Search

Begin New Search Topic Decarbonization Political Geography United States of America

1. US-Southeast Asia Relations: External Order, Inner Turmoil

Author:
Catharin Dalpino
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Comparative Connections
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
In November three ASEAN states—Cambodia, Indonesia, and Thailand—drew favorable marks for their chairmanship of high-profile regional and global meetings: the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Leaders Meeting; the G20 Summit; and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, respectively. Helming these meetings was particularly challenging for Southeast Asian leaders—who are naturally inclined to avoid strong alignments with external powers—in the current global environment of heightened tensions between the United States and China in the Taiwan Strait and the war in Ukraine. However, the year was a difficult period for ASEAN internally, with uneven economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the intractable conflict in Myanmar. The last quarter of 2022 saw two political shifts in the region: in general elections in Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim achieved a longstanding ambition to become prime minister but will have to manage a difficult coalition to retain power. At the year’s end, Laos changed prime ministers, but it is not clear if the transition will solve the country’s debt problems, which were revealed to be more dire than estimated.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Diplomacy, Alliance, ASEAN, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Southeast Asia and United States of America

2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has cemented the European Union's commitment to carbon pricing

Author:
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The European Union managed to overcome Russian energy blackmail in 2022 and used the political motivation from this national security crisis to accelerate its decarbonization process. The planned dramatic increase in the scope of carbon pricing in the European Union can herald the total decarbonization of sectors covered in the EU Emissions Trading System and expand into important new ones. The interplay between the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and the US Inflation Reduction Act may cause transatlantic trade friction. But these two approaches could also offer a path to greater cooperation. Kirkegaard outlines proposals for how both the European Union and the United States can implement additional policies to secure their comprehensive decarbonization.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, European Union, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

3. Technological and policy pathways to accelerate US industrial decarbonization

Author:
Joseph Webster
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Industrial decarbonization in the United States will be an important element in lowering global emissions. US industry released 1.4 gigatons of carbon in 2021, about 28 percent of all US emissions. Lowering these greenhouse gas contributions and modeling effective strategies to achieve reductions will go a long way toward not only lowering the US carbon footprint, but also leading global decarbonization efforts. To accelerate US industrial decarbonization, policymakers should start with the lowest hanging fruit, such as electrification or cleaning hydrogen for existing use cases, and then expand to more difficult areas. Greening the electricity sector would sharply curtail emissions from electricity-intensive industries, while switching to clean hydrogen in refineries will likely accelerate hydrogen’s relevance for other promising but unproven use cases, such as in steelmaking. By targeting “easier” challenges, policymakers can achieve decarbonization gains as quickly as possible. The most effective paths to accelerate industrial decarbonization will require permitting reform and pursuing a comprehensive understanding of clean energy deployment, including in transmission. While the United States has enhanced fiscal support for clean energy development, policymakers across the country at all levels of government should reduce permitting review times and ensure that projects are not stuck in regulatory limbo indefinitely. The United States should also research methods of decarbonization, including nuclear energy development, and wires-vs-pipeline transportation costs for green hydrogen. To limit the consequences of climate change, the United States must urgently advance a suite of efforts to guarantee the domestic and international industrial emissions reductions the world needs.
Topic:
Environment, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. The Uncertain Costs of New Nuclear Reactors: What Study Estimates Reveal about the Potential for Nuclear in a Decarbonizing World

Author:
Matt Bowen, Emeka Ochu, and James Glynn
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Models that run decarbonization scenarios to meet mid-century goals for mitigating climate change almost always include a significant role for nuclear energy. The source’s projected level of deployment, however, remains uncertain, largely due to a wide range of estimated costs for new builds. Other factors that make it hard to gauge nuclear’s portion of the future energy mix include whether policies advancing low-carbon technologies will be enacted, the degree of public support for transmission siting and available low-carbon energy sources, whether new reactor technologies and fuels will change the investment equation, and how quickly “competitor” sources such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewables, and storage reduce costs. This report, part of ongoing research into nuclear energy at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, examines the economics of new nuclear facilities for electricity generation—whether building them out makes sense financially as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as power demand grows across the globe. Insights into costs can be gleaned by reviewing the history of construction delays and cost overruns in the United States, international experiences that have fared better and worse, and studies that model a transitioning energy system. Studies reviewed in this report estimate new US reactor costs generally ranging from $3,000/kilowatt (kW) to $6,200/kW based on a variety of reactor designs and cost reduction curves assumed for subsequent years. Internationally, new reactor costs vary significantly by country, depending in part upon factors such as the cost of labor and whether projects involve multiple reactor builds (with attendant efficiencies in manufacturing and construction).
Topic:
Climate Change, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

