Vision for Energy Transition

In our podcast series, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” I’ve had the pleasure of engaging in conversations over the past three years with a number of truly outstanding economists who have carried out important work in the realm of environment, energy, and resource economics, and also served in important government positions, and my most recent podcast episode is no exception, because I’m joined by James Stock, the Harold Hitchings Burbank Professor of Political Economy at Harvard, where he is also Harvard’s inaugural Vice Provost for Climate and Sustainability, and the Director of the new Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainabilty.  Also, Jim served as a Member of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, where he focused on macroeconomics and energy & environmental policy.

In the podcast, we discuss the arc of Jim’s economic research, including on energy and climate change, his government service, his thoughts on the current state of climate change policy, as well as new his new role directing the Salata Institute at Harvard.  You’ll find this and much more in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to our complete conversation here.

It is striking that when talking about recent developments in U.S. climate policy, particularly over the past year, Jim Stock is really quite positive.

“The nation has made huge progress over [the course of] 2022 with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act,” he said. “This is a huge piece of legislation. It’s really going to set the stage for driving substantial emission reductions, especially in the power sector. So that’s fantastic, [and] we all have to applaud that passage.”

Jim also commends the U.S. Congress for its bipartisan infrastructure bill which includes – among many other things – some $5 billion over five years to help states create a network of electric vehicle charging stations.  But even with such significant pieces of legislation, Stock acknowledges that the most optimistic projection for emission reductions in 2040 relative to 2005 is only about 40 percent.

“So, it’s not even a glass half-full situation,” Stock remarks. “We’ve done this huge amount of work and we’ve passed this really important legislation, but we’re only at 40 percent reduction. There is so much more work that needs to be done, and I think a big part of that work is actually figuring out what the right agenda is.”

Part of the agenda, Stock says, is determining what actions need to be taken at all levels of government and business to achieve meaningful progress. But the potential for significant progress is possible, he argues, because of the tremendous technological advancements in recent years.   Interestingly, Jim Stock thus explains the reliance in the Inflation Reduction Act on “carrots” (subsidies), as opposed to “sticks,” not just on the basis of political feasibility, but also on the reality of technological change.

“If you think back to 2005 … there really weren’t good alternatives to coal and natural gas in the power sector, and electric vehicles were ridiculously expensive, and we just didn’t have the technology.  Today everything is totally different, where we are looking at technologies, whether they’re light duty vehicles or solar or wind, and now increasingly batteries, even grid storage batteries, are really becoming at a much better cost point and are actually beating out their fossil fuel alternatives. So now the question is, what can we do to spur that?  At this point, subsidies can be very effective.”

I also ask Jim about his recent appointment as director of the Salata Institute, and he responds by noting that it reflects Harvard’s commitment to pursue pragmatic solutions to the climate problem and communicate them to policymakers and the general public.

“The mission of the Institute is to harness the strengths and abilities and powers of Harvard University and its scholars and students to press forward viable solutions and practical solutions in an impactful way in the real world,” he says, emphasizing that the challenge reaches across multiple disciplines. “It spans economics. It spans the sciences. It spans health and spans business, and so you need to have expertise drawing from across the different parts of the university and different fields to really be able to make progress.”

For this and much, much more, I encourage you to listen to this 45th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

An Experienced Economist Reflects on Government Service, Carbon Pricing, and Climate Policy

Having served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate & Energy Economics in the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2021-2022, Catherine Wolfram has some particularly relevant insights to offer on the development and implementation of climate change policy in the most recent episode of my monthly podcast.  Wolfram is the Cora Jane Flood Professor of Business Administration at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, currently on leave at the Harvard Kennedy School.  In the podcast, we discuss her time in government service and her thoughts and hopes for a carbon pricing scheme.  You’ll find this and much more in the newest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to our complete conversation here.

In this new podcast episode, Catherine Wolfram, who earned her PhD in Economics from MIT, begins by reflecting on her service in the Biden Administration, and she does so in very positive terms, saying that it was an “honor and thrill of a lifetime.”

“I would say the high point was definitely the work on the price cap on Russian oil. That was the main thing that I spent time on in the last 10 months of my time at Treasury, and was absolutely fascinating from so many different perspectives,” she says. “I learned a lot about foreign diplomacy, or I should say that I observed foreign diplomacy in action.”

During her time at the Treasury Department, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, important legislation that authorizes $391 billion in spending on energy and climate change initiatives, making it the most important climate legislation ever enacted in the United States.

