8. Comparative Assessment
- Open Access
- 2026
- OriginalPaper
- Buchkapitel
Erschienen in:
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)
Abstract
Introduction
In this chapter, we focus on the comparative assessment of the climate policies, policy instruments, and targets for reducing GHG emissions across these diverse subnational jurisdictions investigated in Chaps. 3 through 7. We discuss the insights for the leadership-focused dimension of our analysis in Chap. 9, where readers will find a detailed exploration of how different types of climate leadership manifest across the case studies.
The comparative empirical findings reveal a complex picture, where timing of U2C accession matters yet it is mediated by domestic political contexts, institutional capacity, and structural factors specific to each region. While founding members generally demonstrate sustained climate policy effort, some early joiners match or exceed their effort, and certain later joiners show remarkable acceleration in policy-based climate action post-membership.
Anzeige
United States
Founding Members
In the United States, founding members exhibited the most sustained policy effort, with California leading with more than 40 policies in place by 2024. All founding members increased their climate policy activity post-2015, though California’s policy trajectory was already steep pre-U2C. Vermont and Washington showed the most dramatic policy growth after co-founding U2C, while Oregon’s was more gradual. California also deployed the most comprehensive mix of policy instruments. Other US founding members introduced fewer new instruments post-2015, suggesting U2C membership reinforced existing trajectories rather than fundamentally redirecting them. All founding members established comprehensive GHG emissions reduction targets early, with California setting 2030 and 2045 benchmarks that influenced targetsetting by other US states.
Early Joiners
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island—as the group of early joiners—exhibited markedly varied climate policy trajectories, with some matching founding members’ performance while others lagging far behind.
Massachusetts and New York emerged as the early joiners that demonstrated the highest level of climate policy ambition, with Massachusetts accumulating the highest number of policies among all studied states. Both states leveraged existing RGGI participation and robust state capacity to expand comprehensive climate policy frameworks post-2015. New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (2019) mandates zero-emissions electricity by 2040 and exemplifies how early joiners could exceed the climate policy ambition of founding members. Massachusetts similarly built on its foundational 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act through successive climate plans and its landmark 2021 Next-Generation Roadmap legislation.
Connecticut and Rhode Island showed steady but more modest progress. Connecticut pioneered climate finance innovation through the nation’s first state green bank (2011). However, the state’s withdrawal from the Transportation & Climate Initiative in 2021 and its postponed adoption of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II revealed limitations in sustained ambition. Rhode Island maintained consistent participation in regional initiatives, such as the RGGI, while gradually strengthening its legal framework through its 2021 Act on Climate.
Anzeige
New Hampshire failed to adopt binding GHG emissions reduction targets or meaningful EV programs despite early U2C membership. Minnesota experienced a prolonged plateau (2008–2018) before momentum resumed, missing its 2015 targets and only aligning with peer net-zero commitments in 2023.
Early joiners showed diverse instrument adoption patterns. Massachusetts and New York each implemented 7–8 instrument types, including standards, cap-and-trade, subsidies, and information measures. Connecticut’s green banking model was an innovative financial instrument that later diffused nationally. However, several early joiners relied heavily on federal and regional frameworks, particularly the RGGI, rather than developing distinct, state-level innovations.
Target adoption by the early joiners varied significantly. Massachusetts and New York adopted binding statutory targets early and strengthened them post-U2C accession. New Hampshire notably lacked any binding GHG targets, representing clear followership failure.
Later Joiners
Colorado pioneered methane regulations for oil and gas operations (2014) that later influenced federal policy, while Hawaii’s early binding GHG emissions reduction targets (2007) and 100% renewable electricity mandate (2015) positioned it as a climate leader well before joining U2C in 2018.
Maine and New Jersey displayed resurgence patterns following Republican gubernatorial periods that stalled climate action. Maine’s climate governance stagnated under Governor Paul LePage (2011–2018) before accelerating rapidly under Governor Janet Mills, who joined Maine to U2C (2021) and passed comprehensive climate legislation. New Jersey similarly paused climate action under Governor Chris Christie (2010–2018) before re-entering the RGGI and adopting ambitious offshore wind targets under Democratic leadership.
