Search

Begin New Search Topic Natural Resources Political Geography Global Focus

41. In The Era Of U.S. Energy Abundance: The Role Of The Caspian Region In U.S. Policy

Author:
Brenda Shaffer
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
For most of the last fifty years, international energy policy has been a major focus of U.S. foreign and national security policy. Washington has viewed ensuring the energy security of its allies—especially in Europe, Japan, and South Korea—as part of its own national security. In this approach to energy policy, the United States was unique and contrasted with most Western countries, which generally treated energy policy as part of their economic and/or environmental policies. Washington has engaged in international energy policy on the highest executive levels in the White House and established influential units within cabinet departments and agencies to promote international energy policies and to integrate them with U.S. national security and foreign policies. Within the Department of State, successive special ambassadors were appointed to promote various international and regional energy policies and, in 2011, a full Bureau of Energy Resources was established.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, Environment, Oil, and Natural Resources
Political Geography:
United States, Caspian Sea, and Global Focus

42. Beneath the Surface: The Case for Oversight of Extractive Industry Suppliers

Author:
Robert Pitman and Kaisa Toroskainen
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Natural Resource Governance Institute
Abstract:
Large oil, gas and mining projects are usually associated with a few big names such as Shell, Exxon, Rio Tinto, Gazprom and Codelco. These are rights holders—companies that receive licenses from host governments to extract resources. Typically, however, lower-profile companies do much of the work to take natural resources out of the ground. These are suppliers—companies that provide the goods and services that make extraction happen. They range in size from multibillion-dollar international conglomerates to specialized or local firms that may only have a handful of employees. This report makes the case for greater oversight of extractive industry suppliers. It explains the economic significance of extractive industry suppliers and identifies the main stakeholders involved in supplier governance. It considers policy areas where the impacts of poor supplier governance play out and reviews how governments, rights holders, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and suppliers are beginning to share information on the economic impacts of suppliers, how these disclosures feature in global transparency and reporting initiatives and what more can be done.
Topic:
Corruption, Natural Resources, Tax Systems, Coronavirus, Industry, COVID-19, and Revenue Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. Building a Sustainable Electric Vehicle Battery Supply Chain: Frequently Asked Questions

Author:
Patrick Heller, Ethan Elkind, and Ted Lamm
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Natural Resource Governance Institute
Abstract:
The global transition from fossil fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs) will require the production of hundreds of millions of batteries. The need for such a massive deployment raises questions from the general public and critics alike about the sustainability of the battery supply chain, from mining impacts to vehicle carbon emissions. Growing demand for the mineral inputs for battery production can provide an opportunity for mineral-rich countries to generate fiscal revenues and other economic opportunities. But where extraction takes place in countries with weak governance, the benefits expected by citizens and leaders may not materialize; in some cases extraction might even exacerbate corruption, human rights abuses and environmental risks. Many EV proponents and suppliers are aware that supply chain governance problems pose a challenge to the evolution of the EV industry, but outstanding questions remain about how these challenges materialize. This brief, jointly published by UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) and the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) provides basic information on the EV battery supply chain and key battery minerals, such as cobalt and lithium, and addresses the following questions: What does the supply chain for EV batteries comprise? How do carbon emissions from EVs compare to traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles? What are the most significant challenges in managing the mineral extraction necessary for the EV supply chain, and what sustainability and human rights initiatives apply?
Topic:
Civil Society, Corruption, Government, Human Rights, Natural Resources, Governance, Regulation, Legislation, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Global Focus

