Search

Begin New Search Topic Environment Political Geography North America Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Security at Sea: A Turning Point in Maritime

Author:
Scott Tait
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been the pre-eminent naval power and ultimate guarantor of global maritime security. It has also been one of the primary beneficiaries of the global maritime economic system, which in turn resourced its naval strength and increased the incentive to use that strength to protect the freedom of the seas. But a number of global changes, all likely beyond the United States’ control, are driving new dynamics in both security and economics in the maritime domain. These challenges include the return of great power competition at sea, the maritime consequences of climate change, increased pollution, the rapid rise of illicit trade and resource exploitation, and the erosion of maritime governance. These challenges are dynamic and inter-related—a change in one will often drive second and third order changes in the others. The United States has proven historically to be resilient and adaptive in the face of great challenges, and the maritime community has traditionally been a leader in innovation, collaboration, and positive-sum solutions. To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, the United States should double down on those strengths, and work with allies to maintain and strengthen the rules-based international maritime system. Moreover, the United States should be a leader in envisioning changes to that system that will ensure it equitably meets the needs of all, accounts for the changes being driven by climate change and pollution, and anticipates a near-term future where autonomous systems will play a major role in the ecosystem.
Topic:
Security, Environment, Science and Technology, United Nations, and Maritime
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. The Science of Rapid Climate Change in Alaska and the Arctic: Sea Ice, Land Ice, and Sea Level

Author:
John P. Holdren
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Earth’s surface north of the Arctic Circle, which includes nearly a third of Alaska, is warming 3-4 times faster than the global average.1 Alaska as a whole is warming twice as fast as the lower 48 states.2 As is true for most of the manifestations of anthropogenic climate change, moreover, the extremes of temperature are growing faster than the averages: the highest-ever temperature north of the Arctic Circle—100.4°F—was recorded in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, in June 2020;3 Anchorage reached an all-time high of 90°F on July 4, 2019;4 and Utqiavgik, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, reached an all-time winter high of 40°F in December 2022.5 The reasons warming is so fast in the Far North are quite well understood scientifically. The most important factor is the ice-snow-albedo feedback, in which warming reduces the area of land and water covered by ice and snow, which means less reflectivity and more absorption of incident solar energy at the surface, hence further warming.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Sea Ice
Political Geography:
North America, Alaska, Arctic, and United States of America

3. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: Technologies and Costs in the U.S. Context

Author:
Jonathan M. Moch, William Xue, and John P. Holdren
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Biden administration has set a goal of reaching net zero economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.1 Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)—a suite of current and emerging technologies that remove carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from energy or industrial processes and then either sequester the carbon underground or use it for production of a variety of fuels or products2—is very likely to be a key technology on most of the plausible paths for reaching this goal. Among various applications of the technology, CCUS in combination with natural gas powerplants can be used to provide firm baseload electricity or could serve as backup for intermittent renewable power in place of multi-day electricity storage.3 Additionally, CCUS could be used to decarbonize hard-to-electrify industrial processes4 and to provide synthetic fuels for decarbonizing nonelectric energy uses.5 The key barrier to CCUS filling these various roles and living up to its technical potential is high costs relative to current incentives: despite current U.S. government support through tax policy, CCUS is not economically competitive today in most of its applications. Unless and until it becomes so or is required by law, it will not achieve widespread deployment.
Topic:
Environment, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, Coal, Carbon Emissions, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. 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

5. Engaging Brazil in the era of climate action: Can Europe and the United States devise a new globalisation?

Author:
Lauri Tahtinen
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Increased deforestation in the Amazon is the outcome of Brazil’s long political crisis. What started in 2013 with a bus fare hike has traversed through contestable impeachment and populist uprising into a constitutional stalemate. European institutional investors have been in the vanguard of checking Brasília’s lax approach to deforestation and other environmental challenges. While investors continue to carry a big stick, European and US political leadership should consider what carrots they can offer Brasília. Brussels and Washington have changed course rapidly from an approach that emphasised closer ties with Brasília to one of dissatisfaction and distancing. This is both a cause and an effect of Brazil’s international standing diminishing both in terms of economy and country brand. In recent years, Brazil has simultaneously tried to raze more rainforest and build North Atlantic trading relations; the two cannot be done at the same time. A politics of rapprochement with Brazil requires much closer coordination between Europe and the United States than the parties are accustomed to; a commitment to a climate-sensitive globalisation is necessary from Brasília.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Globalization, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Brazil, South America, and North America

