ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Introduction to China-West Africa Relations

    Introduction to China-West Africa Relations

    The hegemonic rivalry between the U.S. and China has continued to escalate over the past several decades, with battles for global development, military presence, and other modes of action taking the forefront. The resource-rich region of West Africa is one of the latest theaters of operation in this scramble for influence. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has propelled them to become West Africa’s top foreign investor, with military associations and education programs furthering their presence in the region. However, BRI’s lack of transparency, untenable debt, and suspect intentions has left many West Africans skeptical.

    Trade and Development

    In 2020, Chinese exports to West African countries peaked at over $40 billion U.S. dollars, making the western region China’s principal trading partner in Africa. Nigeria, Ghana, and Liberia received the most trade exports, with the main products being machinery and electronics, textile and apparel, hi-tech products, and finished goods. West African imports to China accounted for $10.8 billion dollars in trade mostly consisting of minerals, metals, agricultural products, and crude oil. 

    The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) encapsulates China-West Africa trade relations through the most recent 2035 China-Africa Vision document. This agreement entails a 60$ billion USD Chinese investment promise in Africa by 2035 directed at agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure, environmental protection, and digital economy. The Dakar Action Plan is an analogous proposal that originated during the most recent FOCAC in November 2021. The plan suggests a reorientation of China’s economic engagement with Africa and reciprocates the thorough, exhaustive list submitted for the China-Africa 2035 Vision. These plans favor the developmental facet of Chinese-West Africa relations and insinuate further endeavors through China’s global Belt and Road Initiative, which has been met with fierce criticism by the international community because of the high risk of debt traps through unsustainable loans and erratic negotiations. 

    Certain West African countries epitomize BRI’s high-risk investment, particularly Guinea and Nigeria. In Guinea, Chinese diplomatic, regulatory, financial, and commercial actors operate in different capacities to secure vital materials such as bauxite and iron ore. The mining partnerships are rooted in state-owned enterprises’ connections with private Chinese companies, demonstrating the importance of China’s costly infrastructure investment to gain access to the valuable mining sector. 

    Nigeria has received the most investment from China, with over $20 billion from Chinese firms. In March 2020, Nigeria confirmed it borrowed over $3 billion from the Chinese government for infrastructure projects. The latest data from the Debt Management Office in Nigeria revealed that the debt is continuing to grow, causing experts to warn the federal government of debt traps and potential reclamation of Chinese-funded projects in Nigeria. As infrastructure projects and trade with China continue to materialize, China’s intentions provoke suspicion amongst the international community, and the lack of transparency validates this distrust. 

    Intra-African Conflicts

    Chinese intervention in West African conflicts tends to be muted. However, as BRI’s influence advances amongst states, certain arms sales and partnerships confirm that China is not shying away from strategic military intrusion in the region. From 2016 to 2020, China ranked as the world’s fifth-largest arms exporter, selling nearly 100 million TIVs (trend-indicator value of major conventional weapons) to Nigeria. Many linked this mass transfer of arms to China’s “domestic demand for oil” whereas other experts claim that China is simply involved for the profit. 

    In Benin, the private Chinese company Poly Technologies Inc. built the country’s largest military barrack in the town of Allada, in addition to providing training and donating trucks, logistics materials, and arms to the Beninese military. Whether China is using Benin for geopolitical strategic purposes or interested in economic engagement, the Sino-Beninese alliance proves to be one of the most dynamic in West Africa. 

    Although the Spanish-speaking nation of Equatorial Guinea is not in West Africa, West African governments and global powers should pay close attention to China’s prospects in the insular country. A recent U.S. Department of Defense report stated that China is actively seeking a naval base in the Port of Bata, Equatorial Guinea. This budding Chinese port could grant access to the Gulf of Guinea and be the closest Chinese military base in distance to the United States. Akin to China’s economic and developmental engagement in the region, their military aspirations remain unclear or undisclosed. 

    Climate Change

    In 2021, China’s CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions reached almost 12 billion metric tons, accounting for nearly 33% of the global total. In an attempt to counteract this drastic contribution to climate change and its effect on regions like West Africa, the Chinese government claims to have launched over 100 clean energy and green development projects under the framework of the FOCAC. The 2021 Dakar Ministerial meeting issued a Declaration on China-Africa Cooperation on Combating Climate Change which intends to improve energy development, upgrade industrial structure, and achieve low-carbon, green, high-quality development in African countries including Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and other West African countries. Minimal evidence has appeared since FOCAC that a shift toward greener Chinese development is taking place, and some stakeholders demand the expansion of the FOCAC process.

    One Chinese-backed project exemplifying environmental adaptation is the Great Green Wall (GGW) initiative which aims to create an 8,000 km wall of fertile land and trees across the Sahel. GGW’s ambition is to restore 100 million hectares of currently degraded land, sequester 250 million tons of carbon, and add local job opportunities. Rural Sahelian communities in Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Niger would all have access to this climate-resilient wall in a region-wide effort to combat temperatures which are rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the world. Although there has been minimal progress on the construction of the GGW, the symbol of hope for a new climate-friendly era of Chinese-West African relations is blossoming in the barren dunes of the Sahara. 

    Immigration/Education

    There are an estimated 500,000 African migrants currently living in China and between 1 million and 2 million people from China living on the African continent. Many African migrants to China are merchants or traders who are granted M visas, which permit a 30-day stay. Some migrants have applied for study or tourist visas to circumvent the requirements for other visas. China’s 2013 Exit and Entry Administration law was met with bitter criticism for excluding many African immigrants due to illegal entry, residence, and employment. The COVID-19 pandemic also inflamed anti-Chinese sentiment in Africa due to conspiracies about virus’ origin in Wuhan, China. 

    Scholarships and university programs have played a part in bringing a considerable influx of African students to China, especially those from anglophone West African countries such as Nigeria or Ghana. One element propagating Chinese ideology is the Confucius Institutes (CI) which are a vital component of China’s soft power efforts to promote the Chinese language and the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative of history and culture. The first CI’s were inaugurated in 2009 in Lomé (Togo), Lagos (Nigeria), and Porto-Novo (Benin). There are now more than 15 CIs around major West African cities. 