Nevada adopted minimal climate policies until 2019, when it established renewable energy standards and ZEV requirements. The state’s late but intensive policy burst demonstrates how later joiners can quickly catch up given sufficient political will.
Virginia illustrated the vulnerability of later adopters to political backsliding. Despite joining U2C in 2017 and enacting comprehensive climate legislation before 2022, Glenn Youngkin’s Republican gubernatorial victory resulted in attempted withdrawal from the RGGI and the decision to halt adoption of Californian vehicle standards, highlighting the fragility of late-developing climate frameworks.
Most later joiners showed limited instrument diversification compared to founding members and proactive early joiners. Energy generation and building standards dominated, with fewer comprehensive, economy-wide approaches. However, several adopted innovative instruments, like Nevada’s renewable energy storage requirements and Maryland’s environmental justice provisions in climate legislation.
Few late joiners adopted short-term targets, reflecting lower immediate accountability pressure. However, medium- and long-term targets proliferated post-U2C membership, particularly net-zero by 2050.
Canada
Founding Members
British Columbia established comprehensive climate policies before co-founding U2C. In particular, its landmark 2008 Climate Plan introduced three transformative instruments: a carbon tax, the Clean Energy Standard banning coal generation, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The province expanded its policy framework post-2015 through the CleanBC program, garnering U2C recognition for innovative climate solutions. However, political volatility undermined sustained leadership—the carbon tax was repealed in 2025 despite initial success in reducing GHG emissions.
Ontario’s early policy innovations included a coal phase-out (completed 2014), feed-in-tariff programs, and the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009). The province briefly joined the California-Québec cap-and-trade system (Western Climate Initiative) in 2018, but the 2018 Progressive Conservative Party’s victory in the provincial elections led to withdrawal from the cap-and-trade program, the cancelation of 750 renewable energy projects, and elimination of the GEGEA entirely, showing how electoral transitions can rapidly reverse climate progress.
Both Canadian jurisdictions implemented carbon pricing mechanisms, though design varied significantly. British Columbia led with early carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, while Ontario’s brief participation demonstrated regional integration potential. Both founding members adopted comprehensive GHG emissions reduction targets early. However, in the case of Ontario, policy durability proved challenging given partisan opposition and economic framing of climate policies as burdens rather than opportunities.
Early Joiner
In 2014, Québec and California linked their cap-and-trade programs, creating North America’s first multisectoral carbon market. Québec also pioneered ZEV mandates in 2016, becoming the first Canadian province to establish ZEV requirements without major automotive industry presence. Québec adopted multiple climate policies between 2001 and 2023, with several sector-specific initiatives (ZEVs and sustainable mobility) emerging after U2C accession. The province established medium- and long-term GHG emissions reduction targets and became an early adopter of net-zero commitments (2020), though implementation remains intertwined with large infrastructure projects.
Later Joiner
The Northwest Territories exhibited limited legislative activity compared to the Canadian foundering members, adopting the lowest number of climate policies while producing the most climate plans of all Canadian jurisdictions. This pattern reflects territorial focus on strategic planning over binding policies, with successive Greenhouse Gas Strategies (2001–2015) prioritizing corporate emissions over jurisdiction-wide targets.
The territory’s policy instruments remained limited but innovative, focusing on community-specific solutions like the Capital Asset Retrofit Fund and Arctic Energy Alliance. The 2012 Energy Charrette represented successful multi-stakeholder consensus-building around renewable energy transitions, while subsequent carbon pricing (2019) included extensive exemptions recognizing northern economic realities.
Target adoption showed late but accelerating ambition: Northwest Territories established long-term GHG emissions reduction goals only after joining U2C.
Germany
Founding Member
Baden-Württemberg emerged as Germany’s strongest and most consistent climate leader, demonstrating sustained ambition both before and after co-founding U2C in 2015. Post-U2C foundation, Baden-Württemberg sustained momentum through revised renewable heating legislation (2023), an updated Climate Protection and Climate Change Adaptation Act (2023), and sector-specific strategies spanning freight transport, public transit, waste management, and energy planning. It implemented Germany’s most comprehensive policy instrument mix, including the first state-level carbon shadow price for government buildings (2023) as well as extensive information services through the Climate Protection and Energy Agency. In 2013 Baden-Württemberg established one of the first legally binding state-level GHG emissions reduction targets in Germany.
