Search

Begin New Search Topic Regulation Political Geography United States of America

1. Improving the Efficiency of NRC Power Reactor Licensing: Environmental Reviews

Author:
Matt Bowen and Rama T. Ponangi
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Achieving net-zero emissions in the United States by mid-century requires the rapid buildout of low-carbon energy infrastructure. One challenge to this rapid buildout is the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are part of federal approval processes for new energy projects. This process has increasingly caused significant delays and added costs, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 was passed by Congress in part to address these issues through amendments to NEPA that impose timelines on environmental reviews. For nuclear power, a low-carbon energy source that has a role in many US net-zero scenarios, environmental reviews are conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of its reactor licensing process. Because this process has at times been lengthy and costly, Congress passed the 2024 ADVANCE Act in part to require the NRC to implement its responsibilities under NEPA more efficiently. During the 2000s and 2010s, most of the environmental impact statements (EISs) these reviews produced would not have complied with NEPA’s new FRA timeline (two years or fewer) and page limit (150, or in extraordinary cases 300). More recent NRC environmental reviews for test reactor deployments have been somewhat quicker and had shorter review documents, perhaps a recognition by the agency that the efficiency of this process needed improvement. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear licensing reform at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, focuses on how the NRC can fulfill the new legal mandates on time and page limits for environmental reviews and in general improve the efficiency of these reviews. The report demonstrates that earlier (1970s–80s) environmental reviews for nuclear power reactors licensed under the 10 CFR 50 licensing pathway took less time and generated shorter review documents than those conducted under 10 CFR 52 during the 2000s and 2010s. The latter reviews—all of which were for large light water reactor projects—also utilized substantial NRC resources, thereby incurring significant costs to the applicants. None of these reviews found that the reactor projects were expected to create what the NRC calls “large adverse” environmental impacts, which could destabilize environmental resources. Although some “moderate adverse” impacts were identified, they typically came from unavoidable elements such as new transmission lines and traffic that would result from any large construction project. And beneficial impacts always came in the form of jobs and taxes. At the very least, these findings raise questions about the allocation of time and resources to various aspects of the NRC’s environmental review.
Topic:
Environment, Regulation, Carbon Emissions, Nuclear Energy, and Permitting
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Impacts of the Artificial Intelligence on International Relations: Towards a Global Algorithms Governance

Author:
Vicente Garrido Rebolledo
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
This article examines the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international relations (IR) and global governance. It begins by presenting a conceptual framework that situates AI within the theoretical and practical dimensions of IR, and explores how AI influences global power dynamics, alters state behaviour, and reshapes institutional frameworks. The study highlights the ethical and regulatory challenges of AI governance, focusing first on the efforts of the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU). Later, the article discusses the "AI technology race" between the United States and China and their regulations. Finally, the article highlights the need for ethical and responsible AI development to foster global cooperation and address the challenges and opportunities that this technology presents in contemporary international relations.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, United Nations, Governance, European Union, Regulation, Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Council of Europe
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

3. Protecting Freedom of Thought: Mitigating Technological Enablers of Disinformation

Author:
Alexa Raad
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
It has been said that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. Social media and internet ad-supported business models that capitalize on capturing attention have introduced powerful technological enablers that are supercharging the targeting, dissemination and amplification of false information online. Influence operations have been quick to use these tools to manipulate and compromise freedom of thought. Assuming these ad-based business models are here to stay, at least for now, steps must be taken to address the problematic elements that influence operators are leveraging. Remediation efforts must both prevent amplification of harmful content, and increase the risk, cost and complexity to the influence operator. Alexa Raad describes frameworks that can be used to analyze the stages, tactics, techniques and procedures used in influence operations, and outlines the need in the United States for regulation in four areas — actions which, alongside effective public-private collaboration and increased media literacy, would help to “mitigate the pollution of our information ecosystem and protect our freedom of thought.”
Topic:
Security, Governance, Regulation, Internet, Disinformation, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Time to Rethink Export Controls for Strengthened US-EU Cooperation and Global Trade Rules