    Conclusion

    Is China a sustainable and valuable partner for West African economies and communities? Or is their presence a Trojan horse hoping to exploit resources and people in a race for global hegemony? The United States, which has a complex relationship with the region, must carefully examine China’s every move to fully understand and compare the repercussions and advantages of foreign policy in West Africa. Ranging from a prospective Chinese port in Equatorial Guinea to Confucius Institutes in Nigeria, China’s scope continues to expand in every direction and it is in the hands of the international community to inspect and analyze Chinese intentions and keep West Africa on the route to prosperity. 

  • American Attitudes on Korean Reunification

    American Attitudes on Korean Reunification

    History of the 38th parallel split

    Prior to World War II, the Korean peninsula was a Japanese colony. When Japan surrendered following WWII, the US and USSR agreed to split the peninsula at the 38th parallel to oversee the removal of Japanese forces. The USSR occupied the northern region, while the US occupied the south. On June 25, 1950, the North Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea at the 38th parallel to install a communist regime. The US, abiding by the containment policy and influenced by Cold War tensions, deployed the American military with United Nations forces to aid defend South Korea. The war ended in 1953 in a stalemate at the 38th parallel. China supported North Korea by supplying troops, aiding in war strategy, and handled the repatriation of ethnic Koreans back to Korea. The Truman Administration gave up on reuniting North and South Korea and instead made stability the priority in East Asia to avoid further conflict. South Korea and the US signed a Mutual Defense Treaty, leading to a more official military partnership, and a number of American forces remained in South Korea. In 1961, North Korea and China signed the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance (not to be confused with the Warsaw Pact of the same name).   

    When the DPRK and the First Republic of Korea were created in 1948, both governments wished for reunification, but only on their own terms. In this context, reunification is defined as the DPRK and ROK joining as one to be a single, sovereign state. Whether it happens through engaged diplomacy or the sudden collapse of North Korea, the US and China are expected to play a role in the reunification process.

    American response to Korean reunification efforts by presidential administrations

    At a press conference for US-ROK relations in 2015, Obama stated “President Park has articulated a better vision—a unified Korea free from the fear of war and nuclear weapons—and that’s a vision that we very much support,” which has been the most explicit show of support for reunification thus far. The main US priority is a denuclearized North Korea. Further, America desires a peaceful transition towards a democratic nation with a market-oriented society that avoids state collapse, civil war, or general unrest. The ROK’s membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty limits their own involvement in the denuclearization process, so this role will most likely be upheld by the US, foreign institutions, and other NPT states.

    In 2018, President Trump and North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un met for the first time at the Singapore Summit to discuss peace on the Korean peninsula, US-NK relations, denuclearization, and recovery of US soldier remains. This summit was only partially successful with 55 bodies repatriated, and 5,300 still remaining. The main failure of the Singapore summit was the lack of agreement over the denuclearization timelines and expectations, where the US and NK both failed to operationalize the agreed upon terms of the joint statement and disagreed on what denuclearization would look like. In 2019, Trump and Kim Jong-Un met at their second summit in Hanoi, which was cut short after the first day without signing a joint statement, as Kim believed sanctions would be lifted in exchange for a halt on nuclear and missile testing and Trump believed that North Korea could be convinced to cut their nuclear programs immediately. The two could not progress past that impasse. This reduced the chances of future repatriation of remaining bodies, but showed North Korea’s desire for a decrease in sanctions while America continues to push for the dismantling of NK’s missile and nuclear development. While reunification was not explicitly discussed at these submits, the reasons why these summits failed could be a signifier of the difficulty of future American efforts of demilitarization and denuclearization during the reunification process.

    Under the Biden administration, President Biden and South Korean President Moon Jae In reaffirmed their nations’ strong relations in a 2021 joint statement. Both nations share a commitment to denuclearization efforts, and plan to explore diplomatic efforts with the DPRK to promote peace. When Moon Jae In was elected in 2017, he states that Korea must be the one to lead peace efforts in the peninsula and foster connections with regional neighbors. This shows a commitment to diplomatic efforts, like the inter-Korean summits in 2018, and with South Korea leading the process.

    The role of America and foreign nations in the reunification process

    The other nations involved will affect how peacefully and easily Korea reunifies, and the main nations the US will take into account are Russia, China, and Japan. Regardless of these nations’ support or enthusiasm of reunification prospects and the future, it is generally agreed that the process cannot happen peacefully without their support and cooperation. The US may be the only state in a position to balance the influence of the other, powerful nations. In the Park Geun Hye administration, South Korea hoped for a three-way dialogue between Korea, US, and Japan/China to enable stronger regional cooperation in the denuclearization process. China may prefer the status quo to the military power a unified Korea may bring, especially with the current South Korea-US military alliance. The US must accept the possibility that a unified Korea may choose neutrality and/or opt out of the current relationship.

  • What Was the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

    What Was the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) is a free-trade agreement created as an extension of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership which contained Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. More well-known free-trade agreement examples are NAFTA and USMCA. In a free trade agreement, parties are usually not able to tariff, tax, or discriminate against the other agreeing parties. Parties are usually required to follow specific rules, regulations, and laws involving their economic trade and internal legal system in regard to matters such as copyright and labor protections. Proponents of free trade agreements often argue they cause economic growth and expand a country’s environmental and labor protections to other countries which may have worse or no protections. Opponents often argue that jobs are lost and companies will exploit cheaper labor supply to benefit from the new low trade taxes, contributing to wealth inequality.

    Benefits and Goals of  the Trans-Pacific Partnership

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Barack Obama’s foreign and economic policy. Two main benefits include: 

    1. Growth in middle-class jobs and therefore the United States economy: Most US economic growth has come from international trade in the past decade and Asia’s importance and share of the world economy is predicted to continue growing. In addition, the deal included stronger environmental regulations, protection of American companies from discrimination, and stronger union and labor protections. Obama saw these benefits and protections as a major boost to the United States economy by making trade an equal playing field. This equal playing field was supposed to emerge due to the combination of smaller goals helping to prohibit companies from stealing American intellectual property and out-competing America with cheaper labor.
    2. Competition with China: The Obama administration was concerned that if the United States did not create a deal with these countries they would turn to China. An overarching goal of the Obama administration was to use economic connections and influence from the TPP to contain China. If China created its own free trade agreement, Chinese-style laws and economic regulations would proliferate in the region rather than American-style policies.

