Writing Sample

Finding the moral light:

A comparative analysis of structural factors shaping GHG emissions across six
nations

By: Katie-Lee Perrin

Originally presented to Dr. Diane Dupont and Dr. Tim Heinmiller for the course:
SSAS 5F91 - Major Research Paper on April 11, 2017
Abstract

We are facing many environmental and social challenges relating to climate change in
the twenty-first century, mainly caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). Canada is one of the worlds largest per capita
GHG emitters. Canada thus has a moral responsibility to reduce its emissions to mitigate
the impending effects of climate change. This study compares and contrasts six
developed countries (Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
States) to examine how federal policy can be most effectively used to reduce GHG
emissions. It argues that the variation in GHG emissions at the national level may be due
to policy-driven population, economic, and technological factors. For each of the
countries, this research examines nine structural factors that have the potential to shape
national GHG emissions. It evaluates the relative importance of the compounding effects
of these factors and determines which factors could be manipulated using federal policy
to realize a reduction of GHG emissions. Firstly, it identifies the relative importance of
nine structural factors affecting GHG emissions in the six countries under study with data
from 1990-2014 using the PET model, an empirical analysis based on a variation of
Scarrow and Crenshaws POET model, which was originally based on Duncans model
of ecological complex. Then, a qualitative analysis is conducted to examine the federal
environmental policies of the six countries. The panel data analysis suggests that there
is a significant positive relationship between total population and GHG emissions, a
significant negative relationship between population density and GHG emissions and an
almost significant negative relationship between renewable energy supply and GHG
emissions. It also suggests that increasing renewable energy public RD&D budget,
environmentally related tax revenue, and energy productivity all have the potential to
decrease GHG emissions. This study concludes by identifying key areas of weak federal
GHG emissions governance in Canada in contrast to stronger federal policies of the other
countries studied.
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Purpose and Methodology

3.0 Background Information

3.1 Sustainable Governance Environmental Indicator

3.2 Cross-Country Analysis using the SGI

4.0 PET Model

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Environmental Impact Models

4.3 Samples, Methodology and Study Design

4.3.1 Methodology, Data and Study Design

4.3.2 Dependent Variable

4.3.3 Predictor Variables

4.4 Results

4.5 Discussion

5.0 Environmental Kuznets Curve

6.0 Environmental Contexts

7.0 Conclusion
1.0 Introduction

We are facing many environmental and social challenges relating to climate change in

the twenty-first century, mainly caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of

greenhouse gases (GHG) (Baum et al. 2012). Mitigation of GHG emissions has been at

the center of climate change debates since the Kyoto Protocol agreement of 1997 (Boyd,

2012). It is well known that there is a natural GHG effect which already keeps the Earth

warmer than it would otherwise be. However, emissions resulting from human activities

are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases

carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases

will enhance the GHG effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's

surface (IPCC, 1990). According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), current trends in global GHG emissions will result in a temperature rise exceeding

two degrees Celsius. The world, particularly the poor and marginalized, risks very serious

and irreversible consequences if that temperature threshold is reached (IPCC, 1990).

In recent years, Canadas image as an environmental leader has been tarnished by its

lack of commitment to environmental governance. As Tom Rand (2014) said, as a moral

light, Canada has faded. Canada finds itself ranked fortieth out of forty-one countries on

the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) in terms of its Environmental Policies

(Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). This is due to government actions that have appeared to

weaken rather than enhance federal environmental policies (MacNeil, 2014). With the

combination of budgetary expenditure cuts, downloading of federal environmental

responsibilities to provincial governments, the lack of legally-enforceable environmental

regulations, the renunciation of its Kyoto Accord obligations, the introduction of Bill C-38,

1
and the constant reneging of environmental initiatives, the federal government of Canada

can be said to have been hindering Canadian environmental policy (MacNeil, 2014;

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2011; Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). While many

countries with similar levels of wealth as Canada have been making great leaps forward

in terms of environmental policy and management, Canada has been taking giant steps

backwards (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Canada is one of the worlds largest per capita

greenhouse gas emitters (Conference Board of Canada, 2011). According to the SGI,

Canada releases the third highest per capita GHG emissions out of forty-one countries,

after Australia and Luxembourg (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). As one of the worlds

greatest emitters of GHG emissions, Canada has a moral responsibility to reduce its

emissions to mitigate the impending effects of climate change, not only for itself but for

other countries with fewer resources for climate change adaptation. Addressing these

high levels of GHG emissions is thus imperative to move Canada one step closer to

exemplifying the moral light.

2.0 Purpose & Methodology

This research will examine structural factors that shape national GHG emissions. In this

study, structural factors are federal policy-controllable variables that have the potential to

affect GHG emissions. As some past research demonstrates, many structural factors

influence a nations GHG emissions (Buttel, 1978; Goldstein et al., 1997; Green, 2004).

This study argues that the variation in GHG emissions at the national level may be due

to policy-driven population, economic, and technological factors key structural factors

examined in this study.

2
The relationship between anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate change is no longer

in question (IPCC, 1990). What is in question is the power of federal policy to curb these

emissions. How can federal policy be most effectively used to reduce GHG emissions

while maintaining or even improving quality of life, economic prosperity, and social

development? What are countries doing right with regards to policy measures to reduce

GHG emission? What are countries doing wrong? Which structural factors have proven

effects on GHG emission? Some studies show that GHG emissions are correlated to

economic growth (Barker et al., 2016). Some studies show that decoupling of economic

growth and GHG emissions is happening (Barker et al., 2016; Stern, 2004; Chen et al,

2017). Some studies show that GHG emissions are correlated with population indicators

(Lee et al., 2016; Holdren, 2000; Malthus, 1798; Boserup, 1965; Dodman, 2009). This

study aims to fill the gap in the literature with a comprehensive, comparative model

determining which real-life structural determinants have significant impacts on GHG

emissions. As will be developed throughout this paper, the literature has gone to great

lengths studying impacts of individual factors on GHG emissions (Barker et al., 2016;

Boserup, 1965; Blindheim, 2015; Chen et al, 2017; Dodman, 2009; Holdren, 2000; Lee

et al., 2016; Liu & Wu, 2017; Malthus, 1798; Stern, 2004; van Vuuren et al., 2016;). That

being said, these factors do not act in a vacuum they have compounding effects

(Scarrow & Crenshaw, 2015). This study aims to evaluate the relative importance of these

compounding effects and determine which structural factors could be manipulated using

federal policy to affect real change on GHG emissions.

3
The research question is a two-part question. Firstly, this study is designed to identify and

determine the relative importance of structural factors affecting GHG emissions in the six

countries of study using the PET model, a variation of Scarrow and Crenshaws POET

model, which was originally based on Duncans ecological complex (Scarrow &

Crenshaw, 2015; Duncan, 1959). This paper will empirically determine the relative

importance of certain policy related variables (e.g. environmentally related tax revenues ,

environmentally related research and development (R & D) budget, renewable electricity,

etc.) that are either contributing to or counteracting (depending on what the data shows)

a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the countries of study. Secondly, this study

will examine structural differences between Canada and the other five countries of study.

The end goal of this study is to identify weak areas of environmental policy which could

be revised based on greenhouse gas emissions data. It would be imperative to target

those variables that are counteracting a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in

Canada with effective policy changes and/or emphasize those variables that are

contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the countries of study. Change

needs to happen to avoid the impending catastrophic events of climate change. In

Canada, this change could be discovered through an analysis of other countries triumphs

and failures.

The qualitative section is an analysis of federal environmental policies in six developed

countries. These six developed countries of study are Australia, Canada, Norway,

Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America (US). These countries were

chosen based on their environmental policy performance ratings by the Sustainable

4
Governance Indicators (SGI) and their similarities allowing for comparability. Some

similarities between all of these countries include their level of development these

countries all experience relatively high-levels of development; their population density

these countries all experience on average low density populations which tend to demand

more resources (Lee et al., 2016); their extreme weather conditions all of these countries

experience a variation of weather conditions from winter to summer, which affects energy

consumption with regard to climate control and other resources; and all of these countries

are subdivided by state, counties, provinces, cantons, etc. which affects levels of

governance and federal policies. A comparison of Canada to Australia and the US is

warranted as Australia and the US are also often poorly ranked by environmental

performance indexes along with Canada (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). A comparison of

emissions and policies between these three countries will be conducted to see if any

correlative trends can be observed with regards to poor environmental policy performance

and higher greenhouse gas emissions. A comparison of Canada to Sweden, Switzerland

and Norway is warranted as Sweden, Switzerland and Norway are almost if not always

ranked at the top of environmental performance indexes.

The policies to be analyzed will be taken from sources such as reports by the countries

themselves, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the

World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reports by environmental

performance indexes such as the Sustainable Governance Indicators by Bertelsmann

Stiftung or the Environmental Performance Index by Yale University, and reports by

agencies such as the Conference Board of Canada.

5
The aim of this study is neither to forecast, nor to look at future estimated greenhouse

gas emissions in Canada. This study is designed to identify and determine the relative

importance of current structural factors influencing national greenhouse gas emissions in

Canada compared to the other five countries of study using a variation of the POET model

in order to expose where Canadian environmental policies diverge from the top

environmental performers and converge with equally poor-performing countries. The end

goal of this study is to offer Canada specific, proven and effective environmental policy

areas of improvement based on greenhouse gas emissions data.

3.0 Background Information Based on the SGI

3.1 Sustainable Governance Environmental Indicator

This paper uses some information from the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) to

illustrate that the changes to Canadas environmental policies put Canada out of step with

other G7 nations. This index allows the analysis of specific environmental policy changes

by Canada and by the other countries of study. The SGI looks at economic, social and

environmental policies. The Sustainable Governance Environmental Indicator assesses

the capacity of nations governmental policies to address sustainability issues

(Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). They aim to answer the questions What works in which

context and why? (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). The SGI index was created by

Bertelsmann Stiftung, a private German company aiming to share and mobilize

knowledge. Figure 1 gives a brief outline of the process of assessing and ranking the

subject countries. Firstly, there are eight groups consisting of two experts and of one

coordinator collaborating with each other for each countrys indicator. In each group, the

6
rst country expert writes a draft country report and provides scores on a scale from one

to ten based on a questionnaire (one being the best).

In the case of the Environmental Indicator, the questionnaire was based on the questions:

"How effectively does environmental policy protect and preserve the sustainability of

natural resources and quality of the environment? To what extent does the government

actively contribute to the design and advancement of global environmental protection

regimes?" The second expert reviews this report, making comments supporting and

opposing the first expert's review in order to get a complete understanding of the subject.

He or she also provides scores independently of the rst expert. The Coordinator

mediates between the two experts, ensuring a balanced report. The coordinator then

provides his own scores. The eight coordinators meet to share and discuss their

assessments. Each coordinator is required to explain, defend, and if necessary,

recalibrate his assessments and scores. These scores are then passed on to an advisory

board which gives its final assessment and finalizes the scores. The indicators are then

ready to be compared.

This indicator has ranked forty-one countries according to the effectiveness of their

national and international environmental policies using several criteria. The criteria for

domestic policies are: energy productivity, greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter,

water usage, waste generation, material recycling, biodiversity, and renewable energy.

And for international policies are: the cooperation with multilateral environmental

agreements and participation and achievements with regard to the Kyoto Protocol.

7
According to this indicator, Australia is ranked thirty-second, the USA is tied for thirty-

third, and Canada is ranked fortieth whereas Sweden, Switzerland and Norway top the

list with Sweden ranked first and Norway and Switzerland tied for third place (Bertelsmann

Stiftung, 2016).

It is important to keep in mind that some of the countries of study cover vast areas of land

and are subdivided by provinces, states, cantons, etc. Because of the vast array of

environmental contexts experienced within each country, the responsibility of

environmental management may be largely downloaded to the provinces, states,

cantons, etc., which could individually have a very strong patchwork of environmental

policies. This topic concerning different levels of governance deserves further scrutiny.

