Category: ACE Research

Social Determinants of Mental Health
This brief was originally published on July 3, 2021 by Isabel Gerondelis. It was updated and republished by Josh Ludwig on June 30, 2022.

Social determinants are conditions in a person’s lived environment that impact their health and quality of life. There are five main groups of social determinants of health:
1. Economic stability
2. Education access and quality
3. Healthcare access and quality
4. Neighborhood and built environment
5. Social and community context
Social determinants of health contribute to health disparities and inequalities as factors like race, socioeconomic status, housing, educational attainment and more impact a person’s health.

Mental health is defined as our emotional, psychological, and social well-being that impacts our thoughts, actions, and feelings. Our mental health influences how we handle stress and make healthy choices. Conversations about mental health are becoming more widespread, partially in response to rising suicide rates. Suicide risk can be reduced with mental health screenings and treatment, but attention to mental health often goes overlooked. One consequence of this is that the U.S. suicide rate has increased 35% from 1999 to 2018. In 2018, suicide was the 10^th leading cause of death, claiming more lives than homicide deaths. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, suicides have also been increasing on college campuses. This has left college administrators struggling with how best to respond, as their resources are being overwhelmed with more students seeking mental healthcare from their colleges.

Furthermore, suicide was the 2^nd leading cause of death for youth in 2019. As a result, suicide is a major contributor to premature mortality and is considered an epidemic that greatly impacts societal health. The U.S. is a unique case with approximately ¼ of U.S. adults reporting a mental health diagnosis, which is a higher rate than other high-income countries. This fact suggests that the U.S. is lacking in mental health providers and creates conditions in which people feel significant stress, helplessness, and/or other emotions that can lead to mental health issues. It also suggests the U.S. needs to address mental health in more societal conversations, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has increased feelings of anxiety, helplessness, and fear, leading to increased mental health impacts.

Since societal factors place certain groups at a higher risk of experiencing adverse mental health outcomes, it is important to understand what impacts specific social determinants can have on society.

Some examples include:

College campuses (especially during the pandemic) – College campuses exemplify when these social determinants of health come together to create inequality. Due to the pandemic, inequalities between wealthy and low-income, and white versus minority students have made college a harder place to succeed, especially for certain groups. College is the age of onset for most mental health conditions, and it is important to have this conversation when talking about the social determinants of mental health for that reason.

Economic Stability – If a person is less economically stable due to the presence of debt, the inability to pay for essential needs like housing, food, and clothes, or having to work multiple jobs, we see an increased rate of stress and a higher risk of suicide. Financial strain may also deter people from seeking medical and mental health care, as they don’t have the financial means to pay for care and/or don’t have enough time to focus on self-care. COVID-19 has increased both economic and health disparities demonstrating how these disparities are linked to mental health. Conversely, stimulus checks during COVID-19 decreased economic instability, which also decreased stress and anxiety. Research has even shown that increasing the minimum wage by $1 may reduce the suicide rate.

Education Access and Quality – People with higher levels of education tend to have higher incomes, which leads to less overall stress and anxiety. Having a higher income makes purchasing healthy food, accessing reliable transportation, and healthcare itself more affordable. Additionally, education can provide social networks that help with social support during difficult times and increase self-esteem. It can also help people combat adverse life events by providing knowledge about how to research and find available resources. Additionally, college students who are first generation face unique challenges that those whose parents went to college do not have to deal with. Some examples of this include feelings of family conflict and guilt, shame, imposter syndrome, confusion, and anxiety.

Healthcare Access and Quality – People who need or want to seek treatment often face barriers including difficulties finding a provider and navigating the fragmented healthcare system. If mental health professionals aren’t within a person’s insurance network, high out of pocket costs also deter people from seeking care. Furthermore, 1 in 6 U.S. adults is unable to afford professional help when they experience emotional distress. These barriers to care help explain why the U.S. has such a high suicide rate. For first generation college students, they face the challenges of not knowing how to access resources for counseling or healthcare options. This hidden curriculum is accessible to those whose parents or siblings went to college, as they have experience navigating these resources.

Neighborhood and Built Environment – 45% of US adults who reported experiencing emotional distress were also concerned about neighborhood safety. Living in an overcrowded apartment can also increase stress and anxiety, especially during COVID-19, as people in crowded living situations are more likely to contract the disease. Furthermore, the quality of housing affects the mental health of both children and adults. Poorer housing quality impacts motivation and leads to internalized symptoms, like depression and anxiety, and externalized symptoms, like aggression and learned helplessness.

Social and Community Context – This is a social determinant with multiple subcategories that impact mental health. Subcategories include:
- Racism – Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) experience higher rates of mental illness because racism causes trauma and stress that can lead to anxiety, depression, and suicide. People of color, especially Black people, experience habitual discrimination and microaggressions which cause increased amounts of stress. This racial trauma can increase the risk of BIPOC meeting the criteria for PTSD. Furthermore, due to fears concerning racism, discrimination, stress, and crowded housing, people of a racial minority experience less sleep. Less sleep can lead to insomnia, which can increase suicidal thoughts. Additionally, people of color often experience discrimination within the medical and mental health fields where their symptoms aren’t taken as seriously, which can decrease the likelihood of people of color seeking help. More than a third of first-generation college students are minorities, which means they have to overcome racial prejudice. This can have negative effects on these students, with feelings of marginalization and isolation leading to negatively impacted mental health and academic success.
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity – LGBTQ+ people experience discrimination, hate crimes, and threats for their sexual and gender identity. This causes extreme stress and internalized shame As a result, LGBTQ+ youth contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth. Furthermore, being unable to live one’s identity and express one’s orientation safely in an accepting community leads to despair and depression. Over 60% of transgender or nonbinary people reported they self-harmed in the past year, which results from feelings of isolation, gaslighting when people don’t use the correct pronouns, and fear of societal consequences because of their gender identity. Experiencing discrimination from both society and family members about how a person identifies has significant mental health repercussions, making transgender people one of the most at-risk populations. Many college students discover and/or disclose their sexual orientation and/or gender identity during college, making it a formative time in their development. According to college administrators, Covid-19 worsened the mental health of LGBTQ+ students, worsening symptoms of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and difficulty coping with stress, as well as concerns about sharing their identity with their family members.
- Mental Health Stigma – Defined as when society places shame on people with mental illnesses, it can prevent people from seeking aid and feeling like they belong in society. Mental health stigmas can also make people feel weak for needing mental health assistance. Mental health stigmas can come from stereotypes such as people with depression being lazy, those with anxiety being cowardly, or individuals with mental health illnesses being more violent. Stigmas regarding mental health can exacerbate symptoms and make it harder to seek help. On college campuses, the presence of an Active Minds chapter can reduce the stigma of talking about mental health and mental illness by helping to make the campus more accepting of these topics. On college campuses that are perceived to be supportive of mental health issues, students are 20 percent more likely to seek out and receive mental health treatment.
When thinking about mental health in the U.S. think about what social, economic, and political factors play a role in the declining mental health in the country. What stressors exist in people’s lives? Are they able to find and afford help? Is there a safe community for them to talk, destress, and share experiences with? Thinking about the social determinants of mental health provides a more holistic view on why mental health can disproportionately impact different people in society and where the root causes originate from. College campuses provide a case study for how these social determinants of health can come together to perpetuate inequality and be the place where college students are in the age range of the age of onset of mental illnesses.
June 30, 2022
Introduction to Climate Migration