    The Drawbacks and Collapse of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Opponents argued that the TPP would lead to greater income inequality and an overall loss of jobs. These opponents often argued that the TPP would not help GDP growth, destroy close to half a million jobs, and mainly help large companies. Americans were reminded of current trade deals such as WTO-China and NAFTA where opponents also disputed the economic benefits and claimed they would destroy jobs and raise income inequality. President Trump was a vocal opponent of the agreement, and the US withdrew from the TPP in 2017 when Trump took office. Trump favored a targeted approach with each individual country. The other countries moved forward without the United States, and new members join the agreement each year. However, the US has struggled to negotiate individual agreements with a diverse set of countries.

    Future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

    With another recent change in administration, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has resurfaced as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity(IPEF). This partnership has risen at a time when Americans have a record low opinion of the Chinese government on a host of issues. Americans have developed negative opinions toward China due to Covid-19, the Hong Kong crackdowns, and the Uyghur genocide. Americans previously held a neutral perspective on China, and this fall in opinion has transformed tariffs and other economic restrictions placed on China by President Trump from a controversial and partisan issue into a commonly supported idea by members of both parties. 

    Data from a 2019 survey and a separate 2022 survey 

    At the same time, American opinions toward foreign trade and trade agreements have grown greatly and reached all-time highs.

    Data from https://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

  • Introduction to Greenhouse Gas Pollution and Regulation

    Introduction to Greenhouse Gas Pollution and Regulation

    Introduction

    Greenhouse gas pollution is a main contributor to climate change. Carbon dioxide and methane are examples of greenhouse gas pollutants, and human activities such as energy production and transportation emit them (see Figures 1 and 2). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has declared that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 50% by 2030 to prevent catastrophic and potentially irreversible effects of climate change. However, current emissions reductions by governments are not projected to meet that goal.

    Corporations, governments, and consumers all contribute to greenhouse gas pollution. One study indicates 100 companies are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the United States is known to be the “the largest historical emitter” and currently has the second highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Therefore, reducing the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions could have a significant impact on climate change.

    Figure 1.Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2019Image courtesy of the EPA Figure 2.Image courtesy of the EPA 

    Current State of Policies in the U.S.

    In the United States, national policies regarding greenhouse gas pollution involve federal legislation like the Clean Air Act and international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords. 

    • Federal Policies: The Clean Air Act of 1970 is a landmark piece of legislation that called for the implementation of air quality standards. The law tasked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with creating and enforcing limits on air emissions from both mobile and industrial sources. The law also gave regulatory power to individual states, giving them the authority to implement their own programs and monitor or report violators. These measures include the creation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, State Implementation Plans, New Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the definition of “air pollutants” includes greenhouse gasses, giving the EPA a stronger basis for arguing for the mitigation of climate change through pollutant regulation. The Energy Act of 2020 is another major federal law seeking to combat climate change through energy efficiency and innovation. Its main goals are to increase energy efficiency, modernize the energy grid, and advance research and development in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and carbon capture technologies. Specifically, it directs the Department of Energy to research and develop energy storage, nuclear, geothermal and carbon-capture technologies to advance a gradual shift away from fossil fuels.
    • International Agreements: The Paris Agreement is an international accord that seeks to limit climate change to within 1.5°C. The agreement was adopted in 2015 by 197 countries, including the United States. Nations submitted emission reductions targets, or intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), and these commitments are expected to strengthen overtime. For transparency and accountability purposes, the Paris Agreement keeps record of progress updates. While the Trump Administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the Biden Administration rejoined and committed to reducing emissions “by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.”
    • State Policies: There are many non-federal policy options and proposals for greenhouse gas regulation. They include carbon pricing frameworks like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, national or state-level renewable energy portfolio standards, energy resource efficiency standards, and tax credits for individual incentivization.

    Arguments for Government Regulation of Greenhouse Gasses

    The majority of US residents view climate change as a major threat and many have called for greater government involvement in tackling it. Although individuals are taking steps to reduce their emissions, a large proportion of emissions comes from corporations and industrial activity. Proponents of greenhouse gas regulations argue government involvement is necessary to reduce emissions because governments have the power to regulate companies in a way that individuals do not. For example, the government has the authority to impose carbon pricing frameworks, enforce emission reduction deadlines, and hold industries accountable for violations of clean air laws. 

    The Build Back Better Act is the most significant proposition addressing climate change in American history. Energy efficiency projects, electric vehicles, and climate change research would all receive funding from the bill. In addition, the act would provide jobs for citizens by guaranteeing clean energy technologies and materials be made here in the United States. Lastly, the Build Back Better Act proposes strategies to reduce the cost of transitioning to clean energy, and make eco-friendly living more accessible to middle class families. The Build Back Better Bill has stalled in the Senate, and it is not currently expected to be passed into law. 

    Economic Concerns

    Most of the American public, including over 75 percent of Republican voters, is concerned about the threat of climate change and supports some sort of greenhouse gas regulation. However, Republican legislators remain firmly opposed to greenhouse gas regulations, citing mainly economic concerns. The resistance stems from a desire for U.S. energy self sufficiency, avoiding rising household consumption costs, and ensuring grid stability. 

    Many supporters of deregulation are impressed by the economic benefits the United States enjoyed from an increase in oil and natural gas production; they point to increased competitiveness in international markets, added domestic jobs, and a more favorable balance of trade. Some argue energy policy should be an ‘economics leads’ approach, meaning the sector should prioritize first and foremost economic potential while demand is high, and if it decreases, oil and gas consumption may phase out on its own. Through this lens, they assert that increased greenhouse gas regulation in the U.S. will not aid in achieving emissions goals; rather, it will increase imports and dependence on energy sources globally. Therefore, the environmental impact of oil/gas production may be higher once transportation emissions and potentially less regulated foreign replacement fuel emissions controls are accounted for. In theory, by following economics and halting regulation, emissions will gradually decline and economic shocks can be avoided.