However, in order to keep this research to a narrowed scope, the following sections will

largely concentrate on federal policies.

3.2 Cross-Country Analysis using the SGI

The Sustainable Governance Economic Indicator places Switzerland in first place,

Sweden in second place, Norway in fourth place, Canada in tenth place, the USA in

sixteenth place and Australia in twenty-sixth place out of forty-one countries in terms of

whether their economic policies address sustainability challenges (Bertelsmann Stiftung,

2016). According to the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (October

2016), the six countries of study enjoy projected GDPs within the top thirty in the world

(IMF, 2016). These six countries thus maintain a level of economic wealth that facilitates

increased efforts to protect the environment (Boyd, 2003). Seeing as Canada finds itself

8
second last in terms of environmental performance, with many countries with lower GDPs

scoring higher than Canada, we can conclude that it is policy choices, not necessarily

levels of economic wealth that determine a nations environmental performance. Below

are very brief overviews of each country of studies national environmental policy

performance, on which are based their SGI rankings.

Six-stage peer review by unbiased experts, each providing a score from one to ten

Based on questionnaire:
How effectively does environmental policy protect and preserve the To what extent does the government actively contribute to the
sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment? design and advancement of global environmental protection?

Passes by sixteen experts and eight coordinators who each give scores then explain, defend, and if necessary,
recalibrate the assessments and scores

Figure 1 SGI Assessment and Ranking Process (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016)

3.2.1 Australia

Policy rollbacks and lack of action on CO2 emissions have left Australia scoring relatively

poorly (rank thirty-two) with respect to environmental policy. Despite reduction goals and

signing on for the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 emissions had been rising

until 2012 with very little decrease since due to an exploitative natural resource based-

economy; unsustainable, highly-energy consumptive lifestyles; and outdated

infrastructure including public transit (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Recently abolished,

the Australian carbon tax was replaced by a system paying businesses to reduce

emissions, regarded as ineffective by most experts. Energy consumption levels remain

9
high, and renewable-energy use has actually declined since the 1970s, an exception in

the OECD (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Furthermore, since 1971, CO2 emissions have

almost tripled in Australia, one of the worst performances in the OECD (Bertelsmann

Stiftung, 2016).

3.2.2 Canada

Canada finds itself in fortieth place in terms of environmental policy standards. As will be

explained throughout this paper, the frontrunners of the index all have enforceable federal

environmental laws and/or taxes incorporated into their governance systems to achieve

superior environmental policy performance (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Contrarily,

Canada can be said to be progressively weakening its federal environmental regulations.

It has thinned and streamlined its assessment rules and processes to favour non-

renewable energy projects, it has greatly modified and diluted habitat and species

protections, it does not have a country-wide federal carbon tax in place, and it has neither

renewable energy strategy nor many enforceable federal environmental laws. Canada

has told premiers to independently adopt a carbon tax or cap-and-trade plan or Canada

will impose its own levy by 2022, providing yet another patchwork of policies across

Canada (McCarthy & Leblanc, 2016). Climate change policy has been extremely

controversial in Canada. There are many experts questioning whether or not the federal

government of Canada has seriously addressed the issue of global warming and

greenhouse gas emissions at all (OECD, 2004). The countrys decision to withdraw from

the Kyoto protocol and the countrys continued increase in GHG emissions from 2010 to

10
the most current data period, 2014, enhances these observations (Bertelsmann Stiftung,

2016).

3.2.3 Norway

Norways environmental policies are deemed among the best worldwide, putting it in third

rank on the SGI (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). In 1972, Norway was the first country in

the world to have a ministry at cabinet level specifically tasked with environmental issues

(Boyd, 2012). With a strong focus on renewable energy production, national utilization of

hydroelectric power, and a well-developed regulatory system, Norway has been proactive

at achieving environmental goals. Norway has been aware and concerned about

environmental issues for decades now and has thus developed a wide range of

environmental laws (OECD, 2011). However, even though Norways main energy source

is hydroelectric power, Norway is an oil and gas producer and thus contributes both

directly and indirectly to global CO2 emissions. They have made plans to offset emissions

by buying international CO2 quotas, but these have been criticized as an evasion of

domestic obligations. The country has also invested strongly in carbon-capture

technologies, but practical positive results have yet to appear (Bertelsmann Stiftung,

2016). The country is additionally involved in helping to spread technology related to

renewable energy (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016).

3.2.4 Sweden

Sweden scores at the top worldwide with regard to environmental policies because of its

longstanding focus on ecological issues. Environmental policy made its way onto the

11
political agenda in the 1970s and has remained a salient set of issues. Legislation plays

an important role in Swedish environmental efforts with the Environmental Protection Act

entering into force in 1969 and the Environmental Code entered into force in 1999

(Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Swedens environmental policy framework aimed to

promote sustainable development with the following goals: protection of human health

and the environment, both natural and cultural environments; preservation of biological

diversity; management of land, water and the physical environment for ecological, social,

cultural and economic values; encouragement of reuse and recycling, as well as other

management of materials, raw materials and energy (IEA, 2014). In Sweden,

environmental policy is an integrated component of the larger project of restructuring the

economy and making it more environmentally friendly. Sweden has historically strongly

supported global environmental initiatives, even going beyond the requirements of

international accords such as the Kyoto Protocol. In Sweden, CO 2 emissions are

declining, biodiversity is improving, and its ecological footprint is decreasing thanks to

enforceable sustainability laws. The government is also moving toward green taxes to

achieve ever more environmental protection (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

2012).

3.2.5 Switzerland

Switzerland has had a historically clean industrial sector and has recently made the

decision to phase out nuclear energy in the country. Because of this and other initiatives,

Switzerland falls into second rank internationally for environmental policy (Bertelsmann

Stiftung, 2016). New strategies have also been developed on sustainability, biodiversity,

12
climate change and forest management. The countrys global environmental role largely

depends on collaboration with the European Union (EU). The EU highly encourages its

members to create sustainable initiatives within their countries (OECD, 2007). Following

the OECDs strategy of green growth, Switzerland has launched several studies aimed at

reconciling the goals of sustainability and economic development (Bertelsmann Stiftung,

2016). The Swiss government has proposed legislation to lower taxes on fuels that

produce fewer harmful emissions, and to abolish taxes completely on fuels from

renewable resources. Projects are underway at different Swiss research institutions to

develop new, more environmentally friendly fuels (Presence Switzerland, 2005).

3.2.6 United States of America

With a history of ambiguous environmental policies, the United States scores relatively

poorly (rank thirty-three) with regard to environmental policies. Climate change has

proven a major stumbling block, with many Americans rejecting large-scale emissions-

control strategies (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Only piecemeal efforts by individual

states, increased fuel-economy standards and coal-plant regulations, and increased use

of natural gas have resulted in the minimal emissions reductions the US has experienced.

In 2009-2010 President Obama pushed for a major cap-and-trade bill, but the measure

failed in the Senate (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). That being said, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has imposed several major measures, including increased fuel -

economy standards for cars and light trucks, and carbon standards for new coal plants.

In 2014, the EPA proposed regulations that would require reductions in power plants

carbon emissions of thirty percent by 2030, in effect, largely phasing out coal-fired power

13
plants (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). In November 2014, the US committed to reducing

total US carbon emissions by twenty-six percent to twenty-eight percent in comparison

with 2005 levels (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). However, a Bloomberg report has stated

that the newly elected President of the United States, President Trump, will be releasing

a presidential order which aims to reverse President Obamas broad approach for

addressing climate change. Part of the order will urge the EPA to undo the Clean Power

Plan, which, if it had been implemented would have required states to reduce emissions

of carbon dioxide. Also according to the report, the order would direct U.S. regulators to

rescind Obama-era regulations limiting oil industry emissions of methane, a potent

greenhouse gas (Dlouhy, 2017).

4.0 PET Model

4.1 Introduction

The objective of the PET model is to determine which structural factors influence

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all six nations of study. The end goal is to identify

areas in which federal governments could use policy to reduce total GHG emissions. In

order to do this, an empirical analysis must be done to determine which of the chosen

structural factors are statistically correlated to levels of anthropocentric GHG emissions

and what their effects are on the levels of emissions.

4.2 Environmental Impact Models: IPAT, STIRPAT & POET Models

It has become apparent that humans are modifying the planet on an unprecedented scale.

Principally, humans have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through

14
the emission of greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances (Vitousek et al.,

1997). While physical and natural scientists have developed sophisticated models of

biogeochemical and other global processes, the dynamics of anthropogenic (human-

induced) drivers of global environmental change are not fully understood (US National

Research Council, 1999). A major factor inhibiting social scientific inquiry into the

human/environment relationship is a lack of appropriate analytic techniques and models

that allow for a precise study of the relationship between anthropogenic driving forces

and environmental impacts (Scarrow & Crenshaw, 2015).

For analytical reasons, manageability, or the availability of data, theorists have often

concentrated their efforts on one or a few global issues without examining the relationship

between these issues (Jia et al., 2009). Examples include Durkheim, who concentrated

upon the division of labor, Malthus, whose focus was on population and resources, and

Marx, who used technology to evaluate the means of production (Durkheim, 1949;

Malthus, 1798; Marx, 1867). The value of such single-component analyses is beyond

debate. It is also clear that none of these components operates independently. Thus, a

model which relates these variables to one another would be of value for understanding

the relationships among variables and for comparing societies or for comparing a single

society at different points in time (Jia et al., 2009).

The IPAT Model is a widely-recognized formula for analyzing the effects of human

activities on the environment (Stern et al., 1992). It was developed in the early 1970s by

Ehrlich and Holdren to determine the principal driving forces of anthropogenic

15
environmental impacts (Stern et al., 1992). IPAT specifies that environmental impacts are

the product of three key driving forces: population, affluence (per capita consumption or

production, per capita GDP) and technology (impact per unit of consumption or

production), hence I=PAT. IPAT is a mathematical identity and has typically been used

as an accounting equation, in which known values of I, P and A are used to solve for T

(Lin et al., 2009). The IPAT model has been reformulated as the Kaya equation, which is

the basis for calculations, projections, and scenarios of greenhouse gases implemented

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic, 2004).

The key limitation of IPAT is that, as an accounting equation (i.e. mathematical identities),

it does not permit hypothesis testing since the known values of some terms determine the

value of the missing term (Lin et al., 2009). Furthermore, it assumes proportionality in the

relationship between factors. For example, the model assumes a doubling of population

will lead to a doubling of impact, all else held constant. The development of

socioecological theory requires that hypotheses about the relationship between

anthropogenic factors and impacts be testable (falsifiable) with empirical evidence, rather

than simply assumed within the structure of the model. The IPAT identity does not readily

allow for non-proportional effects from the driving forces. In the IPAT model, all of the

driving forces (P, A and T) do not influence impacts independently of one another since

changes in one factor are multiplied by the other factors (Lin et al., 2009). An important

implication of this condition is that no one factor can be held singularly responsible for

environmental impacts. Although a very useful model, it is in fact an accounting equation

and implies that it has to balance (Jia et al., 2009).

16
To overcome the limitations of this ecological identity as a simple accounting tool with

proportional linear effects, Dietz and Rosa first reformulated it as a stochastic model

called STIRPAT (stochastic impacts by regression on population, affluence, and

technology) (Dietz & Eugene, 1994). The STIRPAT model has been successfully utilized

to analyze the effects of driving forces on a variety of environmental impacts (see Dietz

and Rosa, 1997; Cramer, 1998; Soule and DeHart, 1998; DeHart and Soule, 2000; Shi,

2003; York et al., 2003). Unlike IPAT, the STIRPAT model is not an accounting equation;

rather it is a stochastic model that can be used to empirically test hypotheses (Dietz &

Eugene, 1994). As a stochastic model, STIRPAT can be used for two purposes:

predicting environmental impacts based on key driving forces and estimating causal

effects represented by coefficients in the STIRPAT model (Dietz & Eugene, 1994).