In 2019 alone, 2,000 natural disasters displaced roughly 24.9 million people worldwide. By 2050, 150 to 200 million people will likely be displaced as a result of “climate shocks” – extreme weather events caused by climate change that impact the durability and sustainability of communities. While most displaced populations will migrate within their home country, the number of international migrants is projected to increase as climate change tests countries’ resiliency through the duration of the 21st century.

Sea level rise as a result of global temperature increase poses an extreme risk of flooding to those living in low-altitude and coastal areas. In Bangladesh, one of a handful of countries that have already begun to experience climate migration, the poorest citizens tend to live in the low-lying coastal zones that are most impacted by flooding. Bangladesh’s susceptibility to drought, clean water shortages, cyclones, floods, and coastal and delta erosion cause an estimated 500,000 people to migrate to urban areas every year. The vast majority of internal migrants arrive in Dhaka, Gazipur, and Narayanganj, causing these cities to reach abnormally high population densities, decreasing living standards. Cities like these have a limited capacity for providing clean water, shelter, and employment to hundreds of thousands of climate migrants fleeing the flooded coasts.

Climate processes such as water scarcity, sea level rise, drought, salinization, and eutrophication (leaching of chemicals into water sources) are major causes of forced migration. Climate processes involve years of shifting environments, but climate events like flooding, storms, and wildfires, can degrade entire habitats in a matter of days and impact entire populations for decades. Physical barriers such as seawalls, levees, and dams provide temporary relief, but implementing long-term solutions to climate change is the only way to subdue forced climate migration. Many countries’ governments, however, do not recognize these climate processes as being directly related to climate change, which limits their willingness and ability to implement long-term solutions.

The existence of climate change is undisputed by 97% of the scientific community, but its effects on the human population are still argued. Complexities at the intersection between climate change, conflict, and displacement allow for debate over whether climate migration is a solution or a problem itself. Some scientists have referred to climate migration as an “adaptation strategy” because it presents itself as a temporary solution to habitat change and destruction. Others argue that as climate change affects the availability of natural resources like drinkable water, climate migrants will arrive in urban areas that do not have the means to provide for the increase in population.

Historically, climate migration has largely taken place internally, leading to the prioritization of national protocols. Nations will be forced to address climate migration domestically as well as internationally. Bangladesh has put in place a Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF), which allocates $70 million (USD) to fund government projects that will mitigate the adverse effects of internal climate migration as well as prevent communities from reaching the point of forced migration. Future projections of displaced people led the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2011 to determine that an expected influx of immigrants to the U.S was a result of water scarcity and consequential conflicts resulting from resource depletion. Migration conditions resulting from climate shocks and processes have exacerbated conflict and instability in countries, resulting in more severe political and humanitarian issues.

Resiliency plans are one of the key steps in addressing climate migration. One proposed strategy is to limit the climate change drivers that are pushing populations out of their homes, namely greenhouse gas emissions. However, both financial constraints and the time it takes for governments to implement strategies that could potentially reduce emissions and slow the process of climate change are major limitations, and many scientists believe that time is running out. A possible solution would be to instead focus funding on facilitating climate migration. Studies show that planned climate migration leads households to become more resilient in the face of climate shocks, whereas forced and sudden climate migration tends to lead to household vulnerability. Bangladesh’s CCTF plan works by providing the resources for households to understand their local risk of climate shocks, as well as by creating avenues that assist in planning migration ahead of time. This strategy may significantly reduce the need for emergency migration and post-disaster relief efforts.

Climate change disproportionately impacts countries and communities, which are historically marginalized, including non-industrial states which are the least responsible for the changing environment. Unfortunately, addressing the issue of forced migration does not tackle concerns over resource scarcity, which these disadvantaged countries will likely suffer from the most. Confronting the challenges associated with climate change and climate migration will require more international cooperation and resiliency planning that takes into consideration those countries that do not have the resources to prepare for the future.

June 30, 2022
Senegal-U.S. Relations: An Overview

Introduction

As one of the few African countries that has never experienced a coup d’etat, Senegal is a notable center of peaceful power transfers, democratic values, and religious coexistence. Senegal is also unique in terms of its longstanding, favorable view of close partnership with the West, especially the United States. Since Senegalese independence in 1960, the U.S. has sought to maintain strong relations with Senegal, largely due to its geopolitical reputation as “the gateway to Africa”. As a convenient transit point for commerce and troop deployment, Senegal has historically been one of the foremost political, military, and economic allies of the U.S. within Africa. This strategic interest, combined with a long chain of pro-U.S. Senegalese presidential administrations, has led to a continuing politico-economic-military partnership between the two countries.

A brief history

The U.S. formally recognized the Republic of Senegal on September 24th, 1960—a month after Senegal’s break from the previously-recognized independent Mali Federation and three months after the region gained independence from French colonizers. After his election in 1960, Senegal’s first president Léopold Sédar Senghor believed that cultivating close ties with the West would be functionally necessary for Senegal’s financial and technical survival in the early post-independence period. He saw Senegalese relations with the United States as a “natural consequence” of relations with Europe, and admired the US for its youthful dynamism and strides towards racial integration. In a meeting with U.S. President Richard Nixon, Senghor predicated Senegalese relations with the U.S. on the fair treatment of Black Americans. If discrimination rose in the U.S., he assured Nixon that Senegal would look elsewhere—ostensibly to China and the Soviet bloc—for partnership. Senghor’s immediate successor, Abdou Diouf, and the rest of Senegalese presidents have continued Senegal’s close political, economic, and military relations with the United States.