    Others argue that the costs of increased regulation are too high for common people and families when compared to the predicted benefit of increased bureaucratic regulations. Some conservatives suggest greenhouse gas regulations could raise household energy prices, which would burden households and slow consumption. Opponents of greenhouse gas regulation argue that carbon pricing could cause a twofold problem for average Americans: first, that it would destroy American jobs, leading to outsourcing, and second, that energy producers would pass on the cost of carbon pricing to consumers.

    Finally, critics highlight concerns over the stability of the electricity grid as renewable energy becomes increasingly common. Electricity generation from wind and solar resources are highly variable, which some argue poses risks to the energy grid’s reliability. Skeptics of renewable energy have also blamed renewable energy for large-scale blackouts, like those in Texas in February 2021.  Overall, opponents of greenhouse gas regulations have long pointed to the risks of grid instability and economic harm in arguing against governmental regulation and renewable energy production.

    Future Regulation

    Future regulations are uncertain as the pending Supreme Court Case, West Virginia vs. EPA, has the potential to undermine the current scope of regulatory ability and power of the EPA and the federal executive branch. The case challenges their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and observers expect the Court to rule against the EPA. The ultimate decision will be indicative of the level of climate action that the Biden Administration can accomplish and the future of greenhouse gas regulation in the United States.

    The international community is already designating specific environmental concerns to the United Nations Climate Change Conference 27th Session Conference of Parties (COP27) agenda. The main action areas for this conference are emissions reduction, with a specific call on the U.S. and other G20 nations to take leadership positions. Governments have also agreed on the need to address climate change impacts, adaptation, and climate finance at large. The UN has highlighted the urgency of these greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and the combined commitment of governments, civil society, and the private sector in order to meet the 1.5°C ambition.

  • How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    Green Gentrification Overview 

    Gentrification occurs when wealthier, often white residents move into an existing low income urban district, displacing marginalized communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites three key aspects of gentrification:

    1. Rising property values and rental costs;
    2. New construction, upgrading, or renovation of residential areas; 
    3. Turnover in the local population, including changes in the racial or ethnic composition. 

    When the protection and cleanup of brownfields, locally undesirable land uses (LULUs), other vacant and derelict land (VDL), or the introduction of urban green spaces and gardens instigates this trend, it is called environmental, or green, gentrification. 

    A brownfield is an expanse of land that may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are about 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. today. Locally undesirable land uses include nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic waste dumps, incinerators, smelters, airports, freeways, and other sources of environmental, economic, or social degradation. Vacant and derelict land is property where industry once existed but became obsolete due to abandonment by absentee landlords, or brownfields. Attractive green spaces are amenities like parks and community gardens. They also include revitalization projects that incorporate higher quantities of natural vegetation, fields, and flowers in urban spaces. Renewing these spaces or introducing attractive green spaces without anti-displacement measures has displaced underserved residents from their newly improved communities, which some have referred to as environmental racism. Displacement caused by environmental gentrification manifests in three forms.

    1. Direct Displacement forces residents to move because of rent increases and building renovations.
    2. Exclusionary Displacement happens when housing choices for low income residents are limited.
    3. Displacement pressures are created when supports and social services low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood. 

    Causes of Green Gentrification

    In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration enforced a series of racially discriminatory lending practices (known as redlining). These made it harder for Black Americans to purchase homes and accumulate wealth, so individuals from lower income and minority communities relocated to urban, inner-city areas where housing options were affordable. 

    These areas often bordered brownfields, VDLs, or LULUs. Over the years, public and private interest in revitalizing these areas has increased. Redeveloping brownfields increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, and improves the environment. Similarly, LULU rehabilitation can drive up local real estate prices while improving sanitation conditions for minority communities. As a result, developers have begun capitalizing on VDLs and other land in communities of color. Low cost land is often transformed into luxury residential units and projects with green amenities to attract affluent consumers market. 

    The EPA’s Brownfield and Land Revitalization Program, created in 1995, incentivizes local governments to invest in cleaning up and redeveloping these areas to initiate urban renewal projects through grants issued by the EPA. The program’s initiatives focus on environmental cleanup and conservation practices for areas with heavy environmental devastation (which are predominantly located in or surrounding communities of color). However, these policies focus on their projects’ environmental and economic benefits and often do not consider consequences for existing residents which leaves marginalized residents vulnerable to displacement. 

    Problems and Effects of Green Gentrification

    When low income populations are priced out of their neighborhoods, there is a high risk of eviction. Hispanic and Black renters experience eviction at higher rates than white renters. Evictions have been correlated with intensified poverty conditions, declining credit scores, lower earnings in adulthood, and lower life expectancy. Displacement by green gentrification prevents residents of color from benefiting from the improved environmental and infrastructural conditions. White residents, who are overrepresented in green urban spaces, are often the only ones who experience their benefits. Environmental gentrification can alter a city’s makeup and lifestyle through changing demographics and declining racial diversity. 

    Possible Policies and Solutions

    Some city planners and administrations advocate for legislation that restricts developers and landlords from dramatically increasing housing costs following urban renewal projects. On the other hand, others argue to allow more unrestricted development to avoid interfering with local economies and potentially stunting economic growth. 

    The “Just Green Enough” plan attempts to achieve environmental remediation while avoiding gentrification by revitalizing urban space with smaller projects. In this way, the development is “just enough” to cultivate the benefits of sustainability and green space while still prioritizing the community’s needs and avoiding displacement. These projects include building smaller parks coupled with affordable housing. This politically moderate solution does not deter the development of urban green spaces, but does try to adjust it to avoid the possibility of displacement. However, there is evidence that suggests it is just as likely for property values to rise in neighborhoods in close proximity to small-scale projects as larger ones, indicating that this solution may not be as effective at discouraging gentrification, which is a challenge in and of itself. 