5. The Challenges of Decarbonizing the U.S. Electric Grid by 2035

Author:
Jonathan M. Moch and Henry Lee
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Biden administration has established a national goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and reaching net-zero economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.1 To realize these goals, the United States must not only transition the production of power, but also build thousands of miles of upgraded or new transmission. The U.S. electric grid consists of 600,000 miles of transmission lines connected to over 1 million megawatts of electricity generation capacity.2 Over 70% of these lines are more than 25 years old, well into their approximately 50-year lifetime.3 Furthermore, to meet President Biden’s 2050 goal, experts claim that over a million miles of new transmission will have to be built over a three-decade time span.4 Most plausible pathways to net-zero emissions call for the electrification of multiple services, such as heating and transportation.5 The resulting increase in electricity demand will require major upgrades to the grid, with some studies suggesting a 60% increase in peak demand by 2050.6 In the United States, the greatest potential wind energy resources are in the Midwest and along the two coasts,7 while the greatest solar energy resources are in the Southwest and in Florida.8 New transmission lines will be needed to carry the electricity from the areas where the renewable resources are most plentiful to distant load centers.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Environment, Natural Resources, Electricity, Decarbonization, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. US-Korea Cooperation on Climate Change

Author:
Troy Stangarone
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Troy Stangarone, Senior Director and Fellow, Korea Economic Institute of America, explains that "the United States and South Korea have taken steps domestically to reduce their emissions, while making climate change an important part of their efforts to expand the US-Korea alliance beyond traditional security and economic issues."
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and United States of America

7. Comparing Government Financing of Reactor Exports: Considerations for US Policy Makers

Author:
Matt Bowen and Alec Apostoaei
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply by 2050 will require financing low-carbon energy projects at a cost of upwards of trillions of dollars. Nuclear energy is one of the few dispatchable low-carbon energy resources, and studies by the International Energy Agency have estimated a possible doubling of nuclear power as part of scenarios for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. Large, capital-intensive projects such as nuclear power plants can be challenging for some countries to finance, however. As a result, countries wishing to build nuclear reactors look for attractive financing from supplier nations in the form of loans and equity. This report, part of wider work on nuclear energy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, compares the financing terms offered between 2000 and 2021 by the world’s major exporters of nuclear power plants: Russia, France, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and the United States. Russia dominated this period, with 11 reactors connected to power grids in six countries, in part due to the attractive state-backed financing offers it made. At the beginning of 2022, Russia had 13 of its reactors under construction in other countries, more than all other countries’ reactor exports combined. The US government has been actively developing advanced reactor technologies, partly with the intention of exporting them to other countries to help them address their energy and environmental goals. However, for numerous reasons, the US government has not financed a new US reactor export in decades, even though the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the new International Development Financing Corporation (DFC) are capable of supporting exports of this scale. Given the recent absence of US financing, this report analyzes the earlier activities of EXIM related to nuclear energy and their relevance for potentially reviving such financing efforts in the near or medium term. A key factor shaping reactor vendor competitions is a nuclear arrangement by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in which France, the ROK, and the United States are members but China and Russia are not. This arrangement places limitations on OECD members regarding key loan terms for their reactor exports, including minimum interest rates and loan repayment terms, that can put them at a disadvantage compared to state-owned vendors from Russia and China. The arrangement does not restrict equity investments in reactor exports, posing an additional disadvantage for private vendors in the United States as they compete with larger, state-owned vendors in France and the ROK. As other countries develop their civil nuclear energy programs or begin new ones, the US government will need to decide whether it will assist in financing US reactor exports. The federal government has a variety of potential rationales for doing so, including creating jobs, assisting other countries in overcoming their energy and environmental challenges, and limiting Chinese and Russian influence. On the other hand, financing from EXIM or the DFC will come with financial risk, as some individual projects may not have successful outcomes.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Electrification on the Path to Net Zero: A Comparison of Studies Examining Opportunities and Barriers in the United States