Bilateral Economic relations

Trade

Senegal’s main exports to the U.S. are agricultural products, minerals, and textile fibers, while the main U.S. exports to Senegal are energy-related products, transportation equipment, and chemicals. Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), Senegal is granted trade preferences that include the duty and quota-free export of many products to the United States. While this has given Senegal easier access to the American market, the trade balance remains skewed towards American exports to Senegal (Fig. 1). The U.S. trade surplus with Senegal has fluctuated over the past decade, but totaled 180 million in 2020.

Senegal has also maintained a bilateral investment treaty with the US since 1990. U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Senegal was approximately 21 million in 2018, compared to Senegal’s 1 million FDI in the U.S. during the same year. U.S. investment in Senegal has expanded in recent years, with over 50 US private companies doing business with Senegal in various sectors. Senegal is also a member of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which has its own investment agreement with the United States.

Bilateral aid

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently announced the U.S’s conviction that “it is time to stop treating Africa as a subject of geopolitics and start treating it as the major geopolitical player it has become” during his visit to Dakar this past November. However, most U.S. involvement in Senegal revolves around some type of development aid. Contemporary U.S. aid to Senegal mostly focuses on agricultural production, infrastructure, healthcare, education, energy production.

For example, in 2018, Senegal signed on to their second Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) contract aimed at improving Senegal’s electricity sector. The contract consists of $550 million from the U.S. government and will be supplemented by $50 million from the Senegalese national government. The U.S. (in partnership with the UN) provided 903,990 Covid-19 vaccine doses to Senegal, though logistical oversights—including the short shelf life of the donated vaccines – have rendered large amounts unusable. The U.S. also committed 3.3 million to Senegal’s Institut Pasteur de Dakar with the aim of improving vaccine production capabilities in Senegal.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has robust operations within Senegal. Currently, the USAID x Yaajeende project partners with rural Senegalese community-based solution providers to increase the production of high-quality agricultural products in rural areas. Moreover, Senegal hosts one of the largest Peace Corps programs in Africa, with over 4,000 volunteers having participated since its founding in 1963. As an agricultural powerhouse, Senegal is also a strong partner in USAID’s Feed the Future program. Many scholars assert that US development aid has not significantly progressed the Senegalese economy.

Military cooperation

Senegal’s strategic location and willingness to partner with US international missions renders it a cornerstone in US-Africa military operations. Senegal has one of the largest and most technically-advanced militaries in Sub-Saharan Africa and has been indispensable in U.S.-backed peacekeeping missions like those in Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In 2016, Senegal signed a defense cooperation deal with the U.S. that solidified the country as a key military ally and troop transport point for America. The deal proactively deregulates the deployment of American troops to Senegal and is intended to speed up deployment in the wake of mass disaster or terrorist threat. Senegal is also a member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), established in 2021 in response to the growing presence of Al Qaeda and Boko Haram in West Africa. Through the TSCTP, it receives military training and resources from the U.S.

Perceptions of the U.S.

While the Senegalese public has generally viewed the U.S. in a positive light, this perception has decreased in recent years, with a notable dip at the beginning of the Trump administration in 2016. However, Senegalese approval ratings of U.S. leadership seemed to stabilize at around 48% in 2018—a relatively high rating globally at the time.

The lack of diplomatic engagement in Africa during the Trump administration was likely perceived as a foil to France’s significant intervention in and influence over Senegalese markets and politics. This relationship is sometimes viewed as a remnant of colonialism and often protested by the Front Pour Une Révolution Anti-impérialiste et Panafricaine (FRAPP) in Senegal.

The Senegalese approval rating of U.S. leadership dropped to 32% in 2020, a major decline from 2018. This plummet could be the result of the Biden administration’s more active diplomatic engagement with a Senegalese public that supports less foreign interference, or negative perceptions of U.S.-backed COVID response programs. It is unclear whether this number has increased over the first two years of the Biden administration.

June 28, 2022
Introduction to Kazakhstan

A Brief History

Pre-Soviet Union

The Kazakh steppe has been a traditional homeland of nomadic tribes that stand as the early ancestors of the modern Kazakh people. Though Kazakhs are Turkic people, their culture and way of life are greatly influenced by the surrounding civilizations that they have come into contact with. Modern-day Kazakhstan’s path became more apparent as the Russian Empire conquered the steppe as the country expanded eastward in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

Kazakh SSR

Following the dissolution of Imperial Russia, Kazakhstan became a Soviet republic in 1925. The Kazakh SSR had an initially tumultuous past as forced agricultural collectivization under Joseph Stalin led to more than a million deaths in the 1930s. Moreover, the republic was the destination for many political and social opponents to Stalin’s regime exiled to Central Asia. However, due to positive agricultural programs in the 1950s and 60s, Kazakhstan was an attractive destination for agricultural workers from around the Soviet Union. Like much of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Kazakhstan experienced significant upheaval. In late 1986, many young ethnic Kazakhs protested for the replacement of First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR Dinmukhamed Konayev. Government soldiers were deployed to suppress the unrest leading to several deaths and many arrests. These events subsequently became known as the Jeltoqsan protest. In October of 1990, Kazakhstan declared sovereignty over its territory as a republic within the USSR, and in December of 1991, it officially declared independence as the last Soviet republic to do so.

Post-USSR

When Kazakhstan gained its independence in 1991, ethnic Kazakhs found themselves as a minority group in their own state. However, many non-Muslim ethnic groups moved to their respective states, while many Kazakhs living in other former Soviet states were repatriated. Between 1990 and 2019, Nursultan Nasarbayev, a holdover from the Soviet era, served as Kazakhstan’s president. In 2019, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev succeeded Nasarbayev.

Image Courtesy of Britannica

Modern Kazakhstan

The modern-day Republic of Kazakhstan is a linguistically, ethnically, and religiously diverse state. Although Kazakhstan is predominantly populated by ethnic Kazakhs, there are many ethnic Russians living within its borders. Moreover, along with Kazakh, Russian is an official language and the language of interethnic communication.

Kazakhstan is a presidential republic led by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and acting Prime Minister Alihan Smaiylov. Although Almaty, a city of nearly two million people located in southeast Kazakhstan, is the country’s largest city, Nur-Sultan, a city of just over a million residents, is the capital. Kazakhstan has a bicameral parliament with an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the Majilis. Despite its outwardly democratic system, Kazakhstan is considered a consolidated authoritarian regime where free and fair elections are not provided.

