Law and Public Policy

D07 - Energy, Environment and Infrastructure

Date: May 30 | Time: 03:15pm to 04:45pm | Location: Classroom - CL 345 Room ID:15704

Chair/Président/Présidente : Peter Phillips (University of Saskatchewan)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Elizabeth Schwartz (University of Saskatchewan)

Supporters and Skeptics: Issue Frames in American Climate Change Policy: Heather Cann (Purdue University)
Abstract: This paper investigates the framing strategies of climate-energy policy supporters and opponents in the United States. These elite communicators and thought leaders shape climate-energy discourse through various issue frames, and recent scholarly work has especially highlighted a growing and still unresolved controversy around the role of traditional “science” frames in shaping public opinion and policy actions in response to strident climate change policy opposition. I explore these issues through qualitative content analysis of over 600 documents published by a climate policy supporter (the Natural Resources Defense Council) and a climate policy opponent (the Heartland Institute). I examine the relationships between traditional science frames and other frame types, determining larger patterns of frame prevalence. In doing so this project assesses to what extent the dueling framing strategies of these key thought leaders are in conversation with one another, and ultimately considers how such frames might incite or impede the future adoption of climate-energy policies in the United States.

The Supply Side Politics of Coal Exports: Kathryn Harrison (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: As the US electricity sector has shifted from coal to gas in response to both economic and regulatory changes, US coal producers have looked increasingly to ship their surplus to foreign markets. Proposals for Asia-facing coal terminals emerged along the West coast from Oakland to Vancouver. Consistent with the supply side politics of pipelines, campaigns against coal transport terminals enjoyed an advantage over opposition to coal mines, since the majority of jobs at risk happen to be located in another state. This paper compares the fate of two such projects, the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) in Washington State and Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD), just 30 miles north in British Columbia. Both projects would have received coal from the same mines in Montana and Wyoming for most of the route via the same rail line. Both faced strong opposition from local residents, environmentalists, First Nations, and municipal governments, typically with a focus on local impacts rather than climate change. Yet GPT was rejected by the US federal government, while FSD was approved by the Canadian government, an outcome that is particularly striking given minimal economic benefits to Canada in shipping US coal. The paper examines the influence of two institutional differences: the greater role of local governments in the US environmental assessment process and stronger treaty rights of Washington tribes, which served as switches, routing coal trains to Canada rather than the US.

The Creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank: Implications for Provincial, Municipal, and First Nations Governments in Accessing Federal Funding for Infrastructure Projects: Joseph Garcea (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: Intergovernmental partnerships and public-private partnerships have become important policy instruments for building infrastructure and providing services at the national provincial and local levels. At the local level this includes both municipal and First Nations governments. Since the turn-of-the-century, federal governments have established two major funds and a bank to provide funding for such partnerships, namely the Canada Builds Fund and the PPP Canada Fund both of which were established by the Conservative government, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank established by the Liberal government in 2017with the mandate to fund revenue-generating projects. Just a few months after the Liberal federal government enacted the statue to establish the Canada infrastructure bank, appointed its Board of Directors, and hire its initial staff, it announced the termination of the PPP Canada Fund. The objective of this paper is to answer the following questions. • Why did the Liberal federal government establish the Canada Infrastructure Bank? • How does the Canada Infrastructure Bank differ from the PPP Canada Fund established by the Conservative government? • What did the Liberal federal government decide to terminate the PPP Canada Fund? • What are the implications of the terms and conditions for accessing federal funds for infrastructure projects from the Canada Infrastructure Bank for provincial, municipal, and First Nations governments? • What are the implications of the Liberal government's decision to terminate the PPP Canada Fund for the ability of provincial, local, and First Nations governments to access federal funds for infrastructure projects?