Author:
Margaret Cook, F. Todd Davidson, and Harrison Fell
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
There is a strong and growing consensus that a simultaneously growing and decarbonizing electricity sector is necessary to meet declining greenhouse gas emissions targets. Rallying cries to “electrify everything” have captured the focus of many headlines and policy forums in recent years. However, there are important questions that remain unanswered about the electrify everything movement, including the technical, social, and political feasibility of the approach, as well as the affordability and equitability of implementation. While reducing emissions is paramount in mitigating the negative impacts of the energy system to the environment and human health, it is also critical that changes to energy infrastructure are both socially and politically acceptable, as well as affordable to help ensure an economically vibrant future. These nuanced dynamics are not easily articulated in public forums regarding the goal to electrify everything. A more detailed assessment of the problem might discover a better path forward. This report, part of the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative and Energy Systems Modeling Analytics program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, in conjunction with IdeaSmiths, examines eight recent major US studies on the topic. Six of the studies focus on strategies and pathways to a net-zero energy system and two assess the value of electrification and expanded transmission networks. This work serves to compare their assumptions and results. The authors’ purpose in analyzing the studies was threefold. First, the report explores the degrees of electrification in the United States that might be needed to achieve net-zero pathways as well as where and how electrification could occur under model assumptions. Second, it examines the relative roles of variable generation resources (e.g., wind and solar), energy storage (both short- and long-duration), and firm low-carbon power (e.g., natural gas with carbon capture, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal) in the energy transition to meet increasing levels of clean electricity demand. Finally, the report examines the barriers that could hinder both increased electrification and decarbonization of the pivotal power sector. By examining and comparing the studies and scenarios within them, the authors were able to identify shared themes resulting in robust insights that can be useful in informing policy makers and guiding other decision-making processes. Broad recommendations across studies include: (1) decarbonizing electricity; (2) electrifying end uses; (3) lowering energy demand; and (4) increasing transmission, distribution, and energy storage infrastructure. Seven major barriers to expanding electrification include challenges around: (1) the pace of transition, (2) technology advancement, (3) infrastructure siting, (4) equipment cost, (5) supply chains, (6) human capital/jobs, and (7) public support. To attain the various decarbonization goals analyzed in these studies, federal, state, and/or local regulators would need to implement an array of policies to accelerate the pace at which clean energy technologies are deployed. While the studies generally do not compare specific policies but rather the least-cost path(s) to achieving certain decarbonization targets, none of their reference scenarios indicate the energy sector will decarbonize fast enough to meet emissions targets without additional policies.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Electricity, Decarbonization, and Net Zero
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Advancing Corporate Procurement of Zero-Carbon Electricity in the United States: Moving from RE100 to ZC100

Author:
Melissa Lott and Bruce Phillips
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Corporate pledges to purchase renewable electricity have led to significant new solar and wind capacity investments and driven down the carbon intensity of the power sector in the United States. Participating companies have increasingly procured this power, many with a goal of procuring quantities that are equal or proportional to the amount of electricity that they consume at their facilities on an annual basis.[1] Corporate buyers can reap many benefits from renewables procurement, including hedging against power price fluctuations and enjoying positive brand association, helping them meet shareholder demands around climate or other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. However, the reality is that commitments to buy 100 percent renewable electricity may not equate to a company actually reducing its power carbon footprint to zero. This report from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy quantifies the mismatch between companies’ contracted variable renewable electricity (VRE) and their actual use of electricity to highlight the degree to which these companies still rely on a partially fossil-fueled power grid to bridge the gap. A modeling exercise and analysis done in collaboration with The NorthBridge Group reveals a significant shortfall between electricity demand and VRE supply, leaving companies that contract for 100 percent renewables to in fact draw between 20 percent and 50 percent[2] of their annual electricity from the regional electric grid, depending on their location, demand profile, and mix of contracted renewable supplies. This disparity presents a number of challenges to corporations that wish to achieve deep decarbonization and are unable to curtail operations to match renewable energy supplies. There are several approaches to get closer to a true zero-carbon power footprint. Installing storage capacity either on-site or at the power plant to provide stored electricity when renewables are not sufficient, such as with a battery,[3] is one option. However, this only reduces the minimum shortfall by half, requiring a customer to continue to rely on electricity from the regional electric grid for 10 percent to 28 percent of its annual load.[4] Resolving the shortfall by procuring extra renewable power (e.g., to 150 percent of annual electricity demand with renewables) can drive costs up substantially without closing the gap.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Green Technology, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. U.S. and China Climate Goals: Scenarios for 2030 and Mid-Century