Early Joiners
North Rhine-Westphalia initially defied expectations by adopting Germany’s first comprehensive climate protection law (2013) despite heavy coal dependence and large industrial sectors. Schleswig-Holstein leveraged coastal advantages for wind power leadership, adopting ambitious renewable energy goals and comprehensive energy transition legislation (2017). The state exhibited sustained policy effort before and after U2C membership, though sectoral diversification beyond energy generation and efficiency remained limited.
Hesse combined early leadership with municipal support strategies, establishing energy efficiency frameworks and substantial funding programs. The state was slower to adopt binding climate legislation, waiting until 2023 despite the adoption of earlier sustainability strategies. Thuringia initially lagged behind the other early joiners but significantly raised its level of ambition following ratification of the Federal Climate Protection Law in 2018. The state became particularly active in 2024 with the adoption of multiple sectoral sustainability plans and wind energy participation legislation. Bavaria was slow to adopt binding GHG emissions reduction targets (2020 Climate Protection Law) and implemented fewer policy instruments than its peers.
Early joiners showed varied instrument adoption. North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse led with comprehensive subsidy programs and regulatory standards, while Schleswig-Holstein focused on energy-specific instruments. Most states implemented photovoltaic installation requirements and energy efficiency standards post-2015, suggesting U2C accession reinforced existing trajectories.
Target adoption varied significantly among the early joiners. Most established medium- and long-term targets after joining U2C, with timing correlating to legislative frameworks and Green Party participation in government.
Later Joiners
Lower Saxony showed low overall policy activity and adopted a Climate Protection Act (2020) that neglected major sectors like agriculture and transport. The state implemented fewer policy instruments compared to earlier joiners, focusing primarily on renewable energy subsidies and, recently, building efficiency standards. It adopted a carbon shadow price for government purchases, following Baden-Württemberg’s model, but overall instrument diversification remained limited.
Rhineland-Palatinate adopted Germany’s third comprehensive Climate Protection Act in 2014, preceding most early joiners, and maintained high policy activity through successive sustainability strategy updates and sectoral legislation. Rhineland-Palatinate’s 2025 Climate Protection Law revision established carbon neutrality targets for 2035 and created binding control mechanisms with economic incentives. The state implemented diverse policy instruments including solar installation requirements (2021) and carbon shadow pricing, demonstrating a comprehensive approach despite late coalition membership.
Spain
Founding Member
Catalonia laid the foundations of its climate policy with its Framework Plan for Climate Change Mitigation (2008–2012), which brought together 800 individuals and 500 organizations to build consensus around climate action. The region integrated energy and climate policy through its 2012–2020 Energy and Climate Change Plan, subordinating energy choices to GHG emissions reduction targets. In 2017, Catalonia adopted Spain’s first regional climate framework, establishing net-zero targets by 2050 and comprehensive sectoral measures. Despite constitutional challenges that struck down key provisions in 2019, Catalonia demonstrated resilience through rapid recovery via Decree Law 16/2019, which revived mandates and streamlined renewable energy deployment and set new targets.
Catalonia adopted short-, medium-, and long-term GHG emissions reduction targets before and after founding U2C, further signifying its sustained ambition to take climate action.
Early Joiners
The Basque Country adopted the legislative projects EcoEuskadi 2020 (2011) and KLIMA 2050 (2015) as well as comprehensive sectoral plans, culminating in two climate laws: the Public Administration Energy Sustainability Law (2019) and the foundational Energy Transition and Climate Change Law (2024). Policy instruments were limited but strategically focused: early smart-grid public-private partnerships (2011), binding fiscal tools (2021), and innovative emissions monitoring using satellite technology (2022). Target evolution showed accelerating ambition: from 14% emissions above 1990 levels (2008–2012) to legally binding net-zero by 2050 with 45% reduction by 2030.
In 2010, the Foral Community of Navarre adopted the Climate Change Strategy, which, however, was revoked within months by the regional parliament. Then in 2018, it established long-term objectives for GHG emissions reduction by 2030 and 2050 and introduced fiscal instruments that generated €3.5 million for environmental action. The 2022 Climate Change and Energy Transition Law deferred most binding measures by two to eight years and failed to meet first-year targets. The Foral Community of Navarre implemented diverse policy instruments including taxes, public procurement, and standards, but these were faced by opposition. The 2019 Climate Emergency Declaration proved largely symbolic. Target ambition surged from a 45% reduction by 2030 (2017) to 55% by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2040.