Kazakhstan’s economy is primarily driven by the exportation of natural resources to partners in China, Italy, and Russia. Alternatively, Kazakhstan relies heavily on Russia and China for manufactured imports such as packaged medicine and cars. The average Kazakh citizen earns roughly 268,000 Tenge per month. Although an initially staggering number, this only amounts to about 620 USD, as $1 is worth approximately 432 Tenge.

Nazarbayev (left) and Tokayev (right) Image Courtesy of The Astana Times

January 2022

What happened?

For about a week and a half in early January, thousands of Kazakhs participated in violent protests. The situation was very volatile, and in many cities in the country, such as Almaty, a state of emergency was declared. On January 7^th, President Tokayev ordered security forces to “shoot to kill without warning.” This undoubtedly escalated the situation and caused more violence.

What caused the events?

The primary catalyst for the mass protests was the government lifting price caps on liquefied petroleum gas. This gasoline is a low price, low-carbon fuel used by many Kazakhs to power their cars. By lifting the price cap, the cost of liquefied petroleum gas doubled. However, this was not the only cause of the demonstrations. Significant social and economic inequalities, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the autocratic nature of the Tokayev regime motivated many Kazakhs to demonstrate.

What was the result?

Although the accurate number is somewhat unclear, officially, 225 people were killed during the demonstrations, and many more were injured. Kazakh authorities said that roughly 10,000 people were detained. Of the many thousands of people detained, approximately 700 criminal cases are open against protesters whose charges range from terrorism, murder, and seeking to overthrow the government.

President Tokayev appealed to the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization for assistance in ending the demonstrations. This is notable as it was the first time CSTO soldiers had been deployed. These soldiers were effective in securing airports and government buildings, although their deployment was very short.

In response to the economic concerns voiced by the demonstrators, the Kazakh government imposed a 180-day state regulation on fuel and food prices. The demonstrations also led to some political shifts as Tokayev’s cabinet, led by the former Prime Minister Askar Mamin, resigned.

American Response

The United States’ response to the upheaval in Kazakhstan was expected. Given the geographic distance between the two states, the U.S. could do little more than condemn the violence and ask all sides to work towards a peaceful resolution. However, the United States and Kazakhstan have a close political relationship as the U.S. was the first state to recognize Kazakhstan’s independence. Moreover, the two states have a close economic relationship. The United States has invested heavily in Kazakhstan’s energy potential, and nearly $54 billion has been invested into the Kazakh economy over the last thirty years.

Russian Response

Compared to the United States, Russia had a greater stake in calming the situation. Were the Kazakh protests successful, they may have provided a blueprint for anti-Putin actors in Russia. In many ways, Russia had a responsibility to assist the Tokayev government. Both states are CSTO members, and Russia had to assist when called upon. The unrest in Kazakhstan posed a tangible security concern for Russia as the two states share a massive border. Long-lasting unrest in Kazakhstan could have provided another problem for Russia along its borders, in addition to the concerns in the South Caucasus and Ukraine.

Kazakh protestors Image Courtesy of Financial Times

June 24, 2022
The United States’ Response to HIV/AIDS
This brief was originally published by Katrina Freeman on October 7, 2021. It was updated and republished by Pamela Pamela Nwakakwa on June 23, 2022.

Introduction

Across the world, approximately 38 million people are living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HIV is the virus which causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). It is spread through bodily fluids, which enter the bloodstream through a mucous membrane, open cuts or sores, or by direct injection. The most common ways to contract HIV are through:
1. Participating in vaginal or anal sex with someone who has HIV without using a condom or taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV.
2. Sharing injection drug equipment, such as needles, with someone who has HIV.
Newborns can contract HIV if their mother is HIV positive through breastfeeding, but this is preventable through early intervention.

“HIV can affect anyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or where they live. However, certain groups of people in the United States are more likely to get HIV than others because of particular factors, including the communities in which they live, what subpopulations they belong to, and their risk behaviors.”—HIV.gov

While HIV/AIDS was once considered a death sentence, medical advances such as ART (anti-retroviral treatment) and PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) have allowed people with the virus to live long lives. Access to these medications are limited, and in some cases the stigma associated with HIV can prevent people from seeking more information or treatment, even if it is available.

US Response to Global HIV/AIDS

The United States funds HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment across the world. The US government donated billions of dollars to the Global Fund, funded PEPFAR programs, and worked alongside UNAIDS to stop the spread of HIV.
- The Global Fund is a multilateral partnership between governments, the private sector, and NGOS designed to end the AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria epidemics. The Fund allocates resources to local organizations combating these diseases. Since its founding in 2002, the United States has been the largest donor, contributing $17.6 billion. The United States has also shaped its policies as a member of the Global Fund’s Board. The Global Fund also works hand-in-hand with the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
- PEPFAR: President George W. Bush announced the creation of The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003, and it was signed into law with bipartisan support. At the time, PEPFAR was the the “largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history” and has allocated “$85 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, saving over 20 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and achieving HIV/AIDS epidemic control in more than 50 countries around the world.” PEPFAR became the center for the American response to AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Bush Administration hoped PEPFAR would be the medical version of the Marshall Plan, in terms of its scope and impact. “Localization” or shifting decision making powers and implementation away from the United States and towards local leaders and individuals, has been a goal for the organization. Local ownership is considered critical to meet global health and development goals, but there are implementation challenges which have hindered progress.

PEPFAR has been reauthorized through three different Administration’s and has become a cornerstone of American global health policy. The original program worked with 15 countries, and the program has expanded to include 60 countries in 2021.
- UNAIDS: 90-90-90 Initiative: the United States also worked alongside UNAIDS to implement their 90-90-90 initiative. This initiative includes a focus on viral suppression because viral suppression means that a person does not spread the virus. This is key to ending the epidemic. By 2020 this initiative set a goal where:
1. 90% of all people living with HIV know their HIV status.
2. 90% of all people with diagnosed HIV infection receive sustained antiretroviral therapy.
3. 90% of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy have viral suppression.
As of the end of 2020, UNAIDS did not meet its goal. UNAIDS reports that in 2020, of all people with HIV worldwide:
1. 84% knew their HIV status
2. 73% were accessing ART
3. 66% were virally suppressed
US Response to Domestic HIV/AIDS

