Are Republicans Bad for the Environment?

Abstract

Does the partisanship of officeholders affect environmental outcomes? The popular perception is that Republicans are bad for the environment, but complicating factors like federalism may limit this outcome. Using a dataset that tracks toxic releases over 20 years, we examine how partisan control of executive and legislative branches at both state and federal levels affect environmental policy. Moving beyond the passage of policies or environmental program spending allows us to fully understand the impact of Republicans on the environment. In addition, we take into account structural complications that may shape the relationship between Republican control and environmental outcomes. We find that the conventional wisdom that Republicans are bad for the environment has some validity, but it is dependent on what offices Republican elected officials occupy. More specifically, Republicans significantly affect toxic chemical releases when occupying governorships and controlling Congress. Our conclusions provide further insight into understanding how partisanship affects environmental outcomes, including how partisanship composition across the federal system matters.

The role of race, religion, and partisanship in misperceptions about COVID-19

“…COVID-19 was quickly politicized, with Democratic politicians, relative to Republican ones, expressing greater concern about the virus, imploring the public to take more precautions, and supporting more restrictive policies (Lipsitz & Pop-Eleches, 2020). President Trump -with his dismissal of the virus, demands to reopen the economy, and refusal to wear a mask -is the apotheosis of this trend, but is far from the only example of it, as Democratic governors typically took swifter and more public actions to combat the virus than did most Republican governors (Fowler et al, 2020). These elite cues affected partisans' behaviors with Democrats engaging in more precautionary measures and Republicans doing the reverse -a trend, for both parties, that was particularly notable for strong partisans (e.g., those with high levels of affective polarization) (Druckman et al, 2021).…”

COVID on campus: An empirical analysis of COVID infection rates at U.S. colleges and universities

“…In particular, it may be that the desire to signal a commitment to certain partisan ideas, “Respect the science” or “COVID is a hoax,” affects the political payoffs to different health‐educational outcomes for institutional administrators. Existing research finds that partisanship plays an important empirical role in explaining the adoption and timing of state‐level COVID policies, Adolph et al (2022), Gusmano et al (2020), Fowler et al (2020). Indeed, Gusmano et al (2020, p. 380) report that “the party affiliation of a state's Governor was the most important factor shaping the nature and timing of the response.” Similar evidence exists for partisan identity and the policy response to COVID at the local level (Van Lieshout & Seddon, 2020).…”

Uneven local implementation of federal policy after disaster: Policy conflict and goal ambiguity

“…Other examples include the probability that an undocumented person will be removed varies based on where that person resides (Schreckhise & Chand, 2021). Whether or not vulnerable populations have access to healthcare through the Affordable Care Act is dependent upon their state of residence (Yarbrough, 2017), and the quality of the air citizens breathe every day has been linked to partisan control of state government (Fowler & Kettler, 2021). The current “kaleidoscopic” approach to federalism suggests that because of partisan polarization and fragmented policy preferences, there is no prevailing trend about the nature of the relationship between the federal government, states, and localities (Benton, 2018).…”

“…This study addresses that gap by examining the local implementation of environmental policy in a federal system through the lens of ambiguity and conflict. In doing so, this study contributes to the growing body of scholarship that systematically examines what promotes and constrains the subnational implementation of national policies designed to mitigate the effects of environmental hazards (Benton, 2018; Berke et al, 2014; Birkland et al, 2021; Fowler & Kettler, 2021; Schreckhise & Chand, 2021; Taylor et al, 2021). It uses the Ambiguity‐Conflict Model of Policy Implementation (Matland, 1995) to assess the effects of ambiguous policies and intergovernmental policy conflict on the implementation of federal disaster mitigation programs after Hurricane Harvey in the State of Texas.…”

“…Far from being a rational process, local political leaders engage in political gamesmanship as they attempt to demonstrate that they are providing the desired goods and services while simultaneously avoiding the backlash for levying the taxes necessary to provide goods and services (Volden, 2005). Thus, policy implementation at the local level becomes the result of political bargaining and negotiation (Derthick, 1987), partisan politics (Fowler & Kettler, 2021), pre-existing relationships (Bowman & Krause, 2003), and institutional barriers (Fowler & Birdsall, 2021). Under the current system, the amount of protection against environmental hazards a citizen can expect due to federally funded mitigation projects is far more dependent upon local politics than local needs.…”