6. Offshore Wind in the Eastern United States

Author:
Katie Segal and Henry Lee
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
In the last decade, many states set ambitious goals to decarbonize their energy portfolios. Seven states along the Atlantic coast are pursuing 100% clean electricity targets, while others have adopted stringent emissions reduction targets.1 Realizing these goals requires scaling wind, solar, and other renewable resource electricity generation at rates three to four times recent levels. If wind is to play a significant role in decarbonizing the electricity sector in the densely populated northeast section of the United States, a substantial proportion of the investment must occur offshore, as onshore wind speeds and available land area are limited. Some states have taken an additional step by establishing specific offshore wind targets. For example, New York's 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act contains a goal of 9,000 MW of offshore wind by 2035.2 This policy brief examines the economic and technical feasibility of substantial wind generation development along the Eastern Seaboard.
Topic:
Environment, Natural Resources, Renewable Energy, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Managing US-China Rivalry in the Arctic: Small states can be players in great power competition

Author:
Luke Patey
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Many fear that strategic competition between the US and China threatens longstanding regional cooperation and stability in the Arctic. But if they recognise their own political and economic significance and work collectively, the Nordic states and Canada can still play an instrumental role in steering the region’s future away from confrontation. Recommendations: Recognise how US–China strategic competition represents a false binary for policy choices in the Arctic. Understand how economic connectivity provides room for manoeuvre against big power pressure. Encourage participation of non-Arctic states with similar economic and political norms on natural resource and infrastructure development.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Environment, Oil, Power Politics, Gas, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, Arctic, and United States of America

8. Does Canada Need a Foreign Policy Review

Author:
Randolph Mank
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
Canada’s contemporary foreign policy has been shaped by deep integration with, and dependence on, the United States, offset by multilateral support for a rules-based international order. The Trump administration’s confrontational nationalism, combined with other global events and trends, has now disrupted Canada’s position and assumptions. This raises the question of whether or not it’s time for a Canadian foreign policy review. While the Trudeau government deserves credit for several initiatives, a series of discontinuities in Canada’s domestic and foreign policies suggests that our interests could be better served. The Canadian government has two main options: it can follow its current path of adjusting its policies in an ad hoc fashion, while waiting out the Trump administration and hoping for more favourable successors, or it can attempt to set Canada on a new path, in which case a foreign policy review would be warranted. The review option would only be useful if everything were on the table, including what to do about bilateral relations with the U.S., the future of our multilateral commitments, and domestic policies on such critical global issues as energy and the environment. The ultimate goal should be to advance Canada’s national interests through better aligned domestic and foreign policies.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Government
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