In the United States, new HIV infections are highly concentrated among men who have sex with men; minorities, especially African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and American Indians and Alaska Natives; and those who live in the southern United States. Social determinants of health and stigma against the LGBT community and drug users can impede access to care. A key tenant to ending HIV is ensuring that patients know their status and have access to both ART and PrEP to ensure they do not spread HIV to their partners.
- Ending the HIV Epidemic in the US (EHE): this program is the coordinating body for the American government’s cross-agency response to domestic HIV transmission. It aims to “reduce the number of new HIV infections in the United States by 75% by 2025, and then by at least 90% by 2030.” The HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health is coordinating this response as well as the following agencies, who are working together to reduce domestic HIV infections.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)- CDC is working with local and state governments, federal partners, communities, people with HIV and people at risk of getting HIV in order to increase the use of EHE’s strategies
- Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-HRSA’s Health Center Program and Ryan White HIV/AIDS program play an important role in carrying out EHE’s initiative through funding and providing HIV/AIDS services
- Indian Health Service (IHS)-IHS concentrates its EHE efforts on organizing and promoting HIV prevention and treatment activities in the communities that are most affected as part of an extensive public health approach
- National Institutes of Health (NIH)-NIH supports implementation science research done with community partners in EHE jurisdictions to decide what is the best way to use the very effective tools that are already available to deal with HIV
- Office of the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH)- OASH provides project management and coordination as a whole and keeps track of progress and delivers information through HIV.gov
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)- SAMHSA is using its knowledge to address the intersection of substance use disorders and HIV in order to make sure that the right behavioral health interventions get implemented as part of EHE’s goal
The Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative focuses on four key strategies that, implemented together, can end the HIV epidemic in the U.S: Diagnose, Treat, Prevent, and Respond.

Source: HIV.gov

The CDC writes:

“Our nation faces an unprecedented opportunity once thought impossible. The most powerful HIV prevention and treatment tools in history are now available. Areas where HIV transmission is occurring most rapidly can also be identified. By deploying those tools swiftly and to the greatest effect, the HIV epidemic in America can end.”
June 23, 2022
The Euro and its impact on the European Union
This brief was originally published by Francesca Reynolds on July 15, 2021. It was updated and republished by Larissa Cursaro on June 22, 2022.

History

Although it took until 2002 for the Euro to become a physical currency, the idea of a common currency alongside a united monetary and fiscal policy was an ambition of the European Union since the 1960s. Then on January 17 1989, two decades later, the European Parliament declared the free circulation of goods, capital, services, and people to be the “four fundamental freedoms” of the European Union, thus officially encouraging the adoption of a single-currency. The purpose of the common currency was to support economic activity between states, stabilize economies, and enhance options for consumers.

The Euro is now the currency of 19 nations, leaving only 8 EU countries that use an alternative currency (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden).

The European Central Bank (ECB) was established simultaneously in order to coordinate monetary policy (policies relating to interest rates and money supply, used by central banks to influence the level of demand in an economy e.g. management of interest rates) between countries. This necessary measure also further integrated the economies of many EU countries, leaving national governments with only fiscal policy (policies relating to the amount spent by a government e.g. levels of taxation) to manage their country’s economy.

Image

Benefits
- The Euro enables trade to operate far quicker by removing the need and risk of currency exchanges when operating across eurozone countries. Currency exchanges cost money to complete and are a risk to businesses as fluctuations in rates lead to uncertainty about the cost of the exchange. Therefore, by removing this barrier, trade has flowed easier between countries.
- Having a single-currency economy also incentivizes trade between the EU and other countries. The stability of a single-currency economy is attractive to potential trade partners as it ensures a relatively consistent exchange rate. This stability, paired with prudent economic management makes the Euro an attractive reserve currency for non-Euro countries, thus giving it a more powerful voice in the global economy. Fun Fact: The Euro is the world’s second most popular reserve currency.
- In theory, a combined currency should also incentivise countries to support each other and thus promote greater stability. There are a few reasons for this. First, countries with larger economies tend to be more stable as they are able to spread risk. For example, a natural disaster in a small country can ruin their economy and currency. On the other hand, a natural disaster in one US state will likely have an insignificant impact on the currency. Second, more successful countries have an incentive to help out less successful countries, otherwise known as “cohesion policy”. This is because the value of the currency impacts all countries using it, so if countries want to prevent harmful impacts to their own country, they need to support others. This benefit was realized during the 2020 Coronavirus Crisis. Although there was initially insufficient support for a collective measure, the ECB consistently bought debt in severely impacted countries to keep interest rates low. Eventually, the Next Generation EU recovery plan was put in place. It is the largest stimulus package ever from the EU and is worth around €750 billion.
Issues

The most significant issue facing the adopters of the Euro is the coordinated monetary policy that often fails to fit local economic conditions. The economies of the countries currently using the currency vary significantly. Germany is the world’s third largest exporter but has to use the same monetary policy as Lithuania whose export value is 67th globally. Without tailored monetary policy for each economy, countries can struggle to solve issues impacting their populations, as was the case during the eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis.

There is also concern regarding the economies of some member states that have already adopted the Euro. In order to become a member of the eurozone, countries must meet certain economic standards called “convergence requirements”, one of which requires the country’s debt ratio to be under 60% debt to GDP. Considering that this is a non-negotiable prerequisite to join the eurozone, many economists wonder if the European Commission should start holding current eurozone members to the same standard. Some of the largest countries in the European Union—such as Italy, France, and Spain—fail this requirement with the average percent debt to GDP in the Euro area being 100 percent. If left unchecked, they may cause the Euro to lose value, which could be devastating for the Euro area’s economy.

Image

Future
- There are frequent reports of the potential collapse of the Euro, however, at least in the near future, this seems unlikely. The Euro was able to survive in Greece despite both economic and political crisis after the 2008 financial crisis, so it seems likely to continue through comparatively steadier times.
- The number of countries using the Euro could be set to increase. Since 1991 any country joining the EU has had to adopt the Euro and meet the “convergence requirements” (excluding Denmark). With a number of countries in the pipeline to joining the EU, it is no surprise that the eurozone is set to expand. On June 1st, 2022, the European Commission determined in its convergence report that Croatia has fulfilled the convergence requirements for the adoption of the euro on the first of January, 2023. However, many countries have been on the path to EU accession for many years without having been deemed to fulfill the convergence criteria.
June 22, 2022
US, China and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Part 2: Cooperation

This brief was originally published by Aerin Lee on September 21, 2021. It was updated and republished by Ethan McQueen on June 24, 2022.