The IPAT and STIRPAT models were formed to evaluate impacts by human activity upon

the natural environment; in essence, they use the POET model by simplifying each

category down its most basic component (Scarrow & Crenshaw, 2015). A more complete

ecological approach should include a more expanded list of indicators rather than simply

focusing on population and affluence as indicators of the burden humanity places on

natural resources (York et al., 2003). As informative as these models have been, they

have lacked the comprehensive, encompassing view found in classical human ecology

(Scarrow & Crenshaw, 2015). Human ecology as developed over the years rests on a

very simple premise: All components and forces in human society are interconnected so

that changes in one will affect the others (Duncan, 1959).

17
By far the most popular theory of human ecology explains social change (and indeed

anthropogenic environmental change) through four primary categories of natural and

social factors that each play a distinct role, yet are intertwined with one another:

population, (social) organization, environment, and technology (Duncan, 1959). This is

Duncans ecological complex (aka the POET model), in which each letter stands for a

whole set of variables and not for any single index number, differentiating it from the

IPAT and STIRPAT models (Duncan, 1959). The model allows for the full interplay of

these forces and their impact on human development and quality of life, in which variables

(existing and new) can be placed into the pre-existing framework and examined. For

example, Scarrow and Crenshaw (2015) interpreted the POET model to determine how

certain structural factors shape national energy usage. They examined all 4 categories of

the POET model, population, (social) organization, environment, and technology, while

interpreting the interactions of the variables within each category to determine their effects

on the energy regimes of nations.

This study is based on a modified version of the POET model interpreted from the

Scarrow and Crenshaw model (2015). As detailed above, the POET model goes further

than the more common IPAT and STIRPAT models which focus on population, affluence

and technology as indicators of the impact humanity has on natural resources (Scarrow

& Crenshaw, 2015). The environmental impact of human populations can be further

scrutinized to examine the macro-level, structural drivers of industrial GHG emissions and

interactions between structural factors affecting GHG emissions rather than simply

placing the burden on population and affluence.

18
4.4 Samples, Methodology and Study Design

4.4.1 Methodology, Data and Study Design

The methodology used to determine which structural factors influence GHG emissions at

the federal level was adapted from Scarrow and Crenshaw (2015) in their analysis of

energy use across nations using the POET model. This study, similar to the Scarrow and

Crenshaw study, uses pooled time-series cross-sectional regression analysis with data

from six countries between the years 1990-2014. Most of the data cover the years 1990

through 2014 for all six countries, however some variables are missing earlier years of

data. In those cases, the analysis was done for the years 1994 through 2014. The data

were mostly retrieved and compiled from the World Bank and the OECD.

While annual panels were used in the analyses, the dependent variable leads all the

predictors by one year to establish temporal ordering. In order to observe the effect of a

change in an independent variable on the dependent variable, we must let that change

take effect. Creating a lag of one year for all independent variables allows the impact of

the change to take effect on the dependent variable in the analysis.

All variables in the study were also logged to correct for skewness. The coefficients are

also more usefully interpreted as elasticities. Similarly to the York et al. study (2003), this

model allows the interpretation of regression coefficients as elasticities through the use

of natural logarithm transformed variables, which are commonly used in econometric

models to predict economic outcomes such as price fluctuations (York et al., 2003). The

ecological elasticities, however, predict the percentage change in a dependent

19
environmental impact (outcome) variable based on a one percent change in an

independent predictor variable, when holding all other predictors constant (York et al.,

2003).

The Hausman test, also known as the Breusch-Pagan/LM test, suggested that the fixed

effects model panel estimator would be most appropriate for analysis of this dataset to

control for the many static variables that are likely to influence GHG emissions (Green et

al., 2001). While static variables almost certainly have an impact on GHG emissions, they

are perhaps not as useful in terms of policy formation as the more dynamic political or

economic processes considered here. Seeing as the point of this analysis is to observe

where policy could be most influential in reducing GHG emissions, these static variables

were corrected for. As an analytical strategy, four fixed effects linear regressions were

conducted, changing the variables in each regression in order to demonstrate the

unpartialed effects of each category of variables. This was then followed up with a full

model where all these categories of variables were forced to statistically compete with

one another.

4.4.2 Outcome Variable

The outcome or dependent variable in this study is total greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions (thousands). This data was retrieved from the World Bank. The regressions

will determine the relationship between the change in the predictor variables and the

change in the outcome variable.

20
4.4.3 Predictor Variables

Nine predictor variables were chosen based on a review of the literature on GHG

emissions and data availability. These nine variables fall within one of the three categories

of the PET model the Population category, the Economic category, or the Technology

category. Tables 1 and 2 give an overview of simple descriptive statistics of the following

variables.

The two variables in the Population category of the PET model are total population and

population density. Total population represents all residents of each country. This statistic

is usually based on national population censuses. The total population variable will be

used to determine what affect an increase in the total number of people in a country will

have on total GHG emissions. It is hypothesised that GHG emissions will increase with a

higher total population. The explanation behind this is quite obvious with rising

populations, more energy and resources are being consumed, leading to higher GHG

emissions. Population density is a measure of the number of persons per square

kilometre. This variable will be used to determine whether the density of settlements

influence GHG emissions. Previous studies reflect two conflicting views regarding the

relationship between population density and GHG emissions. One view is that as

population density increases, energy use per capita increases, leading to increased

emissions per capita (Lee et al., 2016). This perspective assumes that as populations

grow, lower-quality resources must be exploited to keep up with energy demands,

requiring more energy consumption per unit of value added, releasing more GHG

emissions (Holdren, 2000; Malthus, 1798; referred to as Malthusian view). The other

21
more common view is that high population density areas offer more incentives for

governments to provide energy-efficient infrastructure and services that help lower per

capita emissions. In addition, the relative proximity of residential and commercial areas

tends to encourage mass transit, walking, and cycling, which may help lower emissions

per person (Boserup, 1965; Dodman, 2009; referred to as Boserupian view). The data

analysis from the PET model will help determine which theory is more accurate with

respect to the countries of study. It could also present which type of city planning is more

beneficial for lower GHG emissions planning that encourages higher or lower population

density.

The variables chosen for the Economic category of the PET model include real gross

domestic product (GDP), real environmentally related tax revenues and renewable

energy public research, development and demonstration budget. GDP, measured in

millions of constant 2010 US$, represents the sum of value added by all producers in a

country. GDP is often used as a measure of economic growth in a country and will be

used in this study to determine whether the economy of a country is linked with the

countrys GHG emissions. There is a body of literature on this subject arguing for both

sides. Some say, from past trend analysis, that a countrys GDP is linked to GHG

emissions. As GDP increases and a countrys economy develops, its GHG emissions will

increase as well due to more intensive resource use to supply the growing GDP (Barker

et al., 2016). Others argue that more recent GHG emissions and GDP trends are showing

a decoupling of GHG emissions and GDP. Recent data points to decreasing GHG

emissions in certain developed countries which are simultaneously realizing increasing

22
GDP (Barket et al., 2016). This theory is often demonstrated using the Environmental

Kuznets Curve (EKC), which is a hypothesized relationship between various indicators of

environmental degradation and income per capita. The theory behind the EKC is that in

the early stages of economic growth, degradation and pollution increase (Stern, 2004).

However, beyond some level of income per capita, which will vary for different indicators,

the trend reverses so that higher income levels (economic growth) actually lead to

environmental improvement (Stern, 2004). An EKC has been estimated using the data

from this study in Section 5.0 of this paper. Environmentally related tax revenues are

subdivided into three categories: energy related tax revenues, motor vehicle transport tax

revenues, and total environmentally related tax revenues and are expressed as a

percentage of total tax revenue. Energy related tax revenues include taxes to energy

products for transport purposes (petrol and diesel) and for stationary purposes (fossil

fuels and electricity). Motor vehicle transport tax revenues include taxes to motor vehicles

and transport (one-off import or sales taxes, recurrent taxes on registration or road use

and other transport taxes). Total environmentally related taxes include both energy and

motor vehicle transport tax revenues in addition to taxes related to waste management

(final disposal, packaging, and other waste related product taxes), ozone-depleting

substances and other environmentally related taxes. These will be used to determine

whether specific federal environmental taxation policies already in place influence GHG

emissions. In theory, as the taxation increases, consumption of the high-emitting

resources would be deterred, thus reducing GHG emissions (Liu & Wu, 2017).

Renewable Energy public RD&D budget represents the public budget directed at

research, development and demonstration (RD&D) related to renewable energy,

23
including hydro, geothermal, solar (thermal and PV), wind and tide/wave/ocean energy,

as well as combustible renewables (solid biomass, liquid biomass, biogas) and other

renewable energy technologies (all supporting measuring, monitoring and verifying

technologies in renewable energies). It is expressed as a percentage of total energy

RD&D public budget (directed at all forms of energy). RD&D budgets of public entities

(government, public agencies, and state-owned enterprises, as defined by the IEA) cover

research, development and demonstration related to the production, storage,

transportation, distribution and rational use of all forms of energy. This covers basic

research (oriented towards the development of energy-related technologies), applied

research, experimental development and demonstration. Investments in human and

technological research, development and demonstration relating to renewable, non-

emitting energies would, in theory, lower anthropogenic GHG emissions (van Vuuren et

al., 2016).

The variables in the Technology category of the PET model include energy productivity,

renewable energy supply, renewable electricity, and energy intensity. Energy productivity

is calculated as the amount of economic output generated (GDP) per unit of energy used

(TPES). Total primary energy supply (TPES), measured in millions of tons of oil

equivalent, equals production plus imports minus exports minus international marine and

aviation bunkers plus or minus stock changes. Energy intensity is calculated as TPES per

capita. Energy productivity and energy intensity reflect, at least partly, efforts to improve

energy efficiency and to reduce carbon and other atmospheric emissions. In theory, as

energy productivity increases, GHG emissions will decrease seeing as fewer units of

24
energy would be required to meet demand. Contrarily, as energy intensity increase, GHG

emissions are expected to increase as well. As this variable is measured as the energy

supply consumed by each person in a country, a lower value would mean that people are

consuming less energy and releasing fewer GHG emissions. Renewable energy supply

is calculated as a share of renewable sources in TPES (expressed as percentage).

Renewables include hydro, geothermal, solar, wind and tide/wave/ocean energy, as well

as combustible renewables (solid biomass, liquid biomass, biogas) and waste (renewable

municipal waste). Renewable electricity is calculated as a share of renewables in

electricity production. Non-emitting forms of renewable energy and electricity are

expected to replace non-renewable, high GHG emitting forms of energy (Blindheim,

2015). That being said, increasing Renewable energy and electricity is expected to

correlate with a decrease in GHG emissions. This entire category will be used to

determine whether policies and activities aimed at reducing GHG emissions produced by

energy use have been effective in the last twenty-five years and where certain countries

could improve upon their environmentally-related policies.

A few statistics to highlight in table 2 include the mean of GHG emissions,

environmentally-related tax revenue, renewable electricity, and renewable energy public

RD&D budget per country. The data corroborate the hypothesis upon which is based this

study that mean GHG emissions are higher in the US, Canada and Australia than in

Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. Additionally, the data show that the US and Canada

have the lowest mean environmentally-related tax revenues whereas Australia has the

highest of the countries of study. Mean renewable electricity proves to be a telling variable

25
 Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland have much higher shares of renewable sources of

energy than both Australia and, especially, the US with Canada not far off from the leading

three. As for mean renewable energy public RD&D budget, Sweden, Switzerland and

Norway have the highest budgets, with Canada and the US not far behind. However,

Australia has very low mean renewable energy public RD&D budget relative to the five

other countries of study.