“A lot of the Inflation Reduction Act is being implemented through tax credits, and that’s Treasury’s purview, so [although] it was not my office within Treasury (it was another office, the Office of Tax Policy), I … [attended] many meetings about what started out as the Build Back Better Act and became the Inflation Reduction Act. So, that was really fun to see, and is certainly a momentous piece of legislation,” she remarks.

Despite the reliance on subsidies (tax credits) in the Inflation Reduction Act, Catherine says that she remains optimistic about the potential role of carbon pricing in climate change policy.

“I would not call carbon pricing dead,” she argues. “I could see it coming back in some form, maybe not the economy-wide carbon price that textbooks favor, but maybe something that starts, for instance, with the industrial sector … on a more limited scale.”

More broadly, Wolfram expresses optimism that the international community will figure out creative ways to adopt climate policies that will make a positive difference.

“I think if the G7 countries can get together and figure out how to put a price cap on Russian oil, [then] hopefully the G7 countries can get together and figure out good ways to use their presence in the international trade community to address climate change.”

However, Catherine also expresses concern about the possibility that an overreliance on tax credits and government subsidies in the design of climate policy could set back efforts to impose effective carbon pricing.  

“I worry that there’s a future that evolves where the European Union gets pressure from its industry, and loses enthusiasm for its carbon price, and so the competitive pressures from industry that are seeing these subsidies over in the U.S., and thinking of moving to the U.S., that causes the EU to backtrack on climate policy, just because we have these different approaches to reducing emissions.”

For this and much, much more, I encourage you to listen to this 44th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

A Long-Time Participant and Observer Places the Climate Talks in Historical Perspective

With the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) having concluded less than two months ago in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, this is a good time to step back, and reflect on the history and evolution of these annual international negotiations, which began with COP1 in Berlin in March of 1995, following on the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  To do this, there’s no one I know who is better positioned to provide such perspective than Daniel Bodansky, the Regents’ Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. This is included in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to the complete interview and conversation here.

Bodansky, who served as Climate Change Coordinator for the U.S. State Department during the Clinton Administration, is the author of the 2010 book, Art & Craft of International Environmental Law.  Note that a second edition of the book will be published later this year by Oxford University Press. 

Dan says that the 2015 Paris Agreement was a promising step forward, but domestic political concerns have subsequently hindered international efforts to achieve meaningful action on climate policy.

“There’s … been an inability to really come up with a structure that everybody is on board with sufficiently, [so] that we can move from negotiations to an implementation phase. And I think that’s because the climate change issue is just a much, much bigger issue [than other environmental problems] in terms of its implications for a country’s economy, for the entire way it’s organized domestically, because virtually everything contributes to climate change. Virtually everything is affected by climate change. So, it has just a much, much, much bigger impact on a country’s domestic policies.”

Bodansky remarks that he considers himself “realistic” when contemplating the future of climate policy.

“I think that there has been progress, but it’s not nearly enough. I guess I’m doubtful that the Paris Agreement will be able to deliver on its expectation or hope of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees,” he says. “That’s why I’m actually quite interested in some of the other kinds of policies that might be able to be used to address climate change, including things like carbon dioxide removal, trying to reflect sunlight from the earth, because I think we may ultimately need them to avert catastrophic climate change. I hope that the Paris Agreement is enough, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it. So, I think we also need to be thinking about if it’s not enough, what are the other options that we could potentially try to use?”

Dan notes that climate clubs, in which countries voluntarily cooperate to combat the problem of “free riders,” could be an additional tool to slow the spread of global warming, but they too have their limits.

“I think if countries want to go further than other countries, then carbon border adjustments can be important in trying to protect their position to prevent carbon leakage to countries with weaker standards. But I think ultimately the carbon clubs aren’t going to be enough, because the biggest emitter right now is China,” he says, intimating that the world’s most populous country isn’t likely to participate.  

Daniel Bodansky, Coral Davenport, Zou Ji, and Robert Stavins participate in a Harvard University Forum Event in November 2015 focusing on that year’s Conference of the Parties in Paris.

Bodansky expresses optimism, however, that the youth climate movements taking place in many parts of the world will help keep the pressure on policymakers to take action.

“One of the functions of the climate conferences like the one that wrapped up in Sharm El-Sheikh in November is to focus attention on the issue, and put pressure on countries and leaders to do more to deal with the question. And so, I think the youth movement is an important part of that equation of trying to motivate countries to do more both at the international level and … also within the domestic political scene,” he says.

I encourage you to listen to this 43rd episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share