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The escalation of broad export controls by the US, under the guise of national security and the aim to curb technological transfers to potential adversaries,[1] marks a new epoch of bureaucratic oversight. The US push for broad export controls also underscores a critical juncture in US-EU relations and global trade rules. Broad export restrictions not only challenge the very foundation of free trade but also contribute to the erosion of Western technology leadership.[2] Unilateral export controls may start strong but eventually lose effectiveness and become counterproductive,[3] pushing non-US companies, particularly in the semiconductor sector, to find alternatives to US components.
Topic:
International Cooperation, European Union, Regulation, Exports, Trade, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

5. The Sky Is Not the Limit. Geopolitics and Economics of the New Space Race

Author:
Alessandro Gili
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Space is a contested domain for its very nature and today it is evidently becoming an increasingly important enabler of economic and military power. An increasing number of actors, infrastructures and technologies deployed in space also raises concerns for safety and security, especially in cyberspace. Many countries are striving to achieve space capabilities and autonomous access to space, and this is having a tremendous geopolitical impact, especially since space is emerging as an increasingly critical military and strategic domain. The development of the new space economy, which is increasingly involving the private sector and many industrial actors and services, will also be a game changer for the international economy. The space race likewise implies disruptive technologies that could contribute massively to the energy and digital transitions, accelerating solutions that could benefit humanity. A new international governance system for space is therefore needed urgently, considering that the current rules are no longer able to respond to a sector evolving at such a rapid pace. Which actors are leading the race? Which economic sectors could benefit the most and what could the new space economy mean for the world? How is space emerging as a military domain against a backdrop of increasing international tensions? What would a new system of global governance for space look like?
Topic:
Economics, Politics, Infrastructure, Geopolitics, Regulation, and Energy Security
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, India, Italy, Global Focus, United States of America, and Space

6. Extreme Heat Is More Dangerous for Workers Every Year

Author:
Jill Rosenthal, Rosa Barrientos-Ferrer, and Kate Petosa
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Federal and state governments should step up efforts—including adopting heat standards—to address increased on-the-job heat-related injury, illness, and death.
Topic:
Climate Change, Health, Labor Issues, Regulation, and Heat Waves
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

7. Revisiting GTCC and GTCC-Like Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States

Author:
Matt Bowen, Maya Lameche, and Marine Gapihan
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
While the United States (US) has facilities that can and do dispose of most low-level nuclear waste (LLW), it does not yet have a viable disposal pathway for two categories of waste: so-called greater-than-class-c (GTCC) nuclear waste, and nuclear waste with characteristics similar to it, or “GTCC-like.” These two categories essentially straddle the United States’ LLW inventory, for which disposal facilities are in operation, and high-level nuclear waste (HLW) inventory, for which no disposal capability exists. GTCC nuclear waste is produced by multiple sources: commercial nuclear power plants, medical procedures, industrial and research activities, and Department of Energy (DOE) missions, including those related to national security and the cleanup of legacy facilities. These activities carry with them an ethical responsibility to dispose of the nuclear waste they generate rather than pass it on to the next generation. Security task forces have also identified the lack of a disposal pathway for sealed sources of GTCC nuclear waste as a concern, given the potential for its theft and use in a dispersal device. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear waste policy at the Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University SIPA, explores the history of DOE, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and state efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC and GTCC-like inventories. It explains why this gap merits greater attention from policymakers now and identifies measures Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take, should they decide to address it. US government efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC waste date back to 1985 when Congress made it a federal responsibility. For a time, disposal in the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was contemplated. But in the absence of appropriations to move that project forward since 2010, the federal government recently issued planning documents that identify generic commercial LLW disposal facilities and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) deep geologic repository in New Mexico as preferred alternatives. Of the commercial LLW disposal facilities in operation, only the WCS facility in Texas has expressed interest in the GTCC disposal mission. The political climate for GTCC disposal in both New Mexico and Texas has darkened in recent years, though, casting doubt on the federal government’s plans. If the US government decides to prioritize the goal of establishing disposal capability for GTCC and GTCC-like nuclear waste, Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take the following steps to help realize it in the near term.
Topic:
Regulation, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Self‐​Service Bans and Gasoline Prices: The Effect of Allowing Consumers to Pump Their Own Gas