Table 1 Simple Descriptive Statistics for all 6 countries over period 1990-2014
Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Log GHG Emissions (thousands) 144 10.7741 15.8199 12.5340 1.7880
1 Year Lag, Log Total Population (thousands) 144 8.3527 12.6649 9.8703 1.3646
1 Year Lag, Log Population Density 144 0.7979 5.3216 2.7406 1.4393
1 Year Lag, Log real GDP (millions) 138 12.4829 16.5688 13.8363 1.2293
1 Year Lag, Log % of total tax revenue - Total
120 1.0838 2.2801 1.7155 0.3188
environmentally related tax revenue
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Productivity 144 8.2789 9.6902 8.8865 0.3671
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Supply 144 1.3860 3.9906 2.6919 0.8000
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Electricity 144 1.9146 4.6034 3.5252 0.9347
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Public RD&D
144 0.1089 3.8122 2.3852 0.8517
Budget
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Intensity 144 1.1663 2.1353 1.7527 0.2764

Table 2 Simple Descriptive Statistics per Country over period 1990-2014

Variable Country N Min Max Mean SD

Australia 25 12.94 13.20 13.09 0.09
Canada 25 13.31 13.54 13.46 0.07
Norway 25 10.77 10.95 10.89 0.04
Log GHG Emissions (thousands)
Sweden 25 10.90 11.26 11.12 0.09
Switzerland 25 10.79 10.92 10.88 0.03
US 25 15.66 15.82 15.75 0.05
1 Year Lag, Log Total Population (thousands) Australia 24 16.65 16.95 16.79 0.09

26
 Variable Country N Min Max Mean SD
Canada 24 17.14 17.38 17.26 0.07
Norway 24 15.26 15.44 15.33 0.05
Sweden 24 15.96 16.08 16.01 0.03
Switzerland 24 15.72 15.91 15.81 0.05
US 24 19.34 19.57 19.47 0.07
Australia 24 0.80 1.10 0.94 0.09
Canada 24 1.12 1.35 1.23 0.07
Norway 24 2.45 2.63 2.53 0.05
1 Year Lag, Log Population Density
Sweden 24 3.04 3.16 3.09 0.03
Switzerland 24 5.14 5.32 5.22 0.05
US 24 3.31 3.54 3.44 0.07
Australia 23 13.35 14.07 13.74 0.23
Canada 23 13.79 14.35 14.10 0.18
Norway 23 12.48 13.02 12.82 0.17
1 Year Lag, Log real GDP (millions)
Sweden 23 12.64 13.14 12.91 0.17
Switzerland 23 12.94 13.30 13.10 0.13
US 23 16.01 16.57 16.35 0.18
Australia 20 1.88 2.28 2.05 0.13
Canada 20 1.27 1.55 1.38 0.09
1 Year Lag, Log % of total tax revenue - Total Norway 20 1.65 2.18 1.91 0.17
environmentally related tax revenue Sweden 20 1.70 1.87 1.77 0.04
Switzerland 20 1.89 2.00 1.94 0.03
US 20 1.08 1.42 1.24 0.09
Australia 24 8.64 8.98 8.81 0.10
Canada 24 8.28 8.66 8.44 0.12
Norway 24 8.99 9.26 9.13 0.08
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Productivity
Sweden 24 8.55 9.02 8.78 0.17
Switzerland 24 9.38 9.69 9.50 0.10
US 24 8.45 8.89 8.66 0.14
Australia 24 1.49 1.84 1.74 0.09
Canada 24 2.75 2.94 2.83 0.05
Norway 24 3.54 3.99 3.79 0.11
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Supply
Sweden 24 3.12 3.61 3.33 0.14
Switzerland 24 2.70 3.03 2.85 0.09
US 24 1.39 1.86 1.60 0.12

27
 Variable Country N Min Max Mean SD
Australia 24 2.01 2.53 2.21 0.12
Canada 24 4.06 4.14 4.11 0.02
Norway 24 4.56 4.60 4.60 0.01
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Electricity
Sweden 24 3.12 3.61 3.33 0.14
Switzerland 24 3.95 4.10 4.03 0.04
US 24 1.91 2.54 2.28 0.15
Australia 24 0.11 1.40 1.00 0.37
Canada 24 1.19 2.87 2.06 0.54
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Public RD&D Norway 24 1.83 3.10 2.48 0.38
Budget Sweden 24 2.67 3.81 3.26 0.32
Switzerland 24 2.95 3.40 3.18 0.11
US 24 1.47 3.31 2.33 0.48
Australia 24 1.60 1.79 1.71 0.06
Canada 24 2.02 2.14 2.08 0.03
Norway 24 1.60 1.94 1.75 0.08
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Intensity
Sweden 24 1.59 1.77 1.71 0.04
Switzerland 24 1.17 1.30 1.25 0.03
US 24 1.93 2.09 2.03 0.05

As can be observed in figure 2, the POET model, as interpreted by Scarrow and

Crenshaw, uses the categories of population, social organization, global environment,

and technology to analyze a given variable (in their case, energy intensity). Figure 3

represents the adapted PET model. In this figure, you can see the PET model uses some

of the same categories as the Scarrow and Crenshaw POET model with different

variables in order to examine the social/political variables believed to be important to

incorporate into an environmental performance analysis of federal policies affecting GHG

emissions.

28
Figure 2 Duncan's POET model as adapted to explain energy regimes (Scarrow & Crenshaw, 2015)

To be precise, there are only three rather than four categories of indicators in the PET

model. Where Scarrow and Crenshaw used population, social organization, global

environment, and technology, the PET model uses population, economic activity and

technology. In order to incorporate country specific, policy and sector-related variables, a

few specific variables including environmentally related tax revenues and

environmentally-related research and development budget, renewable energy (% of total

energy produced), which the POET model does not examine, have been added as

variables of study. When developing the PET model, it was decided to drop the O from

the POET model (social organization) to create a simple model that was a better fit to the

variables of study for this specific research question. In this model, urban density, in the

29
form of population density, was placed in the Population category and wealth and

development, in the form of GDP, fit into the newly create Economic category.

Figure 3 The PET Model - An interpretation of Duncan's Ecological Complex

4.5 Results

The results of the four regression analyses can be observed in table 3 below.

Population Category (Models 1 and 4) Results

In the population model (model 1), total population had a statistically significant positive

effect on GHG emissions. All else held equal, every percent increase in last years

national population lead to an increase in GHG emissions by 36.98%. Also in model 1,

population density had a statistically significant negative effect on GHG emissions. Every

30
percent increase in last years national population density lead to a decrease in GHG

emissions by 36.48%.

Table 3 Coefficients of panel regression of greenhouse gas emissions (logged) with t scores in
parentheses
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable (Pop) (Econ) (Tech) (All var)
1 Year Lag, Log Total Population 36.98*** 21.512***
(7.11) (4.98)
1 Year Lag, Log Population Density -36.48*** -21.293***
(-7.04) (-4.92)
1 Year Lag, Log real GDP -.06 .374
(-1.09) (.87)
1 Year Lag, Log % of total tax revenue - -.21** -.034
Total environmentally related tax revenue (-2.89) (.54)
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Public -.03 -.019
RD&D Budget (-1.70) (-1.45)
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Productivity .13*** -.567
(3.35) (-1.30)
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Energy Supply -.22** -.124
(-3.12) (-1.85)
1 Year Lag, Log Renewable Electricity -.08 -.071
(-1.24) (-1.28)
1 Year Lag, Log Energy Intensity .40*** -.442
(3.66) (-0.96)
*** p < .001, two-tailed test. ** p < .01, two-tailed test. * p < .05, two-tailed test

In the complete model (model 4), an increase in total population still leads to an increase

in GHG emissions, albeit a smaller increase of 21.51%. Population density also maintains

its sign, leading to a more modest decrease in GHG emissions of 21.29%.

31
Economic Category (Models 2 and 4) Results

In the economic model (model 2) an increase in GDP leads to a non-statistically significant

negative effect on GHG emissions. Every percent increase in last years national GDP

decreases GHG emissions by 0.06%. Model 2 also shows that an increase in total

environmentally related tax revenue leads to a statistically significant negative effect on

GHG emissions. For every percent increase in total environmentally related taxes, GHG

emissions decrease by 0.21%. Next, model 2 shows that an increase in renewable energy

public RD&D budget leads to a non-statistically significant negative effect on GHG

emissions. Every percent increase in renewable energy public RD&D budget decreases

GHG emissions by 0.03.

There are slight differences between the results of models 2 and 4. Instead of having a

negative impact on GHG emissions in model 4, GDP appears to have a non-significant

positive impact on GHG emissions; according to model 4, an increase in GDP leads to

an increase in the following years GHG emissions by 0.37%. In addition, model 4 shows

a non-significant negative impact on GHG emissions by an increase in total

environmentally related tax revenue.

Technology Category (Models 3 and 4) Results

Model 3 shows that energy productivity has a non-statistically significant positive effect

on GHG emissions. Every percent increase in energy productivity increases the following

years GHG emissions by 0.13%. Next, model 3 shows renewable energy supply has a

statistically significant negative effect on GHG emissions. Every percent increase in

32
renewable energy supply decreases the following years GHG emissions by 0.22%.

Similarly, renewable electricity has a non-statistically significant negative effect on GHG

emissions. Every percent increase in renewable electricity decreases the following years

GHG emissions by 0.08%. Finally, according to model 3, energy intensity has a

statistically significant positive effect on GHG emissions. Every percent increase in

energy intensity increases GHG emissions by 0.40%.

The results of model 4 differ quite a bit from those of model 3 in that all the results are

non-significant. However, in model 4, renewable energy supply is almost significant. In

addition, in model 4, energy productivity has a negative effect on GHG emissions. Instead

of increasing GHG emissions by 0.13% (model 3), an increase in energy productivity in

model 4 leads to a decrease of GHG emissions by 0.567%. Similarly, according to model

4, an increase in energy intensity now leads to a decrease rather than an increase in

GHG emissions.

4.6 Discussion

The sub-models in the above PET model (models 1-3) are incomplete as they are not

controlling for all of the factors analysed in this study. It is clear that results differ between

the sub-models and the full model (model 4) which controls for all factors. If we were to

interpret the results of the sub-models alone, it would give a false impression of the effect

these variables have on GHG emissions and would lead to biased assumptions.

Therefore, as model 4 controls for all of the factors of study and would lead to more

accurate conclusions, we will discuss the results of model 4 alone.

33
We can see in table 2 that most of the variables of study all fall within a tight range, aside

from the population variables which proved to have significant effects on GHG emissions.

In addition, differences can be noted between the values for renewable energy supply as

this variable proves to be almost significant in the complete model. Seeing as the

countries of study are all quite similar namely that they are all developed countries it

was less likely that the variables of study would have noticeable or significant effects on

GHGH emissions, all else equal. Had we observed countries with vastly different

environmental and economic policies, for example if we had observed developing

countries as well as developed countries, the results would have varied more as well.

Similarly, data availability limited the amount of years covered in this study. Had we had

more observations over a longer time period, the results of this study would have been

more different and varied.

In interpreting the results of the PET model, it appears that policies favouring higher -

density settlements, higher environmentally-related tax revenues, higher renewable

energy public RD&D budget, higher energy productivity, higher renewable energy supply,

and higher renewable electricity supply would all help decrease a nation's GHG

emissions. As all of these variables had the expected influence on GHG emissions, well

further analyse the variables with the significant effects on GHG emissions. The key

variables in this study with regard to influence on GHG emissions appear to be total

population and population density, with renewable energy supply having a nearly

significant effect. As was described earlier in this paper, previous studies reflect two

conflicting views regarding the relationship between population density and GHG

34
emissions. One view is that as population density increases, energy use per capita

increases, leading to increased emissions per capita. The other view hypothesises that

higher population density areas offer more incentives for governments to provide energy-

efficient infrastructure and services that help lower per capita emissions. In addition, the

relative proximity of residential and commercial areas tends to encourage mass transit,

walking, and cycling, which may help lower emissions per person. As our data describes

a significant negative effect on GHG emissions, it appears the latter of those two views is

accurate in this case study. Similarly, renewable energy supply is calculated as a share

of renewable sources in the total primary energy supply (expressed as percentage).

