Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss Original research article From Kyoto to Paris: Measuring renewable energy policy regimes in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States Erin C. Pischke a, ⁎ , Barry Solomon a , Adam Wellstead a , Alberto Acevedo b , Amarella Eastmond c , Fernando De Oliveira d , Suani Coelho d , Oswaldo Lucon d a Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, 209 Academic Office Building, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA b Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Instituto de Suelos, Los Reseros y Las Cabañas, s/n, 1712 Castelar, Buenos Aires, Argentina c Universidad Autonoma de Yucatán, Calle 61 Numero 525 por 66 y 68 Centro, Merida, Yucatan, CP 97000, Mexico d University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 1289, São Paulo, SP, 05508-010, Brazil ARTICLEINFO Keywords: Policy output Pan-America Renewable energy Climate change ABSTRACT There are numerous strategies to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or to mitigate global climate change. One of them is to promote polices for developing renewable energy sources. There has been a growth in such policies but not enough is known about their effectiveness. We use a revised version of Schaffrin et al.’s (2015) Index of Policy Activity (IPA) 1 to examine the historical development (1998–2015) of federal and state/pro- vincial renewable energy policies across five federal countries in the Americas: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States. Here the focus is on “policy output,” which is defined as a function of policy densityandintensity.Policydensityismeasuredbycountingthenumberofpoliciesineachcountryrelatingtoa particular goal during our time frame, while policy intensity, or the strength the policy has toward meeting specific goals, is measured by summing scores for six indicators: objective, scope, integration, budget, im- plementation and monitoring. The higher the policy score for a country, the more likely the country will be able to meet its intended goals. Our results show that the U.S. has the densest renewable energy policy output followed by Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and finally Argentina has the least-dense policy output. Overall, Brazil and Canada’s renewable energy policies were the most intense, followed by Argentina’s and the U.S.’s, with Mexico’s policies receiving the lowest intensity scores. These countries differ in how long they have supported renewable energy policies and the levels of government that implement them. These findings show that countries may be spending resources on producing myriad renewable energy policies, but without coordination between different levels of government or a concerted effort to ensure that the policy instruments are effective, those resources may be wasted while GHGs continue to rise. This research contributes to the understanding of how individual federal and state/provincial government make efforts toward implementing or enforcing energy policies to in- fluence long-term policy change. 1. Introduction When addressing strategies to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- sions, the energy sector requires the greatest focus. Although emissions from deforestation, biomass burning, agriculture and other land use changes account for 24% of global GHG emissions, energy use accounts foralmostalloftherest[1]. Even within these non-energy sectors, only a few countries have accounted for most deforestation in the past sev- eral decades (e.g. Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria) and only these countries can significantly reduce or offset land-use related emissions. Almost all of the remaining GHG emissions come from energy consumption. The energyoptionstoloweroroffsettheseemissionshavebeenidentifiedin the past several decades and include some portfolio of energy effi- ciency, natural gas, renewable energy technologies and nuclear power [2]. Each energy option for GHG mitigation has strengths and weak- nesses. Energy efficiency, e.g., is often lauded as the most cost-effective strategy and works well in the short term, but its emissions reduction https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.010 Received 1 February 2018; Received in revised form 18 November 2018; Accepted 22 November 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Oregon, 130 Hendricks Hall, 5247 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. Tel.: +1 541-346-0675. E-mail addresses: epischke@mtu.edu (E.C. Pischke), bdsolomo@mtu.edu (B. Solomon), awellste@mtu.edu (A. Wellstead), acevedo.alberto@inta.gob.ar (A. Acevedo), amarella.eastmond@correo.uady.mx (A. Eastmond), folive@usp.br (F. De Oliveira), suani@iee.usp.br (S. Coelho), lucon@iee.usp.br (O. Lucon). 1 Schaffrin A., Sewerin S., Seubert S. Toward a comparative measure of climate policy output. Policy Stud. J. (2015) 43, 257–82. Energy Research & Social Science 50 (2019) 82–91 2214-6296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T