Abstract

Recent years have seen a dizzying profusion of policy initiatives from U.S. sub-federal entities designed to reduce their respective emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). In this article I take up the question of whether or not sub-federal mitigation efforts can be seen as rational with respect to the objective of achieving meaningful mitigation of climate change. Assuming arguendo that a primary or ultimate objective of sub-federal climate mitigation policies is to achieve meaningful mitigation of global climate change, my purpose is to explore the extent to which these efforts can be seen as rational with respect to that objective. Part I of this article sets the contextual and comparative stage with a discussion of key U.S. and global issues and trends relating to climate change and energy. In Part II of this article I introduce a conceptual formulation made by the linguistic philosopher J.L. Austin regarding constative and performative statements. This distinction between constative and performative statements is offered - in a rather modified fashion - as a kind of analytical metastructure by which to organize and understand the types of justifications and rationales offered on behalf of explicit sub-federal climate mitigation efforts. Of course, to explore the rationality of sub-federal climate mitigation efforts, we need to come to some conclusions - however tentative and general - regarding the actual and potential impacts of these efforts. Part III of this article takes up this task by offering a heuristic, quantitative assessment of the magnitude of GHG reductions that can be achieved through current sub-federal initiatives. In Part IV of this article I explore the question of why sub-federal entities are engaging in explicit climate mitigation efforts by focusing, as an initial matter, on the types of purpose-related justifications that have been offered on behalf - or with respect to - such efforts. What claims and rationales are offered in support of these efforts? To what extent, and in what manner, are these justifications explicitly directed at climate change, energy security, economic competitiveness, and so on? Sub-federal actors appear to be doing a great deal to stop a problem that cannot, by their own efforts, be either stopped or even measurably slowed. Their efforts to mitigate climate change seem akin to placing a brightly colored paper hat on the head of a child sitting on the railroad tracks in the hopes that the hat will, somehow, stop the incoming locomotive from harming the child. Would it not be better to try and move the child off the tracks? In this article I conclude that the most rational course of action is to refrain from any efforts to move the hat and its precious wearer off the tracks. And moreover, that a paper hat is actually the best protection available.