Later Joiners
Andalusia was Spain’s first region to adopt GHG emissions reduction standards, certifications, and training programs. Two years after joining U2C, it also established binding frameworks that enabled the implementation of the 2021–2030 Climate Action Plan. Nonetheless, Andalusia adopted a limited set of policy instruments post-U2C membership, focusing on consolidating existing approaches rather than innovation. GHG emissions target evolution showed accelerating ambition from an 18% reduction (2018) to 55% (2022) by 2030.
The Community of Madrid adopted policy frameworks spanning energy planning (2004–2012), efficiency standards (2017–2022), and comprehensive decarbonization strategies (2021–2024). After entering U2C in 2019, it adopted the Energy, Climate and Air Strategy (2023–2030), aligning with international frameworks while maintaining focus on technical increments rather than transformative reframing. The region implemented diverse policy instruments primarily in 2023, including subsidies, standards, and voluntary agreements. Progression in its GHG emissions reduction targets remained incremental (20% to 23% by 2030).
Galicia demonstrated the most dramatic late-joiner transformation, strategically timing U2C accession during COP 26 (2021) to leverage global visibility for domestic reform acceleration. The timing of accession coincided with the adoption of Integrated Regional Plans aiming to facilitate a 19.5% net emissions reduction (2019–2025). The 2030 plan comprises 93 measures spanning mitigation, adaptation, research, and social dimensions, demonstrating comprehensive sectoral integration. The ambition of its GHG emissions reduction targets strongly increased from 24.6% (2019) to 75% (2025) by 2030, with carbon neutrality advancing from 2050 to 2040.
United Kingdom
Founding Member
Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act of 2015 garnered international recognition. However, Wales enacted fewer climate policies than other UK devolved administrations due to constitutional entanglement with English law and its limited devolved competencies, which cover only about 30% of Welsh emissions.
The Welsh approach prioritized waste management excellence, achieving 98 percent municipal waste diversion from landfill by 2022, and its housing efficiency standards addressed some of Europe’s oldest and least efficient building stock. Policy instruments targeted energy efficiency measures through Buildings and Housing Quality standards, subsidies, and circular economy initiatives including early carrier bag charging.
Post-U2C founding, Wales leveraged available powers effectively while using coalition membership to amplify limited structural authority. The 2016 Environment Act established binding GHG emissions reduction targets (45% by 2030, 67% by 2040, 80% by 2050) with five-year carbon budgets, demonstrating sustained ambition within constitutional constraints.
Target evolution reflected an early comprehensive approach, with 2010 commitments encompassing all Welsh emissions (40% reduction by 2020). Post-2021 targets became more ambitious (63% by 2030, 89% by 2040, net-zero by 2050) following Climate Change Committee advice.
Early Joiner
Scotland demonstrated the strongest UK climate ambition despite only being an early adopter, using U2C membership to reinforce independence aspirations and exceed national-level commitments. Scotland’s climate leadership predated U2C membership through the landmark 2009 Climate Change Act, which exceeded the 2008 UK Act in stated ambition thanks to comprehensive annual net-zero targets (2010–2022).
The number of climate policies adopted exceeded that of all other UK jurisdictions, with Scotland adopting comprehensive planning frameworks and just transition mechanisms. The Climate Challenge Fund (2008–2022) supported community-scale decarbonization, while flagship initiatives included the world’s first Climate Justice Fund (2012), a Just Transition Commission (2018), and Loss and Damage financing commitments as COP 26 host nation.
Scotland’s policy instruments showed innovation and large-scale ambition early. However, implementation challenges emerged, leading the Climate Change Committee to describe Scotland’s 2030 goals as lacking credibility. As a consequence, Scotland had to scale back its interim targets, emulating UK and Welsh approaches. Nonetheless, it retained a headline net-zero by 2045 commitment.