Author:
Asia Society Policy Institute and Climate Analytics
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
In September 2020, President Xi Jinping announced new goals for China to reach carbon neutrality before 2060, as well as to strengthen its existing 2030 commitments under the Paris Agreement. With these announcements, China has signaled a move to join the European Union—as well as the United States under a Biden administration—in leading long-term climate action among the big emitters. Our analysis demonstrates that if China’s new long-term goal covers all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and not just carbon dioxide (CO₂), this could bring the country within reach of the emissions reductions required by mid-century for its actions to be in line with the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 1.5°C. However, if President Xi’s announcement is only meant to cover CO₂, then China would need to achieve carbon neutrality around 2050 for this to be compatible with the Paris Agreement.1 Either way, China’s short-term actions will also need to be quickly brought into line with its new long-term trajectory. This includes doing more than simply peaking CO₂ emissions before 2030 as President Xi foreshadowed. Instead, our analysis demonstrates that China would need to peak its emissions by 2025 and rapidly reduce these thereafter to be compatible with the Paris Agreement. This also implies a need for significant adjustments to the other quantifiable targets identified in China’s existing Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement and the ramping up of action to achieve these. Reducing coal-fired power generation quickly and phasing it out entirely by 2040 would be an important step toward achieving this early peak and rapid reductions. Under the Trump administration, the United States has reneged on past climate action promises and rolled back existing policies resulting in an increase in emissions compared with the Obama administration. As a result, this report highlights that even under a Biden administration, the United States is likely to miss its previous 2025 target under the Paris Agreement. However, a Biden administration means that the United States now has the potential to reverse the Trump administration’s rollbacks and make a significant contribution to closing the Paris Agreement’s ambition gap in a new 2030 NDC. Indeed, by taking the initiative to reboot U.S. action in line with the Energy and Climate Package touted by President-elect Biden during his campaign, including its goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, U.S. emissions could be reduced substantially by 2030.2 For example, our analysis indicates that if the Biden campaign’s policies were to be fully implemented with the support of Congress (see below), and continue to be supported by strong subnational action, they could bridge more than half of the U.S. share of the global ambition gap by 2030 through reducing emissions by up to 38%–54% below 2005 levels (GHGs, including land use, land-use change and forestry)3. This would also reduce estimates for average global temperature increases in 2100 by 0.1°C, on top of the 0.2°C–0.3°C reduction achieved by China’s recent announcement. As this report shows, President-elect Biden’s plan to decarbonize the U.S. electricity system by 2035 would represent by far the biggest contribution to this effort and is in line with the Paris Agreement temperature goal. It would result in savings of ~1,350 MtCO₂ out of a total abatement potential of ~1,810 MtCO₂e [1,630–2,100] in 2030 across his Energy and Climate Package. However, this report also estimates that potentially only half of this potential could still be achieved through Executive Authority in the event of Congress not supporting action, although this estimate carries a large degree of uncertainty. We also outline how additional emissions reductions could come from action in other areas, including freight transport and industry—with the electrification of end-use sectors and green hydrogen important opportunities to achieve this. If the United States and China fully implement these ambitious goals and are able to achieve net-zero GHG emissions around mid-century, it would be a monumental step forward toward bringing the Paris Agreement goals within reach. It would also mean that for the first time more than 60% of the world’s emissions are in countries with a clear pathway to decarbonize their economies. However, achieving the goals will require bold action in all sectors of the economy, with an early coal phaseout being paramount for both countries.
Topic:
Climate Change, Carbon Emissions, Paris Agreement, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America