NEW trio of briefs are out from @rooseveltinst looking at Planning for the Public Good.
From @SuzMKahn’s foreword: How infrastructure investments are structured is key to whether they promote equity and democracy in our economy and political system. (rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/p…)
First up, @stephsterlingdc and I tackle the planning meta concept, concluding that “The US has an opportunity to distinguish itself from its allies and competitors by implementing industrial policy through more democratic, inclusive, and accountable means” (rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/a…)
Canada is launching consultations on carbon border measures. There are some notable differences from the EU’s approach right out the gate. (canada.ca/en/department-…)
First, it’s more realistic than the EU’s proposed CBAM in at least two ways. First, it openly acknowledges that decarbonization has to be job- and competitiveness-supporting — not destroying — in order to be viable.
Second, it’s appropriately more catholic about the specific means countries take to decarbonization, so long as the ends are achieved. That is much more aligned with the Paris Agreement, WTO interpretations, and how US policymakers are approaching the question.
This quote — from the night Rich Trumka won the @rooseveltinst’s Distinguished Public Service Award — encapsulated his legacy.
Trumka fought for global justice and against apartheid and racism in the labor movement.
A tough negotiator but a kind soul, always quick to chat and laugh with whomever was around him.
Check out this @greenhousenyt profile from 2009.
The first big thing it does is increase the level of domestic content a good has to be in order to be considered Made in America
Under Obama and before, this was at least 50%.
Trump raised it to 55% his last day in office.
Biden raises it to 60% immediately, then 65, then 75.
However, until 2030 (the year after the 75% threshold is phased in), suppliers can use the 55% threshold when a good isn’t available or is only available…
Lot of folks on here talking about how Coons’ carbon border measure (or similar proposals) violates GATT Article III, and because of that, it won’t be allowed by the WTO.
A few issues here: (wto.org/english/docs_e…)
2. Even under WTO law, there are other parts of the GATT, such as Article XX, that allow deviations from Article III.
Dems have unveiled a border carbon adjustment proposal called the Fair, Affordable, Innovative, and Resilient Transition and Competition Act or the FAIR Transition and Competition Act. What’s in it?
By July 1, 2023, the Treasury Department would determine the average cost to producers of steel, aluminum, cement, iron, and covered fuels of complying with federal or subfederal climate policy in effect at the time.
It recognizes that there is substantial uncertainty on which will be prevailing regime, whether through the existing Clean Air Act, carbon pricing, and (while not explicitly mentioned) sectoral standards. Any and all policies are covered.
California! To my knowledge, only jurisdiction that has tried to do carbon border measure as part of its cap and trade scheme, tho only for electricity.
Here’s a fascinating study by @StefanPauer on how business power conspired to shred its efficacy. (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…) Makes perfect sense that California would want to do this. It is by far the largest net importer of electricity of any US state. Why decarbonize your state electricity sector if emissions are all going to leak over state borders? (eia.gov/todayinenergy/…)
In percent terms, that amounts to about a third of total usage. (energy.ca.gov/data-reports/e…)
In the last month, there’s been a lot of developments in Trans-Atlantic political economy. In this post, I pull together three threads highlighting these developments. The first, on the initial recommendations of the G7 Expert Panel on Economic Resilience; the second, on the New Atlantic Charter; and the third, on the G7 communique itself.
From June 9:
The initial recommendations from the G7 expert panel on economic resilience are out.
This “Cornwall Consensus” breaks in important ways from the Washington Consensus.
Thread. (g7uk.org/economic-resil…) Facing the pandemic, it notes that we must work to ensure that “intellectual property protections and licensing…
The Biden administration released its 100 day supply chain review earlier this month.
What’s in it? Thread. (whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…) 100 days ago, the administration directed four agencies to take a comprehensive look at the following industries: semiconductors, batteries, rare earths, and pharmaceuticals — whose supply chains have experienced disruptions this year.
Today, we got a whopping 250 pages report — the first of its kind for the US government.
Historically, there was a focus on supporting innovation over production. This report shows that era is over: the two are inextricably linked.
The climate crisis is a global problem, but we have no global government. How to get nations to act? @Tim_L_Meyer and I have see trade as a key lever in our new paper: A Green Steel Deal. Thread. (rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/a…)
About a third of global carbon emissions are embedded in trade flows, especially in manufactured products like chemicals, cement, paper, aluminum, glass, and steel. (oecd.org/sti/ind/carbon…) Indeed, while only 23 percent of global economic output is traded, the portion that is traded accounts for up to 70 percent of the total environmental or social impact. So there’s no addressing the climate crisis…