In this Article, I contend that the accounts of state involvement on climate change miss a large part of the story. By emphasizing how the states have partly filled the regulatory voids created by federal inaction, this con- ventional story misses the important-indeed critical-backdrop of the federal government and federal law. The most innovative state responses to climate change are neither the product of state regulation alone nor are they exclusively the result of federal action. Instead, such regulations are the re-sults of repeated, sustained, and dynamic lawmaking efforts involving both levels of government-what I term "iterative federalism."
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research
Choose a citation style from the tabs below