Renewables include hydro, geothermal, solar (thermal and PV), wind and

tide/wave/ocean energy, as well as combustible renewables (solid biomass, liquid

biomass, biogas) and waste (renewable municipal waste). That being said, increasing

renewable energy was expected to and did in fact correlate with a decrease in GHG

emissions as the renewables would replace the highly-emitting non-renewable energy

sources.

5.0 Environmental Kuznets Curve

Evidence suggests that some pollutants follow an inverse-U-shaped pattern relative to

countries incomes. See, for example, Grossman & Krueger (1995); Holtz-Eakin & Selden

(1995); Selden & Song (1994); Shafik & Bandyopadhyay (1992); Hilton & Levinson

(1998); Kahn (1998); and Galeotti & Lanza (1999). Due to its similarity to the time-series

pattern of income inequality described by Kuznets (1955), the environmental inverse-U-

shaped pattern has been called an environmental Kuznets curve. The environmental

35
Kuznets curve traditionally expresses a hypothesized relationship between various

indicators of environmental degradation and income per capita (Stern, 2004). Through

the common environmental Kuznets curve, we get a realistic view of the effect of

economic growth and technological changes on environmental quality, the whole premise

of this study. According to the traditional environmental Kuznets curve, in the early stages

of economic growth, degradation and pollution increase. However, beyond a certain level

of income per capita (this level will vary for different indicators) the trend reverses,

showing that high-income levels of economic growth lead to environmental improvement

(Stern, 2004). This implies that the environmental impact indicator is an inverted U-

shaped function of income per capita.

In the case of this study, an environmental Kuznets curve was estimated to depict the

relationship between GHG emissions (environmental degradation) and a subset of factors

that affect GHG emissions. Specifically, the environmental Kuznets curve developed in

this study exposes the relationship between GHG emissions per capita, real GDP per

capita and the time trend. GDP per capita squared was used as a variable seeing as a

polynomial term in this case, a quadratic (squared) term turns a linear regression

model into a curve (Roberts & Grimes, 1997). In the case of the EKC, the relationship

hypothesized is curvilinear (Roberts & Grimes, 1997). Thus, this polynomial term was

included to produce the desired curvilinear relationship. Table 4 below shows the results

of the regression analyses modelling the EKC of each country of study.

36
 Table 4 Coefficients of EKC for each country with t scores in parentheses
United
Australia Canada Norway Sweden Switzerland
Variable States
GDP per .0009*** .0029*** .0004*** .0005** .001*** .0013***
capita (5.01) (6.23) (4.08) (0.01) (4.13) (3.98)
GDP per -1.56E-09 -2.98E-08*** -1.70E-09** -5.05E-09* -6.90E-09*** -9.87E-09*
capita squared (-0.57) (-4.90) (-2.73) (-2.48) (-3.85) (-2.45)
-.7704*** -.3881*** -.1856 *** -.1686*** -.1223*** -.4862***
Time Trend
(-7.80) (-6.99) (-12.49) (-5.47) (-6.48) (-15.26)
*** p < .001, two-tailed test. ** p < .01, two-tailed test. * p < .05, two-tailed test

The EKC shows that Canadas GDP per capita has the largest positive significant

influence on GHG emissions per capita more than double the influence of the second-

highest coefficient in the EKC model (the US). As expected, GDP per capita in Sweden,

Switzerland and Norway have the smallest effects on GHG emissions per capita, but their

influence is still positive. GDP per capita squared shows that while the other 5 countries

of study are experiencing lower per capita emissions as income per capita grows,

Australias are relatively stagnant. However, Canadas coefficient is largest in this case

as well. Therefore, Canada's GHG emissions per capita are falling at a faster rate with

increases in per capita GPD than any other country of study. That being said, a few

conclusions can be pulled from the results of this EKC for Canada in particular. Firstly,

higher per capita GHG emissions are produced with greater income (GDP per capita).

This could be an effect of the large positive influence non-renewable, highly-emitting

energy production has on Canadas economy (IEA, 2010). However, this is coupled with

better strides over time in lowering GHG emissions as income grows.

37
6.0 Federal Environmental Policy

As mentioned earlier in this paper, it is important to keep in mind that some of the

countries of study cover vast areas of land and are subdivided by provinces, states,

cantons, etc. Because of the vast array of environmental contexts experienced within

each country, the responsibility of environmental management may be largely

downloaded to the provinces, states, cantons, etc., which could individually have very

strong environmental policies. However, in order to keep this research to a narrowed

scope, the following section will largely concentrate on federal policies.

6.1 Australian Context

The data in this study show that while the other five countries of study are experiencing

lower per capita emissions as income per capita grows, Australias GHG emissions are

relatively stagnant. Australia has the third highest mean GHG emissions of the countries

of study, by far the lowest mean population density, the second lowest mean renewable

energy supply, the lowest mean renewable electricity supply and the lowest mean

renewable energy public RD&D budget. However, they seem to have the highest mean

environmentally related tax revenue. The PET model suggests population density and

renewable energy supply have significant and almost-significant negative effects on GHG

emissions. According to the PET model, Australias stagnant GHG emissions can thus be

explained, in part, by their low population density and their low renewable energy supply.

Legislation in Australia relating to the environment, planning matters and pollution control

is established and administered at Commonwealth, State and local government levels. In

38
general, States have the major responsibility for these matters, but Commonwealth

legislation may be in force that controls, overrides or acts in conjunction with State laws

(CPD, 2017). A Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency (now Environment

Australia) was created in March 1992 to provide a more effective structure for the

implementation of Commonwealth environment protection legislation (CPD, 2017).

In the early 1990s, the development of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable

Development (ESD) raised hope in the Australian environment movement that the

framework and principles of ESD could bring together economic development and

environmental concerns via a national consultative process. However, a lack of

bureaucratic and political support, and the power of vested interests, undermined this

strategy (Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network, 2014).

The Australian government had set modest reduction goals for the year 2030. Yet, CO2

emissions are still rising due to an exploitative natural resource based-economy;

unsustainable, highly-energy consumptive lifestyles; and outdated infrastructure including

public transit (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). During the Kyoto negotiations, both Australia

and the United States claimed it would be unfair and ineffective to ask them to cut

emissions when developing countries such as India and China are not required to cut

their emissions as well (Hamilton, 2001). The government of Australia also recently

abolished the Australian carbon tax and replaced it with a system paying businesses to

reduce emissions. This system has been regarded as ineffective by most experts.

39
Energy consumption levels remain high, and renewable-energy use has actually declined

since the 1970s, an exception in the OECD (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Furthermore,

since 1971, CO2 emissions have almost tripled in Australia, again one of the worst

performances in the OECD (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Emissions are predicted to

continue to rise to 2030 (Slezak, 2016).

6.2 Canadian Context

The data in this study shows that Canada has the second highest mean GHG emissions.

However, the EKC also shows that this is coupled with better strides over time in lowering

GHG emissions as income grows. Furthermore, Canada has the second lowest mean

population density, the second lowest mean environmentally related tax revenue, the third

lowest mean renewable energy supply, the second lowest mean renewable energy public

RD&D budget, and the highest mean energy intensity. Yet, Canada has the second

highest mean renewable electricity supply. As with Australia, the PET model would lend

that Canadas high GHG emissions can be, in part, explained by the low population

density and the low renewable energy supply.

According to the IEA, the energy policy of the government of Canada is based on three

underlying principles: first and foremost market orientation Canadian energy policy

relies on competitive markets to determine supply, demand, and prices, and is guided by

a drive for cleaner production and use of energy; secondly, respect for jurisdictional

authority and the role of the province i.e. downloading of environmental responsibilities

from the federal government to provincial governments leaving Canada with a patchwork

40
of levels of efficiencies; and thirdly where necessary, intervention in markets to achi eve

specific policy objectives including issues of health and safety and environmental

sustainability (IEA, 2010). Canadas federal government is thus relying on the economic

markets to improve environmental sustainability in Canada. In a country whose economic

platform relies largely on the exploitation of environmental and natural resources, this

sustainability tactic is questionable at best. The 2014 Commissioner of the Environment

and Sustainable Development report concluded that Canada is all but certain to miss its

target for the Copenhagen Accord, which the government signed in lieu of participating in

the Kyoto Protocol (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2014).

Canadian environmental departments have been dwindling in size and in power over the

past three decades (Boyd, 2003; OECD, 2004). In the year the conservative government,

led by Stephen Harper, won majority power (2011-2012), budgetary expenditure on the

environment decreased by $220.0 million (20.6%) compared to 2010-2011. This net

decrease of $222.0 million is due to a decrease of $142.6 million in planned operating

spending, a $9.4 million decrease in planned capital spending, a $65.4 million decrease

in planned grants and contributions spending and a $4.6 million decrease in planned

spending for the employee benefits plan. The major changes to the federal environmental

budget included: a $145.5 million decrease in funding related to the Clean Air Agenda

this funding served to regulate Canadas domestic approach to greenhouse gas

emissions; a $33.4 million decrease in funding is due to the termination of Canadas

Chemical Management Plan initiative aimed to accelerate the pace of the risk

assessment to address the legacy of un-assessed substances under the Canadian

41
Environmental Protection Act, 1999, by 2020 (Treasury board of Canada secretariat,

2011); and a $19.5 million decrease in funding due to the termination of the accelerated

Contaminated sites action plan initiative a plan for the long-term management of federal

contaminated sites. In addition, total budgetary expenditures for the Ministry of

Environment decreased by $114,420 (Treasury board of Canada secretariat, 2011).

Under environmental law, the United States government imposed more fines and jail

sentences to Americans in a single year than Canadian environmental enforcement

agencies have in its entire history (Boyd, 2003). On paper, Canada has many seemingly

impressive environmental laws but in practice, these laws are rarely, if ever implemented

(Boyd, 2003). However, Canada still lacks a number of important enforceable federal

environmental laws. To a naive observer, Canada seems to have a pretty impressive list

of environmental laws and policies. However, in reality, at the federal level of Canada:

there are no enforceable national air quality standards, no enforceable national

water quality standards, no national law guaranteeing safe drinking water, no

national law requiring the clean-up of contaminated sites, no national law to

protect wilderness areas outside of national parks, no law to protect wild and

scenic rivers, no law guaranteeing citizens access to information about all of the

types and sources of toxic pollution in their communities, no comprehensive law

to protect whales and other marine mammals, no national law to protect wetlands,

no national hazardous waste law, no law requiring sustainable fishing practices,

no law to address the threat of invasive exotic species, and no national forest

management law, (Boyd, 2003).

42
While Canada has policies and guidelines such as the National Ambient Air Quality

Objectives, the Canadian Heritage Rivers program, and the Guidelines for Canadian

Drinking Water Quality, none of these policies/guidelines have any legal effect and are

thus not legally enforceable (Boyd, 2003). A key feature of the Canadian context is that,

under the Constitution, provinces are owners of their ground resources apart from

resources located in aboriginal lands and some federal lands such as national parks.

Therefore, the provinces have primary responsibility for shaping policies implemented in

their jurisdictions (IEA, 2010). This is an example of downloading of responsibilities from

the federal level to the provincial level dating back to Confederation. However, none of

the gaps in Canadas federal environmental law identified above have been adequately

addressed by the provincial laws over the years. Some provinces have endangered

species legislation while other provinces do not. Some provinces have safe drinking water

laws while others do not. Some provinces have carbon taxes, others do not (Boyd, 2003).