The Quad can cooperate in two ways to achieve their goals in the Indo-Pacific region: either with a narrow functional approach or a broader regional approach. A narrow functional approach would involve the Quad countries working together under a combined disaster relief policy to handle region-wide disasters. A broader regional approach would involve neighboring Indo-Pacific nations, not just the immediate members of the Quad, to handle such regional disasters and establish the Indo-Pacific as a coherent regional order. This Indo-Pacific regional order would serve as an organized body of nations aiming to contain Chinese influence. The potential consequences of attempting to contain China has made neighboring countries wary of taking an active role in the regional order.

Quad-plus

In 2020, the Quad countries held a teleconference with Vietnam, South Korea, and New Zealand to discuss how to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These three nations have come to be known as participants in a Quad-plus dialogue because of their recent cooperation. Each of these three Quad-plus parties are Indo-Pacific powers with important relations with the Quad countries. For example, in 2018, Australia and Vietnam established a strategic partnership, pledging to increase political engagement with each other, deepen bilateral trade, and welcome intelligence and security cooperation. South Korea has been allied with the US under the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty, and the two nations have worked together to support inter-Korean cooperation and strengthen their respective economies. New Zealand formally adopted Indo-Pacific foreign policy in 2019, signaling its intent to deepen cooperation with the Quad countries due to increasing security concerns regarding China, as China has pushed its Maritime Silk Road into the Indian Ocean, militarized the South China Sea, and pushed into the Pacific islands.

Complications to Cooperation

India and the United States have a complicated trade relationship, leading to India drawing closer to Russia. In 1998 the United States sanctioned India over its nuclear tests, canceling all current orders for American military equipment and cutting off any future orders. India depends on imports for its military needs and is one of the largest arms importers in the world accounting for 10% of all worldwide arms imports. While these sanctions were appealed in just a few years, this isolation of India from western military companies helped lead to India becoming the biggest military importer of Russian military equipment in the world. This relationship led to a rift in the response of India and other Quad members towards the Russian-Ukraine war. The United States, Japan, and Australia placed aggressive sanctions but India increased oil imports from Russia to record levels and plans to enter into new contracts with Russian oil companies. In response, the United States sent convoys and threatened to sanction India. However, the United States has also been in discussion to provide military aid to India to help decrease their reliance on Russian arms.

Many US allies in the Indo-Pacific have been hesitant to join the effort, mainly due to the Quad’s clear intentions to oppose China. In particular, South Korea is reluctant to engage with the Quad because its foreign policy priority lies in improving relations with North Korea and sustaining peace on the Korean peninsula. Since China is North Korea’s primary benefactor, this also means that South Korea must maintain good relations with China.

A Binding Adversary

Even with the complicated relationships between the Quad countries, India has remained mostly committed to the Quad. and the prospect of Korea joining a Quad-plus expansion has become a real possibility. With China’s behavior becoming more aggressive with its territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative, many nations’ attitudes toward the Quad and toward Chinese pressure have changed. These negative changes toward China have been further compounded by the Russian-Ukrainian war and China’s response. Thus, the Quad and Quad-plus expansion are logical because these countries all share concerns regarding China’s aggressive behavior and have faced pressure from China in recent years.

June 22, 2022
Overview President Biden’s Immigration Polices
This brief was originally published by Megan Garcia on February 9, 2022. It was updated and republished by Peyton Singletary on June 21, 2022.

Immigration policy is an area of policy that consistently changes with a shift in administration, illustrated most recently by former President Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The Obama-Biden Administration oversaw a major transformation from the previous Bush Administration. President Obama was known to be the “deporter in chief” due to his immigration policy choices.

Campaign Platform and Early Actions

When Biden ran for office in 2020, his platform championed an immigration policy that consisted mainly of modernizing America’s immigration system. As stated on his presidential website, he planned to create a system that was more welcoming to immigrants, primarily by taking action to undo Trump’s policies. He also stated that legislation under the Obama-Biden Administration that removed families from one another must be changed.

When Biden first took office, he once again promised to reverse Trump-era immigration restrictions by boosting refugee admissions and providing deportation relief for unauthorized immigrants coming to the United States as children. However, Biden initially kept the Trump Administration’s FY2021 refugee ceiling—15,000—before bowing to pressure from activists and colleagues in the Democratic party who demanded higher refugee admissions. In FY2021 less than 12,000 refugees were resettled in the US, which the Biden Administration attributes to pandemic-relating complications and the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the refugee resettlement infrastructure. Despite Biden’s major campaign commitments to the legalization of unlawful immigrants and the strengthening of the country’s asylum structure, political opponents and media depict the president’s approach to immigration as stagnant and obtuse.

The Biden Administration also made individuals migrating from Venezuela and Burma eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). TPS allows for and protects a select group of immigrants to live and work in the United States. With the Department of Homeland Security’s reevaluation of other countries, such as Haiti, Yemen, and Somalia, about 427,000 more individuals are eligible for TPS. Biden even proposed a bill titled the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which proposed the establishment of the policies previously mentioned to better maintain migration into the U.S., specifically the bill strived to accomplish a key aspects among many others:
- Create a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants
- Provide an immigration system that is focused to keep families together
- Build upon the budget for immigration enforcement at the border
- Improve the immigration courts (backlogs and training)
Reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols

During the current crisis at the Southern Border, U.S. District Court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordered the reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or the Remain in Mexico bill, in August. This bill forces asylum seekers, both with and without proper documentation, to stay in Mexico while their claims are processed in the United States immigration courts. This is a shift in policy, because previously asylum applicants resided in the United States while their claims were being considered. Under the Trump administration, the MPP was used to return around 60,000 asylum seekers to Mexico, many of whom were not Mexican but passed through Mexico in order to apply for asylum in the US. One sticking point of the court order to restart the MPP was that the Mexican government had to agree to accept returned asylum seekers. However, the MPP continues to be met with criticism which stems from the prospect of deporting asylum seekers without due process and despite safety measures and an individual’s desire to migrate in the first place. As of December 2nd, the Biden administration has reached a deal with the Mexican government to reimplement the Remain in Mexico program. The program formally begins on the 6th of December 2021, and will start at one border location and expand to seven other cities. However, this agreement comes with several conditions on the behalf of the Mexican government.
1. Asylum seekers will be able to obtain legal counsel to assist them in making their claim, which is not currently a provision of the US system.
2. Every applicant waiting in Mexico will receive a decision on their application within 6 months, to avoid an indefinite stay in limbo.
3. Migrants will have access to a Covid-19 vaccine provided by the US government.
Changes to Northern Triangle Policy

The Northern Triangle region of Central America consists of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The countries experience overwhelming political, social, and economic difficulties which lead to stratification, poverty, corrupt governance, and an influx in migrants to the United States. Under the Trump Administration, the United States ceased providing development aid to the region in an effort to motivate Northern Triangle governments to take a harder stance against emigration. On February 2, President Biden issued an executive order to address the root causes of migration and corruption within the Northern Triangle. In attacking the source of challenges within the region, the Biden administration hopes to:
1. Increase GDP per capita to more than $8,000.
2. Create more than three million jobs.
3. Reduce the poverty rate by 15 percentage points.
June 21, 2022
President Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

This brief was originally published by Jia Williams on November 11, 2021. It was updated and republished by Thomas Lee on June 20, 2022.