44. A Race to the Bottom and Back to the Top: Taxing Oil and Gas During and After the Pandemic

Author:
David Manley, David Mihalyi, and Colin Fleming
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Natural Resource Governance Institute
Abstract:
Earlier this year as people around the world responded to the coronavirus pandemic, their demand for oil tumbled. At the same time, OPEC and Russia initially failed to agree to coordinate supply cuts. Consequently, the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil fell from $60 in December 2019 to $20 in April 2020. As of this publication, the price is $43. If the price stays low, and if oil executives expect the price to remain low, companies may lobby governments to reduce taxes and other costly regulations. Payments to governments are often larger than costs for a company, so there is pressure on governments to reduce taxes to keep projects viable. This briefing considers the following key questions: Where will the oil price go next? What is the impact on currently operating projects, undeveloped projects, and those that are yet to be discovered? How should governments respond in changing oil and gas taxes? Will governments try to “race to the bottom,” but then lose a race back to the top? Key messages: There’s no certainty over future prices. Some rise is likely in the next few years, even if an energy transition results in a structural decline in the oil price in the longer-term. Governments must consider this uncertainty and probable rise when taxing oil and gas. Tax breaks on most currently operating projects are likely a waste of public money. Some governments may be pressured into reducing tax on projects awaiting development. But they must identify which projects would become viable with lower taxes, and which do not need a tax break. If in doubt, governments should consider whether a project that needs a tax incentive really will provide value for the country. For most countries, relative to total oil and gas produced, the production from projects that could be delayed or cancelled is small. But not so for the “new producer” countries like Senegal and Guyana. Changing taxes to make a country more attractive has the most impact before companies have invested – e.g., in attracting investment in licensing rounds. But setting low taxes now could force a government to raise taxes later if prices rise again. If a tax break is unavoidable, governments could use a “sunset clause” to limit the duration of the tax break. Ideally, governments should set progressive tax regimes that respond to changes in profit. But as many taxing authorities struggle to measure profit, governments could set simpler tax regimes based on sales revenue or prices – but must prepare to change tax rates in the future, and be prepared for the repercussion for a government’s credibility with investors. Governments should disclose contract terms detailing tax changes, tax exemptions, incentives and estimated break-even prices of projects to help government auditors, local think tanks, and the public check and support tax policy decisions.
Topic:
Oil, Natural Resources, Gas, Tax Systems, Commodities, Coronavirus, and Revenue Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Assessing Asia: Sub-Saharan Africa Global Value Chain Linkages

Author:
Heiwai Tang, Douglas Zhihua Zeng, and Albert Zeufack
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
This paper studies the relationship between Asia’s economic engagements in Africa and individual African nations’ participation in global value chains (GVC) over the past two decades. We find that while overall exports from Africa to Asia are still highly concentrated in resource-intensive sectors, a few African countries have exploited the emerging opportunities to diversify export portfolios through exporting to Asia. Each African nation has a distinct main trade partner in Asia, in contrast to the common view that China has become the dominant trade partner of most African nations. Using a panel data set for 46 African countries over 16 years from 2000 and 2015, we find that exports to Asia are positively correlated with exports to the rest of the world, suggesting that in contrast to trade diversion, trade with Asia complements exports to other countries. Asian economic engagement in the continent is associated with countries’ exports “moving up the value chain”, as measured by the upstreamness index proposed by Antras et al. (2012). However, such process was accompanied by a reduction in the length of their production chains, implying that fewer stages and countries are now involved in the production of exported goods.
Topic:
Development, International Political Economy, Natural Resources, Partnerships, Exports, Trade, Global Value Chains, and Data
Political Geography:
Africa, Asia, and Global Focus

46. The Impact of Covid-19 on LNG Supplies

Author:
Erin Blanton
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The global LNG market, like most commodities markets, has been hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic. The ensuing demand collapse came after a warm Northern hemisphere winter that left the global market oversupplied, and now prices for spot LNG cargoes are expected to remain low well into 2021. As market watchers search for clues as to how and when demand may recover, the coronavirus could actually bring forward and intensify longer-term tightening of the LNG market by creating conditions that do not favor additional investments in LNG projects. Already, lockdowns have slowed construction on projects in the works and companies are delaying final investment decisions (FIDs) on potential LNG supply projects by several years. The global LNG market could face a supply shortfall in a few years, a scenario that seemed unlikely at the start of 2020 when proposed projects with 186 million tons of capacity were in the pipeline. The ability of the oil and gas industry to recover from the impacts of coronavirus will have a long-term effect on companies’ potential to secure the financing required for multibillion-dollar investments in LNG supply. In addition to the 359 million tons (MT) of existing global LNG supply, there is over 100 MT of supply under construction and expected online by 2025. Some 30 MT of that supply was expected over the next 18 months, but the timing now appears in doubt.[1] These factors will create additional pressure on the LNG industry, which was already facing difficult questions, including how natural gas will fit into global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ongoing trade relations between the US and China.
Topic:
Natural Resources, Gas, Pandemic, COVID-19, and LNG
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. A Near-Term to Net Zero Alternative to the Social Cost of Carbon for Setting Carbon Prices

Author:
Noah Kaufman, Peter Marsters, Alexander R. Barron, Wojciech Krawczyk, and Haewon McJeon
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is commonly described and used as the optimal CO2 price. However, the wide range of SCC estimates provides limited practical assistance to policymakers setting specific CO2 prices. Here we describe an alternate near-term to net zero (NT2NZ) approach, estimating CO2 prices needed in the near term for consistency with a net-zero CO2 emissions target. This approach dovetails with the emissions-target-focused approach that frames climate policy discussions around the world, avoids uncertainties in estimates of climate damages and long-term decarbonization costs, offers transparency about sensitivities and enables the consideration of CO2 prices alongside a portfolio of policies. We estimate illustrative NT2NZ CO2 prices for the United States; for a 2050 net-zero CO2 emission target, prices are US$34 to US$64 per metric ton in 2025 and US$77 to US$124 in 2030. These results are most influenced by assumptions about complementary policies and oil prices.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Natural Resources, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