Later Joiners
Northern Ireland exhibited delayed policy-based climate action, which is attributable to post-conflict recovery priorities and repeated Assembly suspensions totaling one-third of its existence since 1998. However, its 2021 U2C accession coincided with a remarkable increase in climate policy effort through “New Decade, New Approach” commitments that align with Paris Agreement objectives. The landmark 2022 Climate Change Act legislated net-zero by 2050, an 82% reduction by 2050, and carbon budgets spanning three periods (2023–2037) with 33–62% average annual reductions. Northern Ireland’s policy instruments remained limited but targeted.
Isle of Man’s climate action accelerated following its U2C accession in 2021. Early policy development commenced in 2006 with its recognition of energy challenges, which evolved through a renewable energy potential assessment (2010), strategic frameworks (2013–2016), and comprehensive planning (2020). The 2021 Climate Change Act, adopted shortly after U2C membership, legislated net-zero by 2050 with five-year action plans following the UK model. The Isle of Man’s policy instruments focused on financing and regulatory approaches, encompassing a Sustainable Financing Framework (2018), an Energy Efficiency Scheme (2018), a Green Living Grant Scheme (2021), and innovative measures including bans on single-use plastics (2023), bottom trawling restrictions (2024), and fossil-fuel heating prohibitions for new buildings (2025). The evolution of its GHG emissions reduction targets was marked by increasing ambition. A first long-term target of 80% GHG emissions reduction by 2050 set in 2013 was replaced by a net-zero emissions target by 2050 in 2021. Intermediate targets of 35% GHG emissions reduction by 2030 and 45% by 2035 complement the Isle of Man’s long-term strategy since 2022.
Cross-Regional Patterns and Insights
The analysis confirms that founding and early members of U2C generally demonstrate more climate policy effort, but these incentives interact in complex ways with domestic factors that shape their climate policy trajectories.
Rather than initiating new climate commitments, U2C membership typically reinforced existing climate policy trajectories among member jurisdictions. This pattern is evident in the cases of Baden-Württemberg, British Columbia, and Catalonia, all of which had already established substantial climate policy frameworks before joining the coalition. This suggests that U2C membership serves more as a platform for amplifying pre-existing commitments than as a catalyst for initial climate action.
However, sustained climate leadership requires institutional stability, which proves vulnerable to changes in the political setting in which policymaking takes place. This challenge is particularly evident in the cases of Ontario and North Rhine-Westphalia, where rapid policy reversals and reduced ambition following electoral transitions highlight the fragility of climate commitments in the face of changing political landscapes.
The capacity for sustained leadership is also significantly influenced by geographic and economic factors unique to each jurisdiction. Scotland’s substantial renewable energy potential, Baden-Württemberg’s strong technological base, and California’s extensive regulatory authority all facilitated their ability to maintain climate leadership over time. These inherent advantages provide a foundation for ambitious climate policies that transcends political cycles.
Beyond these governance dynamics, clear evidence emerges of policy diffusion through U2C networks, demonstrating the coalition’s role as a conduit for knowledge transfer. California’s vehicle emission standards exemplify direct policy transfer, with multiple states subsequently adopting these regulations, even across national boundaries. Similarly, Scotland’s Climate Justice Fund has influenced the prioritization of comparable climate justice initiatives in Wales and other UK jurisdictions. Furthermore, later adopters frequently reference existing climate laws from other U2C members when developing their own legal frameworks, creating a pattern of institutional emulation across the network.
This interconnected web of policy learning and adaptation illustrates how U2C functions not merely as a symbolic commitment platform, but as an active mechanism for the diffusion of climate governance innovations across subnational jurisdictions. Global participation patterns of U2C signatories demonstrate that the platform has helped not only founding and early joiners sustain climate action, but also to lead by encouraging other states and regions to join the network and implement ambitious polices, instruments, and targets.
Temporal Patterns and Membership Dynamics
The founding members generally exhibited climate frameworks predating U2C establishment, suggesting the coalition emerged from existing leadership. California’s trajectory epitomizes this pattern: its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 established comprehensive GHG emissions reduction targets and regulatory architecture nearly a decade before U2C formation. The state’s subsequent climate policies, including cap-and-trade implementation and successive scoping plans, built on this foundation rather than on U2C membership.
Baden-Württemberg similarly demonstrated early leadership with Germany’s first renewable heat mandate for existing buildings in 2008 and a comprehensive climate protection law in 2013. The state’s post-2015 activities—revised legislation, sectoral strategies, and expanded policy instruments—represent continuation and deepening of existing trajectories rather than new directions prompted by U2C participation.