    One alternative is a Community Land Trust (CLT)–community owned land which regulates housing prices and keeps them affordable for long periods of time. This housing is only sold to low-income families, who receive a modest return on their investment due to their “shared equity.” Philadelphia created a CLT in 2010 to combat growing housing prices in the city, and manages 36 rent-to-own townhomes with plans to build 75 more.

    The most recent federal legislation pertaining to green gentrification was the Opportunities Zones (OZ) Act (2017). This act allows investors to receive tax benefits for developing ZIP codes that governors within each state have identified as needing investment. To qualify as an OZ, the area must have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent. While it promotes investment in struggling areas, the act does not include anti- displacement measures.

  • Regulating Telehealth

    Regulating Telehealth

    Background

    Since the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in the prominence of telehealth services, especially for mental healthcare. As a result, previous government policies regulating telehealth have been reevaluated to consider the challenges surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. 

    Telehealth occurs in three categories: real-time communication (think Zoom, Google Meets, telephone, etc), store-and-forward (references the transmission of data, images, sounds, or video from one site of care to another site of care for evaluation), and remote patient monitoring (refers to collecting a patient’s vital signs or other health data while the patient is at home or another location, and transferring the data to a remote provider for monitoring and response as needed).

    One argument for regulating telehealth is for privacy and security concerns. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a major concern for telehealth, especially telehealth for mental health (telemental health). The popular teletherapy apps BetterHelp and Talkspace collected and shared metadata with third-party vendors for targeted advertising, according to a recent report by Jezebel. HIPAA concerns are especially important for telemental health because of the sensitivity and confidentiality of the conversations patients have with their mental health providers. Additionally, another argument for regulating telehealth is that there are still debates about the efficacy of telehealth for mental health.

    Recent Developments in Telehealth

    1. Permanent telehealth policies (post-Covid): 37 states enacted 51 bills to make temporary flexibilities permanent post-Covid. These policy changes include Arkansas expanding the list of providers eligible to conduct telemental health for Medicaid recipients and required coverage for group therapy, crisis intervention services, substance use assessment, and other telemental health services.
    2. Temporary telehealth policy changes: All 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico implemented some form of telehealth policy change during the Covid-19 pandemic. These policy changes include Connecticut enacting legislation to extend certain Covid-related changes until June 2023, including requiring payment parity (equal insurance coverage for in-person and virtual medical appointments) and expanding the list of providers eligible to use telehealth.
    3. Non-legislative action (governors’ offices): Some states took non-legislative action—through governors’ offices, Medicaid agencies, licensing boards, and other state agencies—to make Covid-related changes permanent. These non-legislative actions include California’s Department of Health Care Services, which operates the state’s Medicare program, making Covid-related changes permanent by implementing payment parity for services delivered via telehealth in real-time and coverage for audio-only telephone visits.
    4. Increased funding for new telehealth initiatives: The $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed by Congress included $200 million for the Federal Communications Commission to expand telehealth services across the country.

    One argument in favor of deregulating telehealth is there is a shortage of mental health professionals, and bureaucracy makes it hard to offer telehealth between state lines. Additionally, the pandemic has made it harder for people to access their providers in-person. Currently, telehealth is inaccessible to many, due to the cost or lack of internet access. Deregulations for this inaccessibility could include forcing Medicare and Medicaid to adopt payment parity for telehealth and in-person medical appointments, reducing the cost, as well as subsidizing internet access for low-income folks.

    Future developments in this issue include a further $100 million from the Universal Service Fund administered by the FCC which will finance a three-year Connected Care Pilot program to subsidize internet connectivity for healthcare providers (associated with CARES Act). Additionally, many states which implemented temporary telehealth policy changes will have to make decisions about which reforms to keep.

    The heart of this issue is the government’s role in regulating vs. deregulating telehealth and telemedicine, and it comes down to the states mostly instead of the federal government. Will HIPAA privacy concerns stand in the way of telehealth accessibility, which is already inaccessible to many who lack internet access and economic capital? Will payment parity and the loosening of licensing restrictions for interstate telehealth appointments prevail over the questioned effectiveness of telehealth and telemedicine? Will the deregulations of telehealth that have already occurred be here to stay, especially once the pandemic is over? Is telehealth the future of healthcare, or are in-person medical appointments more effective?

  • The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

    The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

    This brief was originally written by Mariah Smith on March 2, 2022. It was updated and republished by Freya Pereira.

    Ethiopia began building the Grand Ethiopian Resistance Dam (GERD) in 2011 and it has caused conflict and strained relations in the region ever since. The dam is located on Ethiopia’s stretch of the Nile River, and will impact water flow to the downriver nations including South Sudan, Sudan, and Egypt. Since building the dam commenced, negotiations have focused on assuaging Sudan and Egypt’s concerns over the impact of the decreased water supply but with little progress made. Ethiopia has not ceased construction based on the concerns posed by Sudan and Egypt and therefore GERD construction has remained a critical issue within East African geopolitics. 

    Ethiopia’s Position on GERD

    While the GERD poses a geopolitical threat to the region, it also has tremendous potential to bolster Ethiopia’s economy.  

    • Energy: The GERD is estimated to quadruple Ethiopia’s energy output once completed, which would provide energy access to over 75 million Ethiopians. Currently, less than half of Ethiopia’s population of 110 million receive power from the national energy grid.
    • Agriculture: The water harnessed by the dam will irrigate over one million acres of arable land, propelling Ethiopia’s agriculture-based economy.
    • Jobs: the dam will require a large workforce for its maintenance. Ethiopia is expected to hire over 12,000 workers, creating both high and low skill jobs. 

    Originally, funding for the dam was restricted by the US government due to its potential for political destabilization. Yet, the arrival of Chinese bankers and engineers has revitalized the efforts and led to plans for more than 25 large hydroelectric dams. Ethiopia feels justified in utilizing the Nile because 85% of the water which flows through the Nile is runoff from the Ethiopian highlands. In addition, Ethiopia argues that the dam will not meaningfully restrict water supply although Egypt and Sudan disagree on this point.

