. Bumgartner. 2006. Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy. Pgs. 24-47. Yale University: The Louis Stern Memorial Fund. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qAIWExlvDTQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq =punctuated+equilibrium+theory+environmental+policy&ots=_z1dpESJrd&sig=zIfbwsE Pwpe6TPMrMoM629jU1ok#v=onepage&q=punctuated%20equilibrium%20theory%20e nvironmental%20policy&f=false
Schneier, Bruce. “Policymaking Must Catch up with Technology – before It’s Too Late.” World Economic Forum, 12 Nov. 2019, www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/we-must-bridge-the- gap-between-technology-and-policy-our-future-depends-on-it/.
Schneringer, Keith. “The Future of Recycling in America.” Waxie, 1 Nov. 2018, info.waxie.com/blog/the-future-of-recycling-in-america.
Sharkansky, I., & Hofferbert, R. (1969). Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 867-879. Doi:10.1017/S0003055400258632
“The Biggest Environmental Problems Of 2020: Earth.Org – Past: Present: Future.” Earth.Org – Past | Present | Future, 23 Sept. 2020, earth.org/the-biggest-environmental-problems-of- our-lifetime/.
“The Truth about Fracking and the Environment.” The Wilderness Society, 2021, www.wilderness.org/articles/article/truth-about-fracking-and-environment.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Gasoline and the Environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 19 Nov. 2020, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/gasoline-and-the- environment.php#:~:text=Gasoline%20use%20contributes%20to%20air%20pollution&tex t=The%20vapors%20given%20off%20when,carbon%20dioxide%2C%20a%20greenhouse %20gas.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Homepage – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” Annual Energy Outlook 2020, Jan. 2020, www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2020%20Full%20Report.pdf.
Wan, Calvin, Geoffrey Q. Shen, and Stella Choi. 7 June, 2017. A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Vol. 75, pgs. 70-80. Garfinkel 105
Environmental Science & Policy: Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116309054
“Water Recycling Process.” Malama Honua- Our Sustainable Future, 2020, aboutdeucedeuce.weebly.com/water-recycling.html.
Weber, Isabelle. “How State Regulations Hold Us Back and What Other Countries Are Doing about Fracking.” FracTracker Alliance, 11 Mar. 2020, www.fractracker.org/2019/10/regulations-by-country/.
Zafar, Salman. “Biomass Sources.” BioEnergy Consult, 17 Jan. 2021, www.bioenergyconsult.com/biomass-energy-introduction/.
Zelezny, L.C. P.P. Chua, C. Aldrich. New ways of thinking about environmentalism: elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues, 56 (3) (2000), pp. 443-457
Zifan, Ali. “CO2 Emission per Capita per Year per State” US Environmental Protection Agency. 3 Dec. 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_carbon_dioxide_emi ssions#/media/File:Map_of_states_showing_CO2_emission_per_capita.svg
Garfinkel 106
Appendix A: Recruitment Email Example
Dear Representative X,
My name is Adam Garfinkel, and I am a senior honors student at the University of Colorado
Boulder. I am emailing to request your assistance in completing my honors thesis project. This project is specifically related to environmental policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis in March of 2020, and will make significant contributions that could assist both you and your staff by analyzing and comparing how various states have altered their environmental policies since the COVID-19 pandemic began. I am hoping to interview Representative X or a staff member in your office to ask a few questions about the policy making process, and if they have seen any differences in the way environmental policy has been handled in the aforementioned time frame. I am available through Zoom or phone call at any time. Thank you for your consideration, and I sincerely hope that you will be able to participate in an interview.
Thank you,
Adam Garfinkel
Garfinkel 107
Appendix B: Interview Questions
Q1: Can you please state your name and job title?
Q2: Has your day to day life as a representative (or legislative assistant etc. depending on the interviewee) been altered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Q3: Have you noticed any changes in which policies are getting attention since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis in March of 2020?
Q4: What changes (if any) have you noticed in the environmental committee since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis in March of 2020?
Q5: Have any policy enforcement mechanisms been altered in any way within the aforementioned timeframe?
Q6: Have there been any major budget changes in this timeframe?
Q6A: If the answer is yes to Q6: have any budget changes impacted the environmental committee specifically?
Q7: In your opinion, what has been the most positive legislative change that has been implemented since the COVID-19 crisis?
Q8: In your opinion, what has been the least effective change since the beginning of the COVID-
19 pandemic?
Q9: Do you feel as if any attention has been taken away from the environmental committee since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis?
Q10: Has the pandemic altered the ability of the state legislature to carry out its duties in any way? Garfinkel 108
Thank you for taking the time to get interviewed for this project. If you are interested, I am able to share the results of the project after its completion, which will provide an in-depth look at how a plethora of states have handled the COVID-19 crisis in regard to their environmental policies.