However, founding membership provides no guarantee of sustained leadership. Ontario’s experience is particularly instructive: despite co-founding U2C and implementing an ambitious cap-and-trade program linked with California and Québec, the 2018 election brought a Progressive Conservative government that swiftly dismantled climate policies, withdrew from carbon pricing, and canceled renewable energy projects. This reversal, despite the reputational costs of abandoning a flagship U2C initiative, illustrates how domestic political dynamics can overwhelm international commitments.
Early adopters, joining July 2015–2016, exhibit remarkably varied trajectories that complicate simple categorization. Scotland—technically an early adopter, having joined two months after founding—demonstrates leadership exceeding that of many founding members. Its role as European co-chair, its pioneering of climate justice initiatives—including the world’s first Climate Justice Fund—and its ambitious targets (net-zero by 2045, five years ahead of the UK) position it as a de facto climate leader.
Massachusetts and New York leveraged early membership to amplify existing policy frameworks while developing new initiatives. Both states built on their RGGI participation to develop comprehensive legislation—Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Roadmap (2021) and New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (2019)—that established some of the United States’ most ambitious subnational targets. Their post-2015 acceleration of climate action suggests U2C membership provided legitimacy and learning opportunities that facilitated policy expansion.
Conversely, several early joiners demonstrate persistently low levels of climate policy effort. New Hampshire adopted minimal policies and lacks binding targets despite joining in 2015. Minnesota experienced a decade-long plateau (2008–2018) with little progress. Bavaria, despite early U2C membership and favorable conditions following nuclear phase-out, remains a climate laggard among German states. These cases suggest that membership timing alone does not determine ambition levels.
Later entrants, joining 2017–2024, present the most diverse patterns, challenging assumptions that late adoption indicates lower ambition. Some jurisdictions, like Rhineland-Palatinate, had established comprehensive frameworks before joining—its 2014 Climate Protection Act preceded membership by three years—suggesting strategic timing rather than followership. The state used U2C primarily for international visibility and legitimacy rather than policy learning.
Galicia exemplifies entrepreneurial use of late membership, deliberately timing its November 2021 accession to coincide with COP 26 for maximum visibility. The conjunction of international attention and domestic momentum created policy windows that earlier membership might not have provided.
Other late entrants display clearer patterns of followership. Northern Ireland’s 2021 accession followed decades of climate policy neglect—attributable to post-conflict priorities and institutional instability. Its subsequent Climate Change Act (2022) closely emulates Scottish and Welsh approaches, suggesting followership. The Northwest Territories similarly used 2017 membership to import southern Canadian approaches while adapting them to Arctic contexts.
Conclusion
This analysis reveals that while U2C membership timing influences climate policy effort, the relationship is mediated by complex domestic factors that often prove more decisive than coalition entry sequencing. Founding members generally demonstrate sustained leadership trajectories, establishing comprehensive policy frameworks and maintaining climate action through political transitions. However, some early joiners match or exceed their performance through strategic leveraging of existing institutional capacity and favorable political contexts, while certain later adopters show remarkable acceleration that challenges simple assumptions about first-mover advantages.
Evidence suggests U2C functions primarily as an amplifying mechanism rather than as a transformative catalyst, reinforcing existing climate policy trajectories and providing reputational incentives for sustained action. The coalition appears most effective when subnational governments already possess foundational climate commitments, institutional capacity, and political will. In these contexts, U2C membership offers external validation, policy learning networks, and international visibility that strengthen domestic climate governance. Conversely, U2C membership alone proves insufficient to overcome weak political commitment or institutional constraints, as demonstrated by the laggard performance of some early joiners.
In short, domestic political contexts, institutional capacity, and structural factors remain decisive in determining actual policy outcomes. States and regions with robust institutional frameworks, cross-party consensus, and effective framing of economic co-benefits exhibit greater policy durability. Constitutional arrangements also significantly influence outcomes. Federal systems—such as those in Canada, Germany, and the United States—enable more autonomous climate action than quasi-federal systems like Spain or more centralized systems like the UK. Nevertheless, intra-country variations suggest that local political factors often override these structural constraints.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