    Egypt’s Concerns about GERD

    Egypt’s main argument relies on the 1929 Agreement that allocated all the Nile River’s waters to Egypt and the supplemental 1959 Agreement which included Sudan in water shares of the Nile. The 1929 Agreement was made between Egypt and Great Britain which represented Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika (now Tanzania), and Sudan at the time and granted Egypt veto power over Nile River projects. The 1959 Agreement supplemented the previous agreement by including Sudan as an official shareholder. Both of these agreements did not give rights to Ethiopia and other upstream states. Ethiopia does not recognize these agreements as legally binding because it was not an independent nation at the time, and the agreements were made by Great Britain representing it as a colonial power. 

    Egypt is entirely reliant on the Nile River for its water supply, and sees the dam as an existential threat. The main issue at hand is what Ethiopia will do if there is a drought. Egypt wants a binding commitment that if there is a drought, Ethiopia will continue releasing water from the dam to maintain the flow downriver. 

    Sudan’s Dilemma about GERD 

    Sudan is caught in the middle between Egypt and Ethiopia. On the one hand, Sudan is also almost entirely dependent on the Nile River for water, and is not comfortable with relying on Ethiopia to moderate the water supply especially if water becomes scarce. On the other hand, the dam is projected to become a cheap energy source in the region, and facilitate other development projects which Sudan could benefit from.

    The US Position on GERD Thus Far

    Former President Trump’s Administration is most notable for taking a “hardball” approach to Ethiopia. The approach entailed temporarily pausing aid to Ethiopia due to “[the Administration’s] concern about Ethiopia’s unilateral decision to begin to fill the dam before an agreement and all necessary dam safety measures were in place.”. Egypt is a close ally of the United States, and one of the biggest receivers of US aid (1.43 billion annually). Egypt also has long standing diplomatic relations with key ally Israel, and has used its regional influence to promote ties between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. For this reason, many felt the US came down firmly on the side of Egypt and Sudan when attempting to mediate the conflict.

    The current Biden Administration has decided to take a more neutral stance. In a recent move, the Biden Administration has delinked the pause in Ethiopian aid from the GERD policies which sends a less severe message to Ethiopia, a US ally, and represents a significant shift in the overall US approach moving forward.

    Suter, Margaret.

  • Immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants in the Workforce

    Immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants in the Workforce

    American immigration policy largely reflects the historical context and cultural beliefs, and immigrants are often politicized through their impact on the American workplace. Whether this is touting the benefits of immigrants as an innovative and necessary group, or warning that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to native workers, the fiscal repercussions of migration patterns are a central talking point on either side of the political spectrum. In an attempt to reconcile these views while addressing the questions surrounding unauthorized workers, President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 and left a complicated legacy that still instructs the federal response to undocumented labor. 

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act 

    In an attempt to reduce the demand for undocumented labor (and, in turn, reduce the number of unauthorized workers migrating to the U.S.), the IRCA prohibits employers from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee any alien who is unauthorized to work in the U.S. The offense is punishable by fees ranging from $100-1,000 per worker, or criminal liability with the possibility of imprisonment. In addition to the bill’s outlined punishments for employers, the IRCA also granted amnesty to unauthorized residents currently living in the U.S., which led to the citizenship of approximately 3 million formerly undocumented immigrants. 

    The Legacy of the IRCA

    At the time of the act’s passage, many pointed out that the IRCA’s potential punishments for employers might lead them to discriminate against foreign workers regardless of their legal status as citizens. In fact, a study by Urban Institute in the years following the IRCA’s passage found that Latinx applicants were three times more likely than their white counterparts to encounter unfavorable treatment when applying for a job. In a similar study done by the General Accounting Office, 5% of employers responded that their interpretation of the IRCA had led them to turn away applicants because of a “foreign appearance or accent” and 14% of employers responded that they had begun a practice of not hiring those with temporary work eligibility. To address these issues and other inadequacies created by the IRCA, the 1990 Immigration Act was passed to reform legal immigration by instating a citizenship preference system that favored skilled workers. 

    Arguments in favor of more regulation of unauthorized immigrants in the workplace

    Many argue that measures such as the IRCA are necessary to ensure citizens can find a job and receive fair wages. Proponents of this idea say that an influx of migrant workers means a higher labor supply for a fixed demand, forcing down wages in the long run. Politicians like former Presidents Reagan and Trump have pointed to the disproportional impact migrant labor has on low-skilled workers and Latinx and African American workers in the United States. According to census data, immigrants entering the U.S. in the past 20 years have increased the number of low-skilled workers (defined here as workers without a high school diploma) by about a quarter. As a result, the annual earnings of this group have dropped between $800-1500. Legislation such as the IRCA is also meant to control the numbers of seasonal workers who often come to the U.S. temporarily in search of work, as many argue that these workers are unauthorized and therefore exempt from tax burdens of legal citizens while utilizing public services. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that in 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen used at least one welfare program compared to 35% of native-headed households. Statistics like these are often used to support measures to ensure companies comply with workplace standards regarding workers’ citizenship. Some worry that continuing to employ unauthorized migrants will increase the undocumented population in the U.S. 

    Arguments against more regulation of unauthorized immigrants in the workplace 

    On the other hand, many argue that immigrants, regardless of their legal status, can be valuable additions to the cultural makeup of the U.S. and our economy. One argument is that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, often work in industries with labor needs not fulfilled by U.S. citizens. A 2020 report released by the Center for American Progress found that an estimated 7 million undocumented immigrants are contributing to the American workforce. Undocumented workers make up 13% of the construction industry, and approximately a quarter of workers in the forestry, fishing, and farming occupations. Beyond the undocumented immigrant presence in these industries, many argue that laws such as the IRCA make it harder for immigrants to feasibly find work and gain even temporary visas, which will diminish the total immigrant population in the long run. As it currently stands, employers must file an application with both the USCIS and DOL for their employees to begin the green card process. Some believe these processes keep many from even the opportunity of gaining citizenship and may facilitate economic loss, as they point out the entrepreneurial opportunities many immigrants have found in the U.S. According to the Brookings Institute, immigrants make up 15% of the general U.S. workforce. Yet, they are approximately 25% of the entrepreneurs and investors in the U.S. 