9. Climate Change, Water Security, and U.S. National Security

Author:
Carolyn Kenney
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The first months of Donald Trump’s presidency have raised serious concerns about the new administration’s understanding of climate change and the associated security risks. President Trump’s vocal skepticism of climate change and his appointment of several prominent climate deniers to his Cabinet, along with deep proposed budget cuts to government activities aimed at slowing or adapting to climate change, could see the new administration do untold damage to the environment, human health and security, economic development, and international peace and stability. The Trump administration’s disengagement comes at a time when severe weather conditions spurred on by climate change are having devastating effects in the United States and around the world. In California, for example, despite a recent respite, the state’s long-running drought cost the state’s agricultural sector an estimated $2.7 billion in 2015 alone, and the state is expected to experience chronic water shortages in the future.1 In southern Africa, for example, millions are at risk of starvation following a two-year drought and above-average temperatures.2 And in Sri Lanka, the worst drought in 40 years has left more than 1 million people affected by acute water shortages.3 These worrying signs early in the Trump administration contrast sharply with the legacy of former President Barack Obama. Before leaving office, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Climate Change and National Security designed to elevate and address the national security implications of climate change. Hailed as an historic step, the memorandum directed federal departments and agencies to “ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies, and plans.”4 Released alongside a National Intelligence Council, or NIC, report, “Implications for US National Security of Anticipated Climate Change,” the memorandum reflected the consensus among U.S. national security experts that climate change is a core national security concern and should be addressed as such.5 Indeed, even some within the Trump administration agree with this consensus: Trump’s Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in his written testimony following his confirmation hearing, noted that climate change poses a serious threat to American interests abroad.6 Both Obama’s presidential memorandum and the NIC report argue that extreme and more frequent weather events, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification—all driven or exacerbated by climate change—will increasingly threaten food and water security, energy and transportation infrastructure, and other crucial systems in the decades to come. These disruptions can seriously stress or overwhelm affected governments’ ability to respond to crises, threatening human security and eroding state legitimacy. Deteriorating conditions or severe crises can undermine economic livelihoods and contribute to decisions to migrate. Taken in the aggregate, these stresses can create political instability and amplify conditions that lead to conflict, especially in already fragile or unstable regions.7 And, as many recent crises have demonstrated, instability and violence in one country often do not remain confined solely within that country’s borders. Both reports therefore conclude that it is in the United States’ national interest to try and address the underlying drivers of crises abroad to prevent future instability and avoid more expensive crisis interventions. While the Trump administration’s approach to the issues outlined in the memorandum and the NIC report are shaping up to be hostile, the fact that such challenges exist is unequivocal.8 The administration would do well to heed the advice of climate and national security experts and ensure that the United States continues to address these issues.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Environment, Water, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. A Proposal for U.S. Leadership on International Climate Finance During the Trump Administration

Author:
Gwynne Taraska
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Finance for low-carbon and climate-resilient international development accounts for only a small fraction of the U.S. federal budget: an estimated 0.04 percent of overall spending per year from 2010 to 2015.1 Nevertheless, it is a key means for the United States to advance the global climate effort. In fact, because of its role in addressing the climate challenge worldwide, U.S. climate aid rivals or exceeds the U.S. emissions reduction target in international importance. Climate finance is also integral to domestic interests given the economic and security effects of climate change. Accordingly, investment in clean energy and disaster preparedness in developing countries has a long history of bipartisan support in the United States. The current administration, however, has proposed dramatically reducing the international climate budget. This is consistent with its general abdication of climate leadership to date. Regardless of whether the administration nominally participates in international climate initiatives and forums, it is likely to continue undermining domestic climate policies and environmental protections.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