Some provinces with pollution intensive economies have even tried to obstruct the actions

made by other provinces (Harrison, 2013). As a result, there have been tremendous

variations in emissions trends within Canadian provinces, with decreasing trends in three

provinces (Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland) and increasing trends in two others

(Alberta and Saskatchewan) (Harrison, 2013). In short, as an international assessment

of environmental laws around the world concluded, in Canada there exists no coherent

or comprehensive legislative and regulatory scheme to protect the environment (IEA,

2010).

43
One of the most important developments in the environmental arena in Canada this

decade was the federal governments 2012 passage of Bill C-38, a bill that included

extensive changes to the countrys environmental laws (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2016). Bill

C-38 (the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Economic Action Plan 2012) was

supposed to implement the 2011-2012 budget of the federal government (Parliament of

Canada, 2012). However, Bill C-38 did much more than implement budgetary objectives;

it substantively changed federal environmental law in Canada. In order to avoid political

fallout for bringing up hundreds of environmental bills in parliament separately, the

conservatives packaged all of its proposed environmental changes into one single

omnibus bill (MacNeil, 2014). Nearly half of the bill was purely dedicated to the complete

overhaul of federal environmental governance. Significant changes were made to federal

Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, the operation of the National Energy

Board, the Species at Risk Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the complete

elimination of the countrys National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy and

the Kyoto Implementation Act (Powell, n.d.). For instance, the Environmental

Assessment Act was modified to allow the Cabinet to make the final decision with respect

to implementing the project modifications resulting from independent Environmental

Impact Assessments. This thus allowed final decision making on developments and

projects to be politically motivated rather than basing it on objective scientific

assessments offered by the Environmental Impact Assessments (Parliament of Canada,

2012).

44
The new Liberal Party government indicated it would follow a considerably more proactive

environmental stance compared to the past Conservative Party government (Liberal Party

of Canada, 2017). In Paris, Prime Minister Trudeau committed Canada to serious climate

action, going so far as to say Canada is back, my friends, (Fitz-Morris, 2015). On

January 25, 2017, the new government released its pan-Canadian framework for

combating climate change, as required under the Paris Agreement. However, these new

guidelines are not legally enforceable. The only oversight into these guidelines is public

oversight reporting the results publicly in a way that is transparent and accountable to

Canadians (Parliament of Canada, 2017). The Liberal Party government appears to

believe that its possible even necessary to grow the fossil fuel economy in order to

facilitate the transition to a green economy (Liberal Party of Canada, 2017).

Consequently, they have approved controversial energy projects, from liquefied natural

gas plants in Squamish and Prince Rupert to permit for the Site C dam and now Kinder

Morgans Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridges Line 3, ensuring it is almost impossible

to meet even the low climate targets set by the former Conservative government

(Parliament of Canada, 2017; CTV Vancouver, 2016; Tasker, 2016).

6.3 Norwegian Context

The data in this study reveal that Norway has the second lowest mean GHG emissions

of the 6 countries of study. The EKC shows that greater income (GDP per capita) still has

a slight positive effect on GHG emissions. However, this is coupled with better strides

over time in lowering GHG emissions as income grows. The data also show that Norway

has the third lowest population density and the third lowest environmentally related tax

45
revenue. Contrarily, Norway has the highest mean renewable electricity supply and the

third highest renewable energy public RD&D budget. According to the PET model, the

lower GHG emissions in Norway could, in part, be related to the relatively large supply of

renewable energy in Norway.

Compared to other European countries with high mitigation ambition, Norway appears to

have more reasons not to pursue overly ambitious mitigation reduction targets. They have

much greater, ongoing economic and political dependencies on fossil fuels (oil/gas)

(Eckersley, 2016). That being said, Norway stands out as a leader in term of mitigation

ambition within the EU Umbrella Group (Eckersley, 2016). Norwegian politicians believe

that it is essential to enhance mitigation ambition considerably on a global scale between

2020 and 2030 (Norway Mission to the EU, 2015). Specifically, Norway should have more

ambitious targets for 2030 than for 2020 as it is a rich developed country and it has had

a leading role in the climate negotiations (Norway Mission to the EU, 2015).

Though Norway is not a member of the European Union (EU), a large part of the EU

legislation on climate change and energy is binding to Norway through the Agreement on

the European Economic Area. Norway and the EU also share common interests when it

comes to climate policies, having common instruments to combat climate change and

cooperating closely in the climate change negotiations (Norway Mission to the EU, 2015).

Working with the EU, in sectors covered by the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS),

Norway will contribute to emission reductions of forty-three percent compared with 2005

through its participation in the EU ETS (Norway Mission to the EU, 2015). Norway will

46
also contribute to emission reductions in non-ETS sectors by setting a national emission

target for these sectors in line with comparable EU countries (Norway Mission to the EU,

2015).

Prior to the formation of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenbergs coalition government (2005

2013), the Norwegian national climate debate had been preoccupied with the question of

whether Norway should manage its climate responsibilities through domestic action to

avoid outsourcing responsibility, or whether international action (through carbon trading

and offsetting) was more appropriate and cost-effective given the international nature of

the problem (Hovden & Lindseth, 2004; Tellmann, 2012). The international action plan

prevailed, albeit with some significant compromises. In 2007, the Stoltenberg government

released a Climate White Paper that launched Norways quest to become the world leader

in climate change (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 2006-2007). This included a

voluntary upgrade of its original Kyoto target by 10 percent, corresponding to a new target

of nine percent below 1990 levels by 20082012. The Paper also declared that Norway

would aim for complete carbon neutrality by 2050 (or by 2030 if an ambitious global

agreement is reached) (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 2006-2007). After the

Stoltenberg Coalition lost power in 2013 to the Conservative Party, climate change has

generally been a lower priority. However, the Conservative minority government

nonetheless remained committed to the parliamentary settlement reached in 2008 and

sought to build on this settlement (Eckersley, 2016).

47
Under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, Norway is committed to

reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases equivalent to thirty percent of Norwegian

emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment,

2015). Norway has recently submitted to the UN its 2030 climate targets. Norway will

reduce emissions by at least forty percent by 2030 compared with the 1990 level. The

Norwegian climate targets are in line with the overall targets to avoid an increase in global

average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels

(Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2015).

Norway also provides funding for a range of climate-related activities in fields such as

clean energy, reducing deforestation in tropical forests, and climate change adaptation in

developing countries. These activities contribute to climate change mitigation and

adaptation. Norway wishes to play a leading role in climate finance internationally. This

is illustrated by its aforementioned substantial support for climate-related measures in

developing countries, with annual allocations of nearly NOK six billion. This type of

support and cooperation is a key part of the framework for efforts under the Climate

Change Convention (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2015).

Despite having the advantages of an abundant supply of hydro-electricity (around ninety-

nine percent of electricity generation), Norways emissions are rising in manufacturing,

transport, and offshore gas and petroleum activities, so marginal abatement costs are

high (Eckersley, 2016). This has created a major challenge for meeting the ambitious

targets in the parliamentary settlement. Norways key policy instruments for achieving

48
domestic emissions reductions include a rise in the carbon tax (introduced in 1991),

emissions trading (introduced in 2000 then linked into the EU emissions trading scheme

from 2008), investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, and various

other smaller measures designed to encourage public and low emission transport and

decarbonise heating in buildings (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2015).

While the development of robust international carbon markets remains important for the

success of Norways national climate policy, the parliamentary settlement required around

two-thirds of Norways emissions reductions to be made domestically. Moreover,

Norways significant investment in reducing emissions from deforestation in developing

countries is not to be counted towards the achievement of Norways 2020 target

(Eckersley, 2016).

6.4 Swedish Context

Sweden has the third lowest mean GHG emissions. As with Norway, the EKC shows that

greater income (GDP per capita) still has a slight positive effect on GHG emissions.

However, this is coupled with better strides over time in lowering GHG emissions as

income grows. Sweden has the third lowest mean environmentally related tax revenue

and the third lowest mean renewable electricity supply. Contrarily, Sweden has the third

highest mean population density, the highest mean renewable energy supply, the highest

mean renewable energy public RD&D budget, and the second lowest mean energy

intensity. According to the PET model, Swedens relatively higher population density and

renewable energy supply play a role in Swedens relatively lower GHG emissions.

49
Swedens reputation as an environmental pioneer began with a number of proactive

moves in the 1960s and 1970s. Sweden was the first country to establish an

environmental protection agency in 1967 (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

2016). In 1972 Sweden hosted the first UN conference on the environment, which led to

the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the leading global

environmental authority to this day. Sweden was also one of the first nations to sign and

ratify the international climate change treaty Kyoto Protocol, in 1998 and 2002

respectively (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Energy efficiency has been a major focus in Sweden. By 2020 the government goal is to

make energy use twenty per cent more effective compared with 2008 (Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). One move first introduced in 2005 has been to

offer tax reliefs to power-intensive industries in exchange for their drawing up energy

plans and taking steps to reduce energy use (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

2016). Another way in which Sweden is trying to lead the way to a more sustainable planet

is through subsidies for sustainable innovation. Expenditure on R&D (research and

development) represented 3.3 percent of GDP in 2013, the fourth highest percentage in

the OECD (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). According to the OECD

Environmental Performance Review 2014, Sweden is one of the most innovative

countries when it comes to environment-related technology. Investments in

environmental R&D have made Sweden an innovation leader for several clean energy

technologies, including biofuels, smart grids and carbon capture and storage (OECD,

2014).

50
The new Environmental Code (EC) replaced a number of previous different environmental

acts into a new, coordinated and more powerful legal tool. The previous fifteen Swedish

environmental acts were amalgamated into the new Environmental Code which became

effective on January 1st, 1999 (Baltic Environment and Energy, 2007). The aim of the

Environmental Code is to promote sustainable development that ensures a healthy

environmental impact on both the current and future generations (Baltic Environment and

Energy, 2007). Regulations concerning different types of area protection, such as national

parks, nature reserves, biotope protection and shoreline protection, have been brought

together in the Environmental Code (Baltic Environment and Energy, 2007). Together

with regulations regarding protection of species, the purpose is to preserve biological

diversity.

There are also binding environmental quality standards that each municipality is obliged

to both monitor and follow (Baltic Environment and Energy, 2007). These are specified

for both water and air and will set a standard for the lowest quality of the environment that

is acceptable. To make sure no infringements will happen, all who operate

environmentally hazardous activities must show that they can meet the environmental

quality standards (Baltic Environment and Energy, 2007).

In 1995, Sweden became one of the first countries to introduce a carbon tax. This tax

placed on carbon-intense fuels such as oil and natural gas has helped actively reduce

dependency on fossil fuels. It is considered one of the least expensive means of reducing

CO2 emissions (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). In 2012 Swedens

51
environmentally related tax revenue was 2.52 percent of GDP compared with the OECD

average of 1.54 (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). The government has

also introduced a number of incentives to help the Swedish economy grow sustainably.

The electricity certificate system initiated in 2003 is a market-based support system to

increase the production of renewable electricity and make the production more cost-

efficient (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Since the mid-1990s, Sweden is one of few industrialised countries that have managed

an absolute decoupling between economic growth and GHG emissions. They have

experienced a rising economy paired with falling emission levels. Swedens GHG

emissions are among the lowest in the world (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

2016). This can be seen in light of many nations struggling to achieve even a relative

decoupling, which means that emissions continue to increase, but not as quickly as

growth. Swedens reduced emissions have been accomplished in spite of a relatively

large domestic process industry, a substantial need for heating during cold winters and

long-distance transportation in a large, sparsely populated country (Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Sweden joined the EU on January 1st, 1995. The EU has developed directives for its

member to commit to a plan of implementation for sustainable development (Baltic

Environment and Energy, 2007). Swedens goal to reduce GHG emissions compared with

1990 by forty percent by the year 2020, and to have a vehicle fleet completely rid of fossil

fuels by 2030 are stepping stones to the overarching goal of a society with no net GHG

52
emissions by the year 2050 (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). That is

Swedens commitment under Roadmap 2050, an EU initiative whose objective is to

reduce GHG emissions by at least eighty percent below 1990 levels for all of EU (Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

6.5 Swiss Context

According to the data in this study, Switzerland has the lowest mean GHG emissions out

of the six countries studied. They also have the highest mean population density, the

second highest mean environmentally related tax revenue, the third highest mean

renewable energy supply, the third highest mean renewable electricity supply, the second

highest mean renewable energy public RD&D budget, and the lowest mean energy

intensity. All of these structural factors, with emphasis on the relatively high mean

population density and relatively high mean renewable energy supply, result in the

relatively low GHG emissions emitted in Switzerland.