Author:
Vitor Melo
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Billions of people live in countries that ban self‐​service fueling at gasoline stations, including some of the world’s largest countries by population, including China, India, and Brazil, among many others. The impact of these bans is largely understudied despite their prevalence presumably because this policy is often implemented at the national level and because there have been no policy changes in these countries that allow for an assessment of these bans on gasoline prices.
Topic:
Gas, Regulation, Economy, and Consumer Behavior
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

9. Digital Sovereignty: European Policies, American Dilemmas

Author:
Mathilde Velliet
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
European digital sovereignty has been made a priority by Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission. Due to the privileged position of American companies in the European market, Brussels’ efforts towards digital sovereignty (on privacy, antitrust, data sovereignty, etc.) are closely scrutinized by American policymakers. They often view European initiatives as “protectionist” and unfairly targeting U.S. companies. However, the American vision of European digital sovereignty has evolved in recent years under the influence of two main factors. On the one hand, awareness of the problematic effects and practices of platforms has led to a consensus on the need for reform in the digital sector. On the other hand, technological competition with China has been elevated to a priority. This vision remains fraught with contradictions, along inter-party, intra-party, inter-agency, state-federal, and issue-based fault lines. Washington’s position on anti-monopolistic practices is an illuminating example, characterized by a double discourse between a desire to reform the U.S. digital sector domestically and active diplomacy to dilute these efforts at the European level. Nonetheless, several American actors – particularly in the legislative branch – are seeking to learn from the successes and flaws of European regulations for American reform projects, such as on platform regulation or privacy. The China factor reinforces the ambiguity of the U.S.’ position. It creates new opportunities for cooperation in the face of perceived common vulnerabilities (infrastructure security, inbound investments, etc.) and autocratic definitions of digital sovereignty. However, it also raises tension and misunderstanding on the American side towards European reforms that often target American companies more than Chinese ones. Lastly, while American and European companies have adapted to the need for digital sovereignty through a range of technical and commercial solutions, the temptation of a maximalist definition of European sovereignty continues to create major stumbling blocks, particularly on the cloud.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, Cloud Computing, Digital Sovereignty, and Data Governance
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. Authoritarian kleptocrats are thriving on the West’s failures. Can they be stopped?

Author:
Francis Shin and Ben Judah
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
A hidden web of power revealed itself to Internet users in early 2022. Following a brutal government crackdown in Kazakhstan in January, anyone using open-source flight-tracking websites could watch kleptocratic elites flee the country on private jets. A little more than a month later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought a new spectacle: social media users were able to track various oligarchs’ superyachts as they jumped from port to port to evade Western sanctions. These feeds captured a national security problem in near real time: In Eurasia and beyond, kleptocratic elites with deep ties to the West were able to move themselves and their assets freely despite a host of speeches by senior officials, sanctions, and structures designed to stop them. Kleptocratic regimes—kleptocracy means “rule by thieves”—have exploited the lax and uneven regulatory environments of the global financial system to hide their ill-gotten gains and interfere in politics abroad, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. They are aided in this task by a large cast of professional enablers within these jurisdictions. The stronger these forces get, the more they erode the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, the international sanctions regime imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine has little hope of long-term success if the global financial system itself continues to weaken. The West still has a long way to go to rein in the authoritarian kleptocrats who have thrived on the institutional dysfunction, regulatory failure, and bureaucratic weakness of the transatlantic community for far too long. We need to rethink not just how we combat kleptocracy, but also how we define it. Policy makers need to understand that authoritarian regimes that threaten transatlantic security are closely linked to illicit financial systems. As it stands, our thinking about how foreign corruption spreads is too constrained by stereotypes about kleptocratic goals and actions.
Topic:
Corruption, Diplomacy, Intelligence, Politics, Sanctions, Authoritarianism, Reform, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Rule of Law, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, United Kingdom, Europe, Ukraine, Canada, and United States of America