    Conclusion 

    Despite its passage nearly 40 years ago, the IRCA is still largely indicative of the rhetoric surrounding immigrants as economic actors and speaks to the political compromises necessary to pass sweeping immigration reform. While the demographics and scope of U.S. immigration have rapidly shifted over the past few decades, bipartisan gridlock has made immigration reform nearly impossible, as a center anchored around the American business community largely does not exist today.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Jordan Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Jordan Relations

    This brief was originally written by Rylan Forester. It was updated and published by Sahara Snizek.

    Jordan plays a central role in the Middle East, as an oasis of stability in a region full of conflict, making it a key ally of the U.S., U.K., and the EU. Militarily, Jordan has been a U.S. partner since it was designated as a Major Non-NATO ally in 1996. Most recently, Jordanian military forces have worked in frequent collaboration with regional and international allies, like the U.S., to combat ISIS in Syria, specifically in the south along the Jordanian-Syrian border.

    Fact sheet

    Source: The World Fact Book CIA

    History of Jordan’s Relations with the U.S.

    The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan became an independent state in 1946, when the nation ousted British control. Abdullah I was the first king of Jordan and his family, the House of Hashim, is believed to be ancestors of the Prophet Muhammad. Jordan’s interactions with the U.S. have historically been tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Palestine was officially partitioned by the 1947 UN Resolution and war broke out a year later, Jordan annexed the West Bank, yet 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled their homes and headed between the West Bank and Transjordan because of the violence. Today, there are more than two million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, not to mention the millions of Palestinians who are now Jordanian citizens. Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and as a result, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), then led by Yasser Arafat, fled to Jordanl.

    More than twenty years later in 1994, President Clinton orchestrated the signing of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, making the Hashemite Kingdom the second Arab country, after Egypt, to normalize ties with Israel. After almost fifty years in power, King Hussein of Jordan passed away in 1999 and his son Abdullah II ascended to the throne. Under King Abdullah II’s reign, Jordan increased ties with the West which has boosted its economy. The 2008 financial crisis worsened the Jordanian economy as well as exacerbated civil unrest which came with Arab Spring protests in the country in 2011. Abdullah II ushered in a series of economic and political reforms which satisfied protesters, but an influx of Syrian refugees has overwhelmed Jordan’s public services. 

    Challenges for Jordan

    • Lack of Water Resources: Jordan is the 15th most water-stressed country in the world, according to the World Resources Institute. The factors increasing water scarcity in the country are population growth, reduction of flow in the Yarmouk River due to the creation of dams in Syria, lack of rainfall due to climate change, and overuse of groundwater. Private wells that have been illegally constructed by residents have also contributed to unsuitable groundwater extraction. In the north part of the region, a substantial influx of Syrian refugees have heightened the demand for water as well. According to a study by Stanford University, a combination of dwindling water resources and a continually growing population are predicted to halve per capita water use in Jordan by the end of the century. 
    • Devoid of hydrocarbon resources: Unlike its oil rich neighbors, the Hashemite Kingdom is devoid of hydrocarbon resources. Jordan’s stability has made the country a refuge for displaced neighbors when wars force residents to abandon their homes. Jordan is hosts more than two million Palestinian refugees and the majority of Jordanian citizens are Palestinian (including the current Queen Rania Al-Abdullah), so Israeli-Palestinian issues are Jordanian issues and politics. The Hashemite Kingdom remains one of the most ardent defenders of Palestinian rights and adocates for Palestinian demands such as the right to return or its claim to East Jerusalem. Nevertheless, since 1994, when Jordan normalized ties with Israel, Amman has expanded trade and engagement with the Jewish state to the dismay of some Palestinians in Jordan.
    • Islamic State (ISIS): The instability in Syria, caused by the civil war, brought 700,000 Syrian refugees to Jordan and fueled ISIS’ rise. To date, 3,000 Jordanians have joined the terrorist group, the third most from any country in the world. King Abdullah is no friend to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but the war has disrupted Syria’s trade with Jordan and brought terrorism to Jordan’s border. The Hashemite Kingdom has cooperated with regional allies like the UAE along with international partners like the United States to combat ISIS. 
    • Iran: Iran’s rising influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen poses a potential threat to Jordan and has pushed the Kingdom into further cooperation with like-minded Sunni Arab states throughout the region. The Hashemite monarchy is wary of the Iranian regime which has been out-spoken in its support for the overthrow of Sunni monarchs. As Iran expands its presence in the region, Jordan may seek closer ties with its Sunni-Arab partners as a counterbalance. 
    • Building Relations with China: Although U.S.-Jordanian relations remain strong, Amman has increasingly engaged with China through Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Since the project launched in 2013, Jordan has become a key member of the BRI. PRC officials hope to build on progress in Jordan to connect the rest of the Levant with projects in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, the Mediterranean, and Eurasia. 

    U.S. Strategic Interests

    • Promote Peace between Israel and Palestinians: Behind Israel, Jordan is one of the U.S.’ key regional allies. The U.S. and Jordan share the goal of creating peace between Israel and Palestine. In recent talks between President Biden and King Abdullah II, Biden asserted his support for a two-state solution. Jordan can be a key mediator in resolving the conflict due to its geographic position, cooperation with Israel’s military, shared intelligence with the U.S., the U.K, and Israel, and global collaboration to end the war on terror. Jordan also belongs to several multilateral organizations such as the Arab Quartet, Munich Group, and the Jerusalem Committee at the Organization for the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which can assist in facilitating a two-state solution.
    • The War on Terror: Amman shares the U.S.’ goal to combat terrorism, and actively participates with the U.S. and other Sunni Arab states in missions to combat ISIS in Syria. Jordan is a regional leader in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Intelligence collaboration between the U.S. and Jordan continues to contribute to the U.S.’ counterterrorism and countering violent extremism efforts in the Middle East.
    • Counter Iran’s Influence in the Region: Jordan, like many of its neighbors, has grown increasingly concerned about Iran’s involvement in the region. Iran has pursued the production of nuclear weapons without full adherence to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standards, and supports militant splinter groups across the region which have an overall destabilizing influence. Jordan collaborates with the U.S. and Sunni neighbors to limit Iran’s influence and promote stability. 