Switzerland has several federal statutes (for example, the Federal Environmental

Protection Act of 1983 and the Federal Water Protection Act of 1991) which prescribe

criminal sanctions (fines or imprisonment) for deliberate or negligent infringement of

specific duties under the relevant statutes (Romy & Durig, 2016). Both natural persons

and legal entities can be sanctioned. Environmental protection organisations have a

statutory standing to appeal rulings and decisions of the federal or cantonal authorities

within the scope of the Federal Environmental Protection Act (Romy & Durig, 2016).

53
EU environmental regulations do not directly apply to Switzerland, as the country is not a

member of the EU (Baltic Environment and Energy, 2007). However, Switzerland

maintains extensive co-operative relations with the EU, including with regard to the

development and implementation of environmental legislation (Romy & Durig, 2016).

Further, Switzerland is a party to numerous international environmental agreements

including the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Switzerland accepted a second

commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol that started in 2013 and will end in 2020 (Romy

& Durig, 2016).

The legal framework for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is set in the Federal Act

on the Reduction of CO2 Emissions of 2011 (CO2 Act) and the Ordinance for the

Reduction of CO2 Emissions (CO2 Ordinance) (Romy & Durig, 2016). The CO2 Act

provides for the following measures to achieve the reduction targets: Technical measures

to reduce CO2 emissions of buildings and passenger cars, emissions trading scheme,

compensation obligations, and CO2 levy on thermal fuels. The consultation process for

the revised CO2 Act draft (which aims to implement the Paris Agreement) was opened by

the Federal Council on 1 September 2016 (Romy & Durig, 2016).

Switzerland has an emissions trading scheme (ETS). While larger companies must

participate in the ETS, medium-sized companies can opt-in (Romy & Durig, 2016).

Swiss companies can either use certificates issued in Switzerland or certificates issued

by foreign countries, provided the ETS of the relevant foreign country has been

recognised by the Federal Council (CO2 Act) (Romy & Durig, 2016). No foreign ETS has

54
been recognised by the Federal Council so far. Switzerland also has an environmental

tax. These taxes are levied on volatile organic compounds, extra light heating oil and

thermal fuels usually importers, producers and manufacturers in Switzerland pay these

taxes (Romy & Durig, 2016).

Switzerland committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions thirty-five percent below

1990 levels by 2025, fifty percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and seventy to eighty-five

percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (Levin et al., 2015). Their commitment covers a wide

range of greenhouse gases and sectors, allowing for maximum reduction opportunities.

However, the intended nationally determined contributions (INDC) under the Paris Accord

allows for the country to heavily use international market mechanisms, such as offsets or

through carbon trading, to reach its goals (Levin et al., 2015). For the fifty percent

reduction goal, for example, up to two-fifths of the reductions could come from projects to

reduce emissions beyond Swiss borders. It would strengthen the contribution if

Switzerland undertook further domestic emission reductions, where much potential still

exists, in order to drive ambition and usher in a low-carbon economy (Levin et al., 2015).

After the Fukushima nuclear incident, the Federal Council has proposed the Energy

Strategy 2050, with the aim of restructuring the Swiss energy system and withdrawing

from nuclear energy (Romy & Durig, 2016). On September 30th, 2016, the Swiss

Parliament accepted a first set of measures aimed at increasing energy efficiency and

renewable energy sources, and at withdrawing from nuclear energy (Romy & Durig,

2016). Under the existing law, there are no national targets or legal requirements for

55
increasing the use of renewable energy, but some cantons have set regional targets. The

producers of electricity from hydropower, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy,

biomass and biological waste qualify for subsidies (Romy & Durig, 2016).

6.6 American Context

The data in this study show that the US has the highest mean GHG emissions out of the

six countries studied. Like other countries of study, the EKC for the US shows that greater

income (GDP per capita) still has a positive effect on GHG emissions. However, this

appears to be coupled with strides over time in lowering GHG emissions as income grows.

The data reveals that the US has the lowest mean environmentally related tax revenue,

the lowest mean renewable energy supply, the second lowest mean renewable electrici ty

supply, the third lowest mean renewable energy public RD&D budget, and the second

highest energy intensity. The US also has the second highest mean population density.

Contrary to Switzerland, all of these structural factors result in the relatively high GHG

emissions emitted in the US.

The US has had a history of failed attempts at creating federal GHG emissions policies.

In 1992, the United States under President George H.W. Bush participated in the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to discuss stabilizing carbon dioxide

and other greenhouse gas concentrations. The United States under President Bill Clinton

signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, a legally binding international agreement that would

require a five percent reduction in carbon dioxide and similar gas emissions below 1990

levels before the year 2012 (Baressi, 2011). The treaty was ratified by 175 countries.

56
Though the treaty was signed by Clinton, the Kyoto Protocol was not approved by the

U.S. Senate (Baressi, 2011). In 2001, President George W. Bush said that the United

States would pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. Bush argued that the science behind the

theory of human-caused climate change was uncertain (Bromley-Trujillo et al., 2016). In

addition, Bush argued that programs aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the

United States would be too costly and that the Kyoto Protocol lacked comparable

reduction goals for other countries (Bromley-Trujillo et al., 2016). The Bush administration

supported reducing the ratio of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to

economic output (a metric known as greenhouse gas intensity) by 18 percent from 2002

to 2012 (Bromley-Trujillo et al., 2016). In 2007, the Bush administration supported a three

billion dollar fund for renewable energy production. In 2008, the administration supported

a national goal to prevent an increase carbon dioxide and similar emissions by the year

2025. The plan would have provided market incentives for individuals and companies to

produce renewable energy production. The initiative did not become law (Bromley-Trujillo

et al., 2016). In fiscal year 2008, the United States federal budget provided $6.4 billion to

climate change-related actions, such as scientific research, technological development,

and tax incentives (Bromley-Trujillo et al., 2016).

After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the Democratic Congress again

considered climate change-related legislation. In 2009, the U.S. House passed a bill to

establish a federal, economy-wide cap and trade system for carbon dioxide and

greenhouse gas emissions. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (known as the

57
Waxman-Markey bill), passed the House vote but was not taken up in the United States

Senate (CCES, 2016).

In 2009, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took steps to regulate carbon

dioxide emissions and similar gases under the Clean Air Act. After they regained the

House in 2010, Republicans sponsored legislation to block the EPA from taking regulatory

action related to carbon dioxide emissions. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

passed the House but did not receive a vote in the Democratic Senate. If passed into law,

the bill would have amended the federal Clean Air Act to prohibit the EPA from issuing

regulations defining carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the

Clean Air Act (United States Senate, 2011). In late 2015, the Republican Congress voted

to repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which mandates a thirty-two

percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, though the repeal was

vetoed (Westwood, 2015; Feldscher, 2015).

In April 2016, the United States under President Barack Obama signed the Paris Climate

Agreement. Under the agreement, each nation has an emissions target, though the target

is not legally binding. Developed countries like the United States are also required to

finance climate change mitigation efforts and emissions reduction programs for

developing countries primarily through the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which

has a goal of providing one-hundred billion dollars each year to developing countries for

climate change purposes by 2020 (CNBC, 2015; UNFCC, 2015). During the 2016

presidential campaign, the then-candidate, now newly-elected President of the United

58
States, Donald Trump, had pledged to pull the United States out of the Paris agreement

(Reuters, 2017). Additionally, the interim head of the EPA up until his inauguration, Myron

Ebell, stated that the United States will switch course on climate change and pull out of

a global pact to cut emissions (Reuters, 2017). With the new government lead by Tump

in power threatening and executing repeals of environmental regulations, the future of

GHG emissions policy in the United States is dim.

7.0 Conclusion

In sum, Canada finds itself ranked fortieth out of forty-one nations on the Sustainability

Governance Environmental Policy Indicator. The policy decisions outlined in this paper

illustrate that the federal government of Canada is demonstrating inadequate commitment

to the environment compared to other countries of similar levels of economic wealth

specifically Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. As expected, Canadas environmental

policy decisions have placed Canada in line with the highest GHG-emitting countries of

study, namely Australia and the United States. Where Canada, the US and Australia have

an ineffective patchwork of state/provincial environmental policies, Sweden, Switzerland

and Norway all have legally-enforceable environmental regulations and environmental

taxes at the federal level. Unlike the three poor performers, Sweden, Switzerland and

Norway all have connections to and binding reduction-targets with the EU. They have

also all accepted second commitment periods to the Kyoto Protocol whereas the US,

Canada and Australia have all withdrawn their support for the international agreement.

59
In the PET model, most of the structural factors studied influence GHG emissions in

expected ways. The PET model demonstrates that there is a significant relationship

between total population, population density and GHG emissions and an almost

significant relationship between renewable energy and GHG emissions. All else held

equal, as population densities and/or the renewable energy supply increase, GHG

emissions tend to decrease. It also shows that increasing renewable energy public RD&D

budget, environmentally related tax revenue and energy productivity all have the potential

to decrease GHG emissions. That being said, the countries with the lowest GHG

emissions typically have the highest proportions of the aforementioned structural

variables whereas the highest emitting countries typically have the lowest proportions.

To emphasize the importance of this paper, Canada is one of the worlds greatest emitters

of GHG emissions. Canada thus has a moral responsibility to reduce its emissions to

mitigate the impending effects of climate change, not only for itself but for other countries

with fewer resources for climate change adaptation. In order to do this, Canada must

come to realize as Sweden, Switzerland and Norway already have that enforceable

and effective federal environmental policies and laws, specifically targeting renewable

energies and population density, are necessary instruments in combatting climate

change. They must stop weakening environmental policies in Canada, as they had been,

and begin building upon them once again. Will Canada recover its moral light and reduce

its emissions with effective and enforceable GHG emissions policies and international

commitments? Only time will tell. Yet time is not on our side.

60
Works Cited

Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network. (2014). A brief history of the Australian

environment movement. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.aegn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1432_AEGN_HIST
_HistoryTemplate_v03_FA_WEB.pdf

Baltic Environment and Energy. (2007). Swedish environmental policies: History and
present regulations. Report 3 of the BEE project.

Barresi, P. (2011). US-China relations and the fate of the UN framework convention on
climate change: Traditional conservatism as an ideological and cultural constraint
on US participation in a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on Chinese terms.
Chinese Journal of International Law, 10(3): 609-649.

Barker, T., Alexandri, E., Mercure, J.F., Ogawa, Y. & Pollitt, H. (2016). GDP and
employment effects of policies to close the 2020 emissions gap. Climate Policy,
16(4): 393-414.

Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2014). Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI): Environmental

Policies. Retrieved from: http://www.sgi-
network.org/2014/Policy_Performance/Environmental_Policies

Blindheim, B. (2015). A missing link? The case of Norway and Sweden: Does increased
renewable energy production impact domestic greenhouse gas emissions?
Energy Policy, 77:207-215.

Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth. Chicago: Aldine.

Boyd, D. (2012). The right to a healthy environment: Revitalizing Canadas constitution.

Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Boyd, D. (2003). Unnatural law: Rethinking Canadian environmental law and policy.
Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Bromley-Trujillo, R., Butler, J., Poe, J. & Davis, W. (2016). The spreading of innovation:
State adoptions of energy and climate change policy. Review of Policy Research,
33(5): 544-565.

Buttel, F. (1978). Social structure and energy efficiency: A preliminary cross-national

analysis. Human Ecology, 6(2): 145163.