Introduction

In recent decades, about 45 million college-educated Americans have collectively amassed $1.75 trillion in student loan debt, leading to decreased national Gross Domestic Product, sustained generational inequality, and increased loan delinquencies. In the past decade alone, student loan debt has increased by 91% from 2011. This increase in national student loan debt is not a new development, as the cost of higher education has been on the rise since President Reagan cut federal spending on higher education by 25% in the 1980s. It rose again after the Great Recession of 2007, when the government cut higher education spending once more. The effects of these budget cuts are seen in higher tuition, less aid to low income students, and more student debt than ever before.

President Biden’s Policies So Far

The election of President Joe Biden has brought on a resurgence of demand for student loan forgiveness in many different capacities. So far, Biden has only enacted targeted loan cancellation for three groups of student loan borrowers—borrowers with total and permanent disabilities (TPD); borrowers under the Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule (BD Rule); and most recently, students under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF). As of May 27, 2022, Biden has canceled over $18.5 billion in student loans for targeted groups.

Students under the TPD borrowers category have a disability that prevents them from earning an income and subsequently paying their loans. Eligible borrowers under this program automatically had their loans discharged if they passed a data match between the Department of Education (DoE) and the Social Security Administration or between the DoE and the Department of Veteran Affairs. Borrowers who believe they qualify as a TPD borrower can also obtain certification from a licensed doctor to confirm that they are totally and permanently disabled.

The BD Rule covers borrowers who were defrauded by their schools or who’s schools were closed before they could complete their degree. Students who were defrauded by their schools were intentionally misled by their universities about the education programs offered or attended universities that violated state laws such as consumer protection statutes. Other qualifying conditions under the BD Rule include employment rates that differ from what was advertised, misrepresentation of the transferability of credits, and misrepresentation of graduate placement rates and salaries, among others. In March of 2021, about 72,000 borrowers under the BD rule were awarded a total of $1 billion in loan cancellations. Borrowers received an additional $500 million for 18,000 borrowers again in June, and received another $1.1 billion in late August for an additional 115,000 borrowers who were defrauded..

The PSLF Program was started by Congress in 2007, but has been underutilized due to its complexity and poor management. The purpose of the program is to cancel student debt for public servants after they’ve paid 120 on-time monthly payments for 10 years. On October 6th, the DoE announced a waiver that would allow borrowers in the program to count payments from federal loan programs and repayment plans that were not previously eligible under the program. The waiver is temporary and will be accepted only until October 31, 2022. The DoE expects this waiver to bring 550,000 borrowers a total of $1.74 billion in student loan relief.

In total, Biden has canceled $7.8 billion for more than 400,000 student loan borrowers with a TPD, $2 billion for 105,000 student loan borrowers under the BD Rule, and $6.8 billion for 113,000 borrowers under the PSLF Program. Along with the loan cancellations, the administration has extended student loan relief for temporary student loan forbearance through August 31, 2022. Temporary student loan forbearance suspends or lowers student loan payments temporarily for borrowers.

Future Policies from the Biden Administration

In the future, Biden hopes to improve student loan financing for student loan borrowers, hold student loans servicers accountable, enact more student loan cancellation programs, improve policies concerning student loan debt collection, streamline the process of applying for student loan debt forgiveness and cancellation, as well as hold colleges and universities accountable for misleading students about education programs and loan financing. There are a multitude of ways his administration plans on accomplishing these goals. To start, the DoE aims to establish a committee that will be tasked with rewriting regulations to improve the student loan crisis. Their responsibilities entail addressing issues in the BD Rule, in interest capitalization on federal student loans, in Pell Grant eligibility for prison education programs, and in the PSLF Program, as well as exploring TPD charges further. They also aspire to make student loan forgiveness more accessible by eliminating the required application and 3-year monitoring period for people who qualify for TPD.

After months of internal discussion over how to structure loan forgiveness for tens of millions of Americans, it appears that President Biden plans to forgive $10,000 in student debt per borrower. Canceling $10,000 in federal student loans for every borrower would wipe out the student loan debt for over 16 million people, representing around a third of all borrowers, according to the Center for American Progress. However, the White House plans to limit debt forgiveness to Americans who earned less than $150,000 in the previous year, or less than $300,000 for married couples filing jointly. Biden’s executive action to cancel student loans would almost certainly be limited to federal student loans only. It is still unclear whether Biden would limit the relief further to only Direct federal student loans or government-owned federal student loans, or whether it could also include commercially-held FFEL-program student loans as well. The Department of Justice is currently reviewing his executive authority to cancel all student loan debt. If it is concluded that he does not have authority to do so, responsibility will fall on Congress to pass legislation that will enact widespread student loan forgiveness.

Arguments For Student Loan Forgiveness

Progressive Democrats believe that full student loan forgiveness is possible under the Biden administration and are advocating for student loan forgiveness of up to $50,000 per borrower who earns less than $250,000 a year. At the head of the push for student loan forgiveness are Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. They, along with Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, believe that student loan debt is preventing a generation of student loan borrowers from advancing in life. They cite recent research that shows current generations are getting married and starting families at older ages than previous generations. Overall, they believe that student loan debt cancellation, in any capacity, is necessary to decrease generational and racial wealth disparities and increase opportunities for young Americans. Biden is hesitant to forgive $50,000 per borrower, but has expressed a willingness to forgive up to $10,000 per borrower.

Arguments Against Student Loan Forgiveness

Republican politicians have been actively opposing this view and believe it will promote fiscal irresponsibility. Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio explains that borrowers will incur student debt rashly if they assume the government will cancel it. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, also advocates against student loan forgiveness for this reason. Republican politicians also believe that the federal government cannot afford canceling student debt, especially during a time of economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Full student debt cancellation does not address the root causes of the student debt crisis and could even potentially exacerbate the issue due to irresponsible debt accrual. Some also raise the point that total student loan forgiveness is regressive because of its disproportionate benefits for high-income earners who took out more loans to pay for higher levels of education. These individuals are already more likely to pay off student loans without the added advantages of federal student loan forgiveness, leading many to believe that widespread student loan forgiveness is an uneven wealth transfer.