    House Refugees: Jordan’s role as a safe haven for Middle East refugees contributes to regional stability and more broadly, global stability. More than 700,000 Palestinians fled to Jordan in 1948. Instability in Iraq, triggered by the 2003 U.S. invasion of the country has displaced more than 750,000 Iraqi refugees currently residing in Jordan. The Syrian civil war has caused 700,000 Syrians to seek refuge in Jordan as well.

  • What are Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Programs?

    What are Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Programs?

    [ Map depicting the status of regional, national and subnational carbon pricing initiatives. Image courtesy of Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.]

    Introduction

    In response to the impending threat of climate change, governments have begun to explore options for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. One of these options is an emissions trading program called cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade programs are market-based regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. They contain two main features. The first is a “cap” set by government regulators that establishes the maximum level of emissions and becomes more strict over time. The second main feature is the allocation of emission allowances to emitters through tradable permits, which allows individual emitters to buy and sell allowances in order to comply with emissions caps. Cap-and-trade programs incentivize firms to operate below their emissions cap, because excess allowances can be sold at a profit to other emitters.  These policies also add a layer of enforceability and accountability to corporate environmental protection.    

    Cap-and-Trade Programs in the US

    Although there is no national cap-and-trade program in the US today, there are several state-level and interstate programs worth noting. Support for cap-and-trade programs is highest in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, which are the only regions of the country where emissions trading systems have been implemented.

    The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the first US program, was established in 2005 and is now active in eleven states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. The RGGI has gradually attracted more states to become signatories and has been effective in reducing emissions and generating state revenue. Between 2006 and 2018, the RGGI led to a 48% decrease in emissions among plants that were under regulation. From 2009–2017, the initiative generated $4.7 billion of state revenue from allowance auctions.

    Three states have their own cap-and-trade programs. California was the first state to implement an emissions trading system in 2012. The program enforces caps on approximately 85% of greenhouse gas emissions in the state. So far, decreases in emissions have been on track with the program’s climate goals, and both enforcement and compliance have been strong, with 100% of companies meeting compliance requirements. In 2021, Washington State passed the Climate Commitment Act which includes a “cap-and-invest” program among other features. “Cap and invest” programs extend upon cap-and-trades by allocating proceeds made by permit auctions to finance other climate resiliency projects. Most recently, Oregon adopted the Climate Protection Program in 2021 that included cap-and-trade measures upon fuel suppliers as part of an executive order by the Governor.  

    Cap-and-Trades in Other OECD Nations 

    Other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have also adopted cap-and-trade policies. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a unique case of a multi-national program that encompasses both EU States as well as some other European countries. This system covers around 41% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU including those from power plants, energy-intensive industries, and civil aviation. Other individual countries that have implemented cap-and-trade policies are Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Quebec and some cities and provinces in China while the country works towards a national standard.

    Arguments For Cap-and-Trade

    When designed with proper monitoring and enforcement measures, cap-and-trade programs have proven to be environmentally and cost effective. While cap-and-trades largely focus on carbon emissions today, prior initiatives have focused on other pollutants. For example, many proponents point to the success of the United States’ Acid Rain Program in the 1990s, which targeted sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to acid rain. This program exceeded expectations in decreasing acid rain and met its targets years ahead of the original timeline. Because of these measures, the impact of acid rain in the US is far less than it had been in the late 1900’s.

    One main feature of cap-and-trade programs that draws support is their market-based nature. This means that the carbon being traded creates a new market, where the price of carbon is determined by principles of supply and demand. Research indicates market-based regulatory options are more cost-effective than traditional regulations such as fuel regulation or fuel economy requirements. This is because market-based approaches allow individual actors the flexibility to find the most-cost effective ways to cut emissions and implement the cheapest abatement options first. 

    Supporters of cap-and-trade programs also stress that well-implemented programs are economically stimulating. Proponents argue caps on emissions can create a positive economic shock by spurring investment in green energy technologies and conservation measures. Additionally, supporters argue these policies promote the creation of new energy efficiency programs which generate jobs. It is also argued that revenue generated from auctioning carbon allowances can be directed toward investments for other green projects, including renewable energy production, conservation projects, and more energy-efficiency undertakings.

    Arguments Against Cap-and-Trade

    Many arguments against the implementation of emissions trading programs focus on the economic well-being of consumers. Critics argue that cap-and-trade programs damage the economy by raising energy prices, which would create a tax on energy consumption that falls on consumers as companies shift this burden onto customers instead of absorbing the costs themselves. In effect, this would burden low-income households and lead companies to outsource manufacturing, which would harm American jobs and increase unemployment. Opponents also point to previous examples of firms avoiding the cost of cap-and-trade programs. For example, the 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill sought to initiate the US’s transition into a more green economy with cap-and-trade programs, but it was met with high levels of corporate disapproval. In response, lawmakers included “handouts” to industry groups in the bill in an effort to generate enough support for the bill’s passage.

    Opponents cite concerns over energy security (oil acquisition) in the US and a future of dependence on foreign nations. In the US, cap-and-trades will limit domestic oil production even though there are high levels of extractable resources. They argue that this will lead to a heavier reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East.

    Critics also assert that the design of cap-and-trade programs can be problematic. They cite past issues of cap-and-trade initiatives, like those associated with the European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS) or Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The EU ETS initially over-allocated emissions permits and set a very weak cap, rendering it ineffective until this was fixed. The RGGI initially taxed emissions without effectively reducing them overall. It is argued that these failures were due to weak design provisions, such as frequently fluctuating carbon prices and vague, over-allocated, and flexible emissions caps. 

    Emissions leakage is a challenge that affects many cap-and-trade programs. Leakage occurs when emission reductions in one jurisdiction are accompanied by increased emissions in other regions with fewer rules, as emitters search for ways to avoid regulation. Critics point to emissions leakage as evidence of design flaws that require additional cooperation to address.