Canadians for tax fairness. (2011). More corporate tax cuts? Bad for Canada, bad for
Canadians. Tax Facts: Fact Sheet #1. Retrieved from:
www.taxfairness.ca/sites/taxfairness.ca/.../fact_sheet_1_corp_tax_cuts.pdf

61
Centre for Professional Development (CPD). (2017). Growth in environmental
legislation. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/429/growth-in-environmental-legislation.aspx

Chen, B., Yang, Q., Li, J. & Chen, G. (2017). Decoupling analysis on energy
consumption, embodied GHG emissions and economic growth The case study
of Macao. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67: 662-672.

CNBC. (2015). Paris climate agreement: All you need to know. CNBC News. Retrieved
March 9, 2017 from: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/13/paris-climate-agreement-
all-you-need-to-know.html

Conference Board of Canada. (2011). Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. How

Canada Performs. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/greenhouse -gas-
emissions.aspx

Cramer, J. (1998). Population growth and air quality in California. Demography, 35: 45-
56.

CCES. (2016). The American clean energy and security Act (Waxman-Markey Bill).
Retrieved March 9, 2017 from: https://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/acesa

CTV Vancouver. (2016). $1.6B Squamish LNG project receives green light. CTV News
Vancouver. Retrieved from: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/1-6b-squamish-lng-project-
receives-green-light-1.3146290

DeHart, J. & Soule, P. (2000). Does I=PAT work in local places? Professional
Geographer, 52(1): 1-10.

Dietz, T. & Rosa, E. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 94: 175-179.

Dietz, T. & Eugene, R. (1994). Rethinking the environmental impacts of population,

affluence and technology. Human Ecology Review, 1(2): 277-300.

Dlouhy, J. (2017). Trump to drop climate change from environmental reviews, source
says. Bloomberg. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/trump-said-to-drop-
climate-change-from-environmental-reviews

Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban

greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21: 185
201.

Duncan, O. (1959). Human ecology and population studies. In P. Hauser & O. Duncan

62
 (Eds.), The study of population: An inventory and appraisal (pp. 678716).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, Emile. (1949). The division of labor in society. Translated by George

Simpson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Eckersley, R. (2016). National identities, international roles, and the legitimation of

climate leadership: Germany and Norway compared. Environmental Politics,
25(1): 180-201.

EPA. (2016). Climate change indicators: U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved
March 9, 2017 from: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-
indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Espejo, R. & Stewart, N.D. (1998). Systemic reflections on environmental sustainability.

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15, 483-496.

Feldscher, K. (2015). Senate GOP steels itself for fight over Paris Agreement.
Washington Examiner. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-gop-steels-itself-for-fight-over-paris-
agreement/article/2578253

Fitz-Morris, J. (2015). Justin Trudeau tells Paris climate summit Canada ready to do
more. CBC News. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-
1.3343394

Goldstein, J., Huang, X., & Akan, B. (1997). Energy in the World Economy, 19501992.
International Studies Quarterly, 41: 241266.

Green, B. (2004). Explaining cross-national variation in energy consumption: The

effects of development, ecology, politics, technology and religion. International
Journal of Sociology, 34(1): 932.

Green, D., Kim, S., & Yoon, D. (2001). Dirty pool. International Organization, 55(2):
441468.

Grossman, G. & Krueger, A. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 110(2): 353377.

Hamilton, C. (2001). Running from the storm: The development of climate change policy
in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.

Harrison, K. (2013). Federalism and climate policy innovation: A critical reassessment.

Canadian Public Policy, 39(S), 95-108.

63
Hilton, F. & Levinson, A. (1998). Factoring the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence
from automotive lead emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 35: 126141.

Holdren, J. (2000). Environmental degradation: population, affluence, technology and

sociopolitical factors. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 42: 45.

Holtz-Eakin, D. & Selden, T. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO emissions and economic
growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57(1): 85101.

Hovden, E. & Lindseth, G. (2004). Discourses in Norwegian climate policy: national

action or thinking globally? Political Studies, 52 (1): 6381.

IMF. (2016). World Economic Outlook Database. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/index.aspx

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2014). Energy policies of IEA countries - Sweden
2013 review. Paris: IEA/OECD.

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010). Energy policies of IEA countries - Canada
2009 review. Paris: IEA/OECD.

IPCC. (1990). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Jia, J., Deng, H., Duan, J. & Zhao, J. (2009). Analysis of the major drivers of the
ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method A case
study in Henan Province, China. Ecological Economics, 68: 2818-2824.

Kahn, M. (1998). A household level environmental Kuznets curve. Economics Letters,

59(2): 269273.

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic

Review, 45(1): 128.

Lee, D., Cho, S.H., Roberts, R. & Lambert D. (2016). Effects of population redistribution
on greenhouse gas emissions: A case study of South Korea. International
Regional Science Review, 39(2): 177-202.

Levin, K., Rich, D. & Northrop, E. (2015). Analyzing the first INDC: Switzerland
releases new climate action commitment. World Resources Institute. Retrieved
March 9, 2017 from: http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/02/analyzing-first-
%E2%80%9Cindc%E2%80%9D-switzerland-releases-new-climate-action-
commitment

64
Liberal Party of Canada. (2017). Climate Change. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/climate-change/

Lin, S., Zhao, D. & Marinova, D. (2009). Analysis of the environmental impact of China
based on STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29: 341-
347.

Liu, L. & Wu, G. (2017). The effects of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
emission taxes: An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production,
142(2): 1044-1054.

MacNeil, R. (2014). Canadian environmental policy under conservative majority rule.

Environmental Politics, 23(1), 174-8.

Malthus, T. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. London: Murray.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital. New York: International Publishers.

McCarthy, S. & Leblanc, D. (2016). Liberal governments carbon tax plan provokes
anger from provinces. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-set-carbon-price-at-10-
a-tonne-in-2018-rising-to-50-by-2022/article32206937/

McSheffrey, E. (2016). Canada officialy ratifies historic Paris climate agreement.

National Observer. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/05/news/canada-officially-ratifies-
historic-paris-climate-agreement

Nakicenovic, N. (2004). Socioeconomic driving forces of emissions scenarios. In: Field

CB, Raupach MR, editors. The global carbon cycle: integrating humans, climate,
and the natural world. New York: Island Press. p. 22539.

Norway Mission to the EU. (2015). A new and more ambitious climate policy for
Norway. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from: http://www.eu-norway.org/news1/A-new-
and-more-ambitious-climate-policy-for-Norway/#.WMVarTvyvIU

Norwegian Environmental Agency. (n.d.). State of the Environment Norway. Retrieved

from: http://www.environment.no/

Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. (2015). New emissions commitment

for Nowary for 2030 towards joint fulfilment with the EU. Meld. St. 13 (2014
2015) Report to the Storting (white paper). Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/07eab77cc38f4085abb594a87aa19f10/
en-gb/pdfs/stm201420150013000engpdfs.pdf

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (2006-2007). Norwegian climate policy:

65
 summary in English. Report no. 34 (20062007) to the Storting. Retrieved March
9, 2017 from: http://www.
regjeringen.no/en/archive/Stoltenbergs-2nd-Government/Ministry-of-
theEnvironment/Nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/pressemeldinger/2007/new-
measures-toreach-norways-ambitious-.html?id=473402

OECD. (2014). OECD environmental performance reviews: Sweden 2014. Paris: OECD
Publishing.

OECD. (2011). OECD environmental performance reviews: Norway 2011. Paris: OECD
Publishing.

OECD. (2008). OECD environmental performance reviews: Switzerland 2007. Paris:

OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2004). OECD environmental performance reviews: Canada 2004. Paris: OECD
Publishing.

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2014). 2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner
of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Retrieved March 9, 2017
from: http://www.oag-
bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201410_e_39845.html

Parliament of Canada. (2012). Statutes of Canada 2012 chapter 19: Bill C-38.
Ottawa, Canada: Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and
Government Services Canada.

Parliament of Canada. (2017). Pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate

change: Canadas plan to address climate change and grow the economy.
Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/environment/documents/weather1/2
0170125-en.pdf

Powell, B.H. (n.d.). An overview of Bill C-38: The budget bill that transformed Canadas
federal environmental laws. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/Bill38AnalysisArticlefinal.pdf

Rand, T. (2014). Waking the frog: Solutions for our climate change paralysis. Toronto:
ECW Press.

Reuters, T. (2017). Trump will definitely pull out of Paris climate accord, says EPA
transition leader. CBC News. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trump-climate-accord-myron-ebell-1.3958452

Roberts, T. & Grimes, P. (1997). Carbon intensity and economic development 1962-

66
 1991: A brief exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World
Development, 25(2): 191-198.

Romy, I. & Durig, B. (2016). Environmental law and practice in Switzerland: overview.
Practical Law Multi-Jurisdictional Guide 2016/2017: Environment. Thomson
Reuters

Selden, T. & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a

Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 27: 147162.

Shafik, N. & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality:

Time series and cross-section evidence. World Bank, Policy research working
paper #WPS904.

Shi, A. (2003). The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions,
1975-1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecological Economics,
44(1): 24-42.

Slezak, M. (2016). Australias greenhouse gas emissions are rising and forecast to miss
2030 target. The Guardian. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/australias-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-are-rising-official-figures-show

Soule, P. & DeHart, J. (1998). Assessing IPAT using production and consumption-
based measures of I. Social Science Quarterly, 79(4): 754-765.

Stoett, P. & Kersten, M. (2014). Beyond ideological fixation: ecology, justice, and
Canadian foreign policy under Harper. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 20(2):
229-232.

Stern, P., Young, O., Druckman, D. (1992). Global environmental change:

understanding the human dimensions. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.

Stern, D. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World
Development, 32(8): 1419-1439.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Environmental objectives. Retrieved

March 9, 2017 from: http://www.miljomal.se/sv/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Overall assessment and analysis:

2012 evaluation of Swedens environmental objectives. Sweden: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Sweden tackles climate change.

67
 Retrieved March 9, 2017 from: https://sweden.se/nature/sweden-tackles-climate-
change/

Presence Switzerland. (2005). Environmental protection in Switzerland. Retrieved

from: http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/nature_2005/index.html

Tasker, P. (2016). Trudeau cabinet approved Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects
Northern Gateway. CBC News. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-cabinet-trudeau-pipeline-decisions-
1.3872828

Tellmann, S. (2012). The constrained influence of discourses: the case of Norwegian

climate policy. Environmental Politics, 21 (5): 734752.

Treasury board of Canada secretariat. (2011). Government expenditure plan and main
estimates 2011-2012. Retrieved from: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-
pre/20112012/me-bpd/docs/me-bpd-eng.pdf

UNFCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement. Conference of the parties Twenty-
first session. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

United States Senate. (2011). H.R. 910 (112th): Energy tax prevention Act of 2011.
112th Congress, 1st Session. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr910/text

U.S. National Research Council. (1999). Human Dimensions of Global Environmental

Change. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

van Vuuren, D., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D., Doelman, J., van den Berg, M., Harmsen, M.,
de Boer, H., Bouwman, L., Daioglou, V., Edelenbosch, O., Girod, B., Kram, T.,
Lassaletta, L., Lucas, P., van Meijl, H., Mller, C., van Ruijven, B., van der Sluis,
S. & Tabeau, A. (2017). Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions
trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Global Environmental Change,
42:237-250.

Vitousek, P., Mooney, H., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. (1997). Human domination of
Earths ecosystems. Science, 277(5325): 494-499.

Westwood, S. (2015). Kerry says Paris agreement crafted to avoid Congress.

Washington Examiner. Retrieved March 9, 2017 from:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-says-paris-agreement-crafted-to-
avoid-congress/article/2578256

York, R., Eugene, R. & Thomas, D. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools

68
for unpacking the driving force of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics,
46:351-365.

69