Search

Begin New Search Topic Public Health Publishing Institution Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Sorry, but the Virus Shows Why There Won’t Be Global Action on Climate Change

Author:
Jason Bordoff
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted daily life, caused widespread sickness and fatalities, and sent the global economy careening toward a depression. Governments have responded by taking unprecedented steps to shut down entire cities, ban travel, and isolate nations—extreme measures that are giving hope to climate activists that similarly ambitious policies might be possible to address global warming, which many consider a similar existential threat. Yet that would be the wrong lesson to draw, as the very same barriers preventing an effective COVID-19 response continue to keep climate change action out of reach. Scientists warn that the impacts of COVID-19 will rise sharply over time, threatening the lives of vast numbers of people, particularly those most vulnerable. They warn that climate change, too, will severely harm many over time, albeit not with the same rapidity. If governments and companies can take extreme actions to cancel sports seasons, shut down workplaces, and restrict movement, surely they can take similarly drastic steps to change how we produce and consume energy?
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Boosting ESG Finance for the Post-Covid-19 World

Author:
Mauricio Cardenas and Juan Jose Guzman
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
he novel coronavirus crisis has increased awareness about the need for sustainable and responsible investment. Once the spread of the virus is effectively contained, through testing and isolation, the world will focus on the recovery phase. But it should not be a return to business as usual. A successful recovery strategy should combine the need to restore income and economic activity while at the same time preventing another catastrophe resulting from the buildup of economic and financial vulnerabilities and policy mistakes (commonly known as white swans). As we enter what could likely be the worst recession since the Great Depression, the level of awareness about the costs of ignoring the physical limits to economic growth will likely increase. This crisis is revealing how unprepared and vulnerable our socio-economic system is to physical shocks. As opposed to financial shocks, like the ones that caused the global financial crisis over a decade ago, physical shocks originate from ecological and social constraints that, when violated, generate an economic collapse. Thanks to advancements in the natural and social sciences, we are now in a better position to understand their underlying causes, and in some cases assess their likelihood. Mitigating this class of tail-risks is not just possible, it has never been more relevant and urgent. One effective way to do that is to allocate capital intelligently. Although insufficient alone, the use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) finance is one way to ensure that the post-Covid-19 period does not breed another such experience. Greater focus on sustainable investing, once some normalcy is restored, can reduce the chances that a new physical shock develops into another global crisis.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The Impact of Covid-19 on Global Supply Chains and Sanctions

Author:
Richard Nephew
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The coronavirus outbreak has once again placed a spotlight on global supply chains, particularly those that are involved in the fabrication of medicines, medical equipment, and vaccines. Right now, much of the discussion around these supply chains is in the arena of high-level politics. Observers and officials of a protectionist bent—such as Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to Donald Trump—have used the occasion to emphasize that “if we learn anything from this crisis, [it is that] never again should we have to depend on the rest of the world for our essential medicines and counter-measures.” Others have argued instead that this is why protectionism is inherently counterproductive and dangerous. Global supply chains are likely to leave the realm of elite debate if and when the effects are felt more directly by consumers and in visible ways, such as the shortage of fresh fruits or vegetables. The result will be political pressure on leaders around the world to reduce national exposure to international trade, perhaps not just in areas associated with coronavirus response and mitigation. Underscoring this point, on 1 May, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order that restricts the procurement of components and equipment for the U.S. “bulk-power system,” arguing that “unrestricted” trade in these goods “augments the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in bulk-power system electric equipment, with potentially catastrophic effects.” Setting aside completely whether investing the effort in deglobalizing supply chains is sound or sensible, moves to do so will have important effects on global economic statecraft. States that presently have an outsized advantage in the use of such tools—the United States in particular—may find that shifts away from global supply chains are damaging to their ability to use economic leverage, especially sanctions. States that are more vulnerable to these tools, on the other hand, may find their exposure to sanctions reduced, alongside lost advantages from international trade and business; in essence, less reliance on international supply chains could do the work of sanctions.
Topic:
Sanctions, Public Health, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impacts on China’s Energy Sector: A Preliminary Analysis

Author:
Kevin Tu
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is inflicting high human costs in China and around the world. The stringent quarantine measures imposed by the Chinese government have severely affected the country’s economic activity, with profound energy and climate implications
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China and Asia

5. Potential Implications of the COVID-19 Crisis on Long-Term Electricity Demand in the United States

Author:
A.J. Goulding, Mugwe Kiragu, and David Nour Berro
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented changes in the ways people interact and approach economic activities. Electricity demand has declined and usage patterns have been altered, changes that could remain even after the pandemic ends. Failure to properly account for these declines in demand could lead to excess capacity in the electric power sector, added costs for consumers, and losses for investors. This paper, from the power sector program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, presents a methodology to quantify potential permanent reductions in demand triggered by the pandemic. The authors first identify how electricity demand changed in the United States following the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, or “Great Recession,” the last event to cause a major reduction in consumption. They then analyze the unique ways in which demand patterns may change over the next three to five years as a result of the coronavirus, followed by some illustrative calculations of the potential impact. Finally, the authors discuss the implications for policy makers with regard to electricity sector evolution. The paper finds that the COVID-19 crisis is likely to result in a long-term decline in annual electricity consumption, though less than that observed after the global financial crisis. It is also likely to accelerate changes in the structure of electricity demand that were already underway.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Electricity, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. Latin America Is Avoiding the Obvious Need for Reform. Why?

Author:
Mauricio Cardenas
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Since nearly the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic and political analysts have seen an urgent need – and opportunity – for Latin America to pursue reform. The argument is simple: The aftershocks of the current crisis will be devastating and long-lasting unless the region takes steps now to strengthen its labor markets and improve fiscal sustainability. That means taking advantage of unusual political circumstances to rally support for difficult decisions that have been put off for far too long. A failure to act would risk turning COVID-19 into the preamble to another lost decade. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that governments in the region are prepared to use crisis in the present to prepare for the future. Throughout Latin America, the general response to COVID-19 has been to confront the challenge with increased spending. This will not have a happy ending. Governments will inherit massive debts, making it hard to deal with social unrest resulting from increased poverty and unemployment. Instead, the region needs to start making adjustments now – not only to spur economic recovery, but also to plant the seeds for a more sustainable performance down the road. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) last week added its voice to the chorus of those urging governments not to delay reform. As the region takes on debt to deal with the crisis, it will need to avoid falling over the fiscal cliff once the pandemic subsides, according to the IMF. That could mean, for example, pre-approving tax increases or the reduction in certain spending to be implemented once economic conditions return to normal. Labor laws could be changed to make it less costly for firms to hire (or hire back) workers, at least for the time being. Indeed, the right mix of reforms would have benefits in the short term as well. Given a better reading of future economic risks, markets and credit agencies would likely give countries increased fiscal space and capacity to deal with COVID-19 right now, when it is most needed. But there is little to suggest an appetite for reform. Few if any governments in the region have seriously pursued policy changes with a view not just of the short-term crisis but also their countries’ long-term health. Seldom has the disconnect between the opportunity for reform and the interest in pursuing it been so great. Instead of simply trumpeting the importance of reform, then, it’s important to also ask why it isn’t happening.
Topic:
Public Health, Sustainability, Pandemic, IMF, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Latin America and North America