11. The Big Melt: Curbing Arctic Climate Change Aligns with U.S. Economic and National Security Goals

Author:
Cathleen Kelly and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The United States has long been a leader in advancing diplomatic cooperation, peace, stability, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic—from the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, to the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996, and the beginning of the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015.1 A new scientific assessment of rapid changes in the Arctic reveals that U.S. economic prosperity and national security may well hinge on continued U.S. leadership and cooperation in the region. The Arctic assessment by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, concludes with even higher confidence than in the past that rapid and persistent Arctic climate change is transforming the region with global economic, security, and environmental repercussions that will be more serious than previously predicted.2 The more than 90 authors of the “Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic,” or SWIPA2, report concluded that Arctic warming will drive global sea levels to rise faster and higher than earlier estimates and that the region will see ice-free summers sooner than expected.3 The AMAP report also concludes that the global costs of Arctic climate change—including damages to infrastructure, homes, communities, and businesses from global sea level rise and more extreme weather—will be astronomical, reaching $7 trillion to $90 trillion between 2010 and 2100.4 Arctic warming will also have significant U.S. national security consequences, including flooding of U.S. coastal communities and military bases; increased instability in vulnerable regions; and strained U.S. humanitarian and disaster response resources.5 So far, the Trump administration’s Arctic policy has ignored these rapidly unfolding threats and focused entirely on easing offshore oil and gas drilling in the region, despite extreme risks. 6 This includes rescinding Obama administration accomplishments such as marine protected areas established to prevent oil spills in areas critical for subsistence hunting and fishing; terminating a new formal consultation mechanism with coastal Alaska Native tribes along the Bering Sea; and ordering Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review several drilling safety standards for potential cancellation.7 Meanwhile, perennially perilous conditions in the Arctic Ocean—including drifting sea ice, hurricane force winds, and extended periods of darkness—and a lack of emergency response infrastructure would mean any oil spill would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to respond to and clean up.8 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has an opportunity to reaffirm the United States’ long-standing commitment to safeguarding the Arctic when he chairs the May 11 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska. This meeting is the 10th gathering of foreign ministers and indigenous leaders from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and the Kingdom of Denmark, via its dominion over Greenland and the Faroe Islands. These countries make up the Arctic Council, the international body designed to address emerging challenges in the region.9 With costly and rapid Arctic climate change already underway, strong diplomatic partnerships are more essential than ever to prepare for warming effects and avert the most costly and dangerous repercussions down the road.10 At the May ministerial—which marks the end of the two-year U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship—Secretary Tillerson is expected to reach a binding agreement with Arctic nations; Arctic Council observer countries; and indigenous leaders to strengthen international science cooperation in order to deepen the world’s understanding of rapid Arctic warming and its consequences.11 Past binding agreements adopted by the council secured commitments to strengthen oil spill response as well as search and rescue in the region.12 The eight countries are also expected to agree to meet a regional target to reduce black carbon pollution—a potent driver of Arctic warming. By locking in these agreements and working with other nations to curb global climate change, Secretary Tillerson can strengthen diplomatic ties with key allies while advancing U.S. economic, security, and environmental interests at home and at the top of the world.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America, Arctic, and United States of America

12. Advancing the U.S. Nonfederal Movement to Support the Paris Agreement

Author:
Gwynne Taraska and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Since the current U.S. administration announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, state, local, and private-sector leaders across the United States have created a landscape of climate initiatives and alliances to demonstrate that the country remains largely committed to the global fight against climate change. To date, the U.S. nonfederal climate movement has focused on pledges to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to support the Paris Agreement. Given that the movement represents a significant percentage of the U.S. economy and population, these pledges have provided international assurance that the second-largest emitter will continue its pivot toward clean energy—even as the White House pursues an anti-climate agenda. (see text box for a taxonomy of the U.S. nonfederal climate movement)
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, International Cooperation, Leadership, Federalism, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. Policy Options for the Softwood Lumber Dispute, Round 5

Author:
Steven Holloway
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for the Study of Security and Development, Dalhousie University
Abstract:
Canadian softwood lumber exports to the US have been a perennial trade irritant since at least the 1980s. But recently a “perfect storm” of factors, including a year of increased exports with the ending of the 2006 SLA (Softwood Lumber Agreement) restrictions in October 2015, the recent fall in the Canadian dollar and the unexpected election of the protectionist Donald Trump, all have conspired to make this fifth round of disputation, front-and-centre to the challenged US-Canada bilateral relationship.
Topic:
Environment, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources, and Trade
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, and United States of America

14. How Carbon Pricing Could Span the United States and North America

Author:
Gwynne Taraska and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
11-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Carbon pricing is flourishing in North America. Canada, for example, has announced a national price to take effect in 2018, while Mexico has announced a 12-month cap-and-trade pilot that will evolve into a national program. These developments join a network of established pricing instruments, including a carbon tax in Mexico and subnational systems in California, the northeast United States, and several Canadian provinces. Once unlikely, it now seems probable that carbon pricing will proliferate not only across Canada and Mexico but also in the United States. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs have found a diverse set of U.S. proponents, including from the private sector and from across the political spectrum, who view carbon pricing instruments as effective and efficient methods of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and the disruptive effects of climate change.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Regional Cooperation, Carbon Emissions, and Price Control
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, Mexico, and United States of America