Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders and approved guests only. Building Access: Normal building operating hours with exceptions. Read more about the campus status level system and campus access information. See the latest updates to the community regarding campus planning.
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
This year’s Conference of the Parties (COP-29) broke new ground with the Baku Initiative for Climate Finance, Investment, and Trade (BICFIT)—the first high-profile COP initiative to place trade...
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Cheryl LaFleur and David Hill about the incoming Trump administration, its impact on FERC, and the status of permitting reform measures.
Find out more about our upcoming and past events.
Please join the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs for a special webinar "Can AI Help Reduce Emissions of...
Op-eds & Essays by Jason Bordoff • November 06, 2020
With a President Joe Biden and a Republican-controlled U.S. Senate—the current scenario pending final vote counts and two runoff elections in Georgia—ambitious legislative action on energy and climate change will be significantly more challenging. Nonetheless, there will still be many options for meaningful climate action under a Biden administration.
First, there are several existing laws a president can work with without congressional approval. The most significant is the Clean Air Act, which gives the executive branch the authority to regulate emissions from sources such as power plants, cars, and trucks, as well as methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. A judiciary dominated by Republican appointees, however, raises risks that regulatory action under this authority may not withstand legal challenge. A Biden administration can also use its authority over public lands and waters to expand leasing for renewable energy projects such as offshore wind farms; use the procurement power of the federal government and military to drive deployment of clean technologies; curb agricultural and forestry emissions by rewarding carbon sequestration by farmers, ranchers, and landowners; and appoint a majority of commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which sets market rules for the electricity sector and can use them to favor low-carbon energy sources. As president, Biden could also support policies by U.S. states, for example by reinstating a waiver revoked by the Trump administration that allowed California to set its own vehicle emission standards.
Second, the executive branch has significant authority over foreign policy. Since 85 percent of global emissions are produced by other countries, putting climate change at the center of foreign policy is crucial. Rejoining the Paris agreement is necessary but far from sufficient. There is much else that a Biden administration could pursue, such as promoting collaboration on clean energy trade and innovation; spearheading a multilateral agreement to curb methane emissions and finalizing another to phase down hydrofluorocarbons; pursuing agreements covering carbon-intensive industries such as steel and cement; and working with allies to redouble efforts to phase out emissions from existing coal plants.
Of course, Washington’s international leverage would be enhanced by stronger climate action at home. A proposed global phasedown of coal use would thus have more credibility if domestic regulations limiting power sector emissions drive down coal use in the United States—enabled by cheap renewable energy and natural gas.
Finally, it may be wrong to assume no congressional action is possible with a Republican Senate. An increasing number of moderate Republicans—not to mention business groups that often support congressional candidates—have expressed interest in climate proposals such as a carbon tax, which could sharply reduce emissions in the power sector. Many Republicans also support subsidies for low-carbon energy sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear power, carbon capture, and investments in energy technology innovation, which could yield enormous economic dividends. A President Biden could aim to launch a National Energy Innovation Mission in concert with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers.
Policies commensurate with the staggering scale of the climate challenge require ambitious legislative action, which will no doubt be more difficult with Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader. Yet using existing regulatory authority, pressing ahead in foreign policy, and seeking bipartisan agreement in narrower areas, a Biden administration can still make meaningful climate progress.
While he hasn’t released an official plan, Trump’s playbook the last time he was in office and his frequent complaints about clean energy offer clues to what’s ahead.
November’s election for president of the United States will have crucial implications for the nation’s and world’s energy and climate policies.
Why is the United States struggling to enact policies to reduce carbon emissions? Conventional wisdom holds that the wealthy and powerful are to blame, as the oligarchs and corporations that wield disproportionate sway over politicians prioritize their short-term financial interests over the climate’s long-term health.
Full report
Op-eds & Essays by Jason Bordoff • November 06, 2020