An analysis from the Brooking Institute addresses the concerns of both perspectives and asserts that student loan forgiveness could be progressive and reduce social inequities and increase economic opportunity—but only if debt cancellation is contingent on post-college earning and family income. For example, someone earning $170,000 a year with $65,000 in student loan debt is comparatively in a better position to pay off loans than someone earning $60,000 a year with the national average of $36,000 in student loan debt. The proposal to cancel all student loan debt is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion, making it one of the largest wealth transfers in U.S. history, greater than 20 years of spending on unemployment insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Food Stamps. As opposed to these programs, widespread student debt cancellation would largely benefit higher income, better educated, likely white borrowers. From this perspective, targeted student loan cancellation based on post-college earnings would be less costly than widespread loan cancellation, while still helping to mitigate racial disparities and generational inequity.

June 20, 2022
Introduction to Renewable Portfolio Standards

Overview of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a standard that requires a set percentage of a state’s electricity utilities to come from renewable sources. Currently, 31 states, Washington D.C, and two U.S. territories have created RPS to help their states diversify their energy portfolios and reduce emissions. Eligible renewable energy sources included in most RPS standards include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and some hydroelectric facilities. However, the exact mix of eligible sources, as well as specific RPS targets, varies by state. Most states have existing requirements around 40%, but many, including Virginia, Washington, Nevada, and New Mexico, are beginning to renew and increase their requirements to 100%. The metric used to measure standards also differs by state, but the most common is the percentage of retail electric sales, followed by specific amounts of renewable energy capacity, and percentage of peak demand.

Another set of related energy policies that have risen in popularity in recent years are clean energy standards (CES). Though similar to RPS, some “clean” energy sources under CES are not also “renewable,” enabling the distinction. A “clean” energy source is one that is carbon-free, and a “renewable” energy source is one that is not depleted when used. Nuclear energy is one such “clean” energy source because it has zero carbon emissions, but it is not renewable. Due to the broader definition of CES, most CES policies also have an RPS component. For example, if a CES policy sets a 90% requirement, a sub-RPS policy might require 30% from renewable sources and the remaining 60% can come from any eligible carbon-free or carbon-neutral source.

Arguments in Favor of RPS

Proponents of RPS argue that its policies provide a valuable opportunity for economic growth, diversification of state energy sources, and carbon emission reductions. Though increased adoption of RPS has positive impacts on the environment, most states view environmental impact as a secondary goal. Instead, many states are pursuing RPS policies as an opportunity for economic development through diversification of their respective energy supplies. Due to their positive economic impact, most RPS policy proposals have bipartisan support, but some questions posed by their rising popularity include: How high should future targets be set? And should favored status be given to some renewable energy sources that aren’t as popular because of higher costs to promote their development?

Evidence suggests state RPS policies have helped reduce carbon emissions while also boosting the economy. A recent study found that the greenhouse gas and air pollution reductions from state RPS policies saved the U.S. $7.4 billion in 2013, while a different study from the same team found average annual costs to be about $1 billion, indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs. In addition, 200,000 jobs centered around renewable energy were created in 2013, partially due to the increasing adoption of state RPS. Some smaller benefits from state RPS include lower national water consumption.

One state that has been particularly successful with RPS is Texas. Similar to most states, Texas’s eligible mix of resources was determined by its existing mix of energy and the potential sources of renewable energy given location. Wind energy quickly emerged as a prime area for energy development as a result of high wind speeds in West Texas. The 1999 legislation that put an RPS into place for the state established a robust system for the success of renewable energy in the state including a renewable energy credit program, a transparent market transaction process, and an alternative compliance mechanism. The state has since renewed their RPS many times and now has a standard of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy.

Given the success of most state RPS, some scholars suggest a national RPS is necessary to more efficiently promote renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping RPS policies at the state level allows for states to utilize their most abundant natural resources to create an energy portfolio that minimizes costs for their specific state. States like Texas can utilize naturally occurring high wind speeds and states like Florida and California can create robust solar energy systems. The challenge, though, is that state-based RPS allows for some states to choose not to implement or renew their RPS, thereby not contributing to the national transition to renewable energy. Due to its larger scope, a national RPS would allow for the benefits of renewable energy to be distributed nationwide without the need for individual state action.

Challenges Facing RPS

In general, RPS is thought to encourage economic development through the increased production of domestic energy. However, skeptics of RPS have argued against the adoption of a national RPS for a few primary reasons. First, “renewable” and “low greenhouse gas emissions” are not synonymous, as there are other cheaper forms of electricity with low CO₂ emissions, such as nuclear energy, that are not renewable. Second, the spread out locations of renewable energy sources requires building infrastructure to get energy to people, which is unlikely to happen due to time and resource constraints. Wind and solar energy collection farms, in particular, need to be sited in areas with low population density, but demand for energy in these areas is low compared to further areas with higher population density. To transport the energy to areas with higher demand would require robust transmission line infrastructure, which can be costly and time-intensive to buil.

Following these broad concerns are a few logistical challenges. The first is that areas with a lot of renewable energy and low population density, means that supply of renewable energy can and likely will exceed demand. This presents an even larger problem given the variability of primary renewable energy sources. Supply of these resources is dependent on non-controllable factors such as weather and time of day. As a result, resources such as wind and solar power do not generate energy during times of peak demand. Another resulting logistical issue is that variable energy generation poses challenges for the electricity grid as operators seek to match levels of electricity supply and demand. Variable energy generation increases the risk of supply disruptions and blackouts. Because the grid is highly interconnected, disturbances can quickly spread and impact larger regions. Another problem is that a national RPS policy would likely rely heavily on expanding wind energy. Wind and geothermal energy have the nation’s highest growth percentage among renewable energy sources, however wind is more cost-effective. For its cost-efficacy and high rate of growth, wind will likely become a key vehicle for expanding RPS. Consequently, setting a national RPS requirement of even 15% would mean wind would have to expand exponentially in a short period of time.

Siting issues also present a challenge for the rollout of renewable energy technology. Siting issues could also lead to public discontent in states with high population density around viable sites. Wind and solar farms require large areas of land to generate significant amounts of energy, which can alter habitats for wildlife and result in aesthetic degradation.

June 13, 2022