48. Completing the Southern Gas Corridor: SGC in a Post-pandemic World

Author:
Akhmed Gumbatov
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The global spread of the latest zoonotic virus, commonly known as COVID19, has become an unprecedented calamity for all humankind. By the time this publication goes to press, it is likely that worldwide around 25 million people will have been infected and the number of lives lost will approach the one million mark.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Political Economy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Pandemic
Political Geography:
Europe, Caucasus, Asia, and Global Focus

49. Levelized Cost of Carbon Abatement: An Improved Cost-Assessment Methodology for a Net-Zero Emissions World

Author:
Julio Friedmann
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
New policies are needed to achieve the net-zero emissions required to address climate change. To succeed, these policies must lead directly to swift and profound abatement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policies that appear effective on the surface too often have little real impact or are costly compared to alternatives. Governments, investors, and decision makers require better tools focused on understanding the real emissions impacts and costs of policies and other measures in order to design the most effective policies required to create a net-zero world. This paper, from the Carbon Management Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, puts forward a levelized cost of carbon abatement, LCCA, an improved methodology for comparing technologies and policies based on the cost of carbon abatement. LCCA measures how much CO2 can be reduced by a specific investment or policy, taking into account relevant factors related to geography and specific asset. It calculates how much an investment or policy costs on the basis of dollars per ton of emissions reduced. Previous marginal or levelized cost methodologies that assess carbon reduction options often failed to consider the specific contexts that determine the real, all-in costs of a policy and the real, all-in impacts on emissions. These costs and impacts can vary depending on the contexts and details of geography, existing infrastructure, timing, and other factors. LCCA attempts to improve understanding of the real climate costs and benefits by including specific and local CO2 reductions in all estimations and consistently applying standard financial metrics that more accurately represent and compare costs. Investors and policy makers interested in climate, energy, and decarbonization must balance many competing options. The scenarios and analyses presented in this report can provide a foundation for wider analytical applications, and can help focus investments in innovation for hard-to-abate sectors, determine essential infrastructure required to facilitate market uptake, and estimate the value of grants in deployment. If the LCCA is not estimated, decision makers will not know the value of their policies and investments in terms of achieving greenhouse gas reductions and their carbon goals or the opportunity costs of taking one path over another. Finally, although carbon abatement costs are only one consideration of many in crafting climate policy (e.g., jobs, trade, domestic security), LCCA analysis will deploy efficient and effective approaches of GHG reduction and help avoid waste. This paper uses four scenarios to illustrate the discipline and value of LCCA analysis: first, the $/ton cost of using new solar power (utility or rooftop) to displace power-sector emissions in one market (California); second, the $/ton costs of new rooftop solar generation in several states with different solar resources, grid mixes, and policy environments; third, the $/ton cost of various technology options to decarbonize a range of primary iron and steel production methods; and fourth, the $/ton cost associated with sustainable aviation fuels and direct air capture and storage of CO2. The analysis provides insight into (a) the highest value for carbon reduction, (b) the relative discrete costs and benefits for decarbonization options, and (c) the potential shortfalls in policy or portfolio goals. In this context, the LCCA estimates for even simple cases can prove complicated depending on how emissions reductions are achieved. For example, our first scenario finds the costs of reducing emissions by replacing existing power generation in California with solar PV range from $60/ton (utility solar PV displacing natural gas power generation) to $300/ton (rooftop solar replacing a grid-average mix of generation) to more than $10,000/ton (any solar replacement of nuclear or hydropower). These large ranges are contingent on policy, investment, and/or technical decisions.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Green Technology, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

50. Engaging State-Owned Enterprises in Climate Action: Workshop Report

Author:
Philippe Benoit and Alex Clark
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On February 27, 2020, the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) convened a workshop at the university’s Faculty House in New York City. The workshop brought together a combination of practitioners, researchers, executives, and public sector officials to discuss the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in realizing collective climate action goals. Under the Chatham House Rule, the discussion focused around sectors (power generation, oil and gas) and relationships (government-SOE relations, and the role of public financial institutions), before concluding with a roundtable discussion drawing together the day’s proceedings and outlining the next steps. The following is a summary of that workshop.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus