ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 1

    Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 1

    This brief is the first in a 4-part series on carbon tax and credit policy in the United States: carbon tax, carbon fee & dividend, cap & trade, and discussion.

    A carbon tax is a fee on emissions that aims to reflect the additional costs created by fossil fuels while also providing a financial incentive to switch to more renewable sources of energy. There are several aspects of a carbon tax to consider: 

    1. The scope: which types of greenhouse gases and industries are subjected to the tax 
    2. the point of taxation: the part of the supply chain being directly taxed 
    3. Border carbon adjustments: a tool to maintain global competition by taxing imports and compensating exports that are coming from and going to countries without a similar carbon tax 
    4. Regulatory pauses: a pause on overlapping EPA emissions regulations
    5. Distribution options: how the tax revenue is distributed

    Currently, no carbon taxes have been implemented in the United States at a federal or state level, but multiple bills have been recently introduced in Congress.


    Figure 1: Highlights the tax rates under the many carbon tax proposals introduced in Congress, which range from taxing carbon at $20/metric ton to $150/metric ton.


    Figure 2: Highlights specified allocation strategies under the many carbon tax proposals introduced in Congress, including tax cuts, national deficit reduction, subsidies to renewable energy, and lump-sum dividend payments.

    Benefits of Carbon Taxes

    First, carbon taxes have the potential to raise a large amount of revenue, which can be used to reduce other taxes, subsidize green energy, or pay costs related to pollution, such as oil spills and contaminated air. A 2017 study by the U.S. Department of Treasury estimated that a $49/metric ton tax on carbon dioxide (that steadily increases to $70/metric ton after 10 years) could raise nearly $2.2 trillion in net revenue from 2019 to 2028. 

    Second, carbon taxes have the potential to reduce emissions quickly; however, this depends on the tax rate and how much the tax increases over time. One example of these drastic emission reductions was highlighted in a joint paper from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The estimate found that an initial $20/metric ton tax that grows 5% faster than inflation per year could reduce emissions by over 20% after 15 years and over 30% after 35 years. Sweden implemented a carbon tax in 1991 and has seen a 25% reduction in emissions since 1995, while their economy expanded 75%. Today, Sweden taxes carbon at USD $127/metric ton.

    Downsides of Carbon Taxes

    First, without implementing certain allocation strategies, a carbon tax can be regressive. Firms which produce carbon-intensive goods (like energy companies) will be forced to raise their prices if they are unable to sufficiently reduce emissions. Lower-income households spend a larger proportion of their income on carbon-intensive goods, such as gasoline and electricity, so a tax on carbon would burden those individuals more than high-income households by making the goods they purchase more expensive.

    A carbon tax may increase the risk of potential outsourcing. Companies may relocate their manufacturing processes to countries with fewer restrictions on emissions, making the U.S. less competitive in the global market. In theory, border carbon adjustments attempt to reduce this outsourcing risk through taxing imports based on their carbon footprint, levelling the playing field for domestic industries by raising the price of goods produced in countries without a carbon tax. However, there are still numerous complications in determining the taxes and rebates to be implemented. 

    Carbon taxes have historically been politically unpopular in the United States. Many consumers are adverse to new taxes, especially if they believe the tax is not “revenue neutral,” meaning that overall tax revenue to the government does not change. However, recent polling by the Yale Program on Climate Communications found that 67% of registered voters supported a tax that forced fossil fuel companies to pay for their emissions as long as that revenue was used to reduce other taxes to remain revenue neutral. More recently, a 2020 Pew Research Center poll found, for the first time ever, more than 50% of Americans reported that protecting the environment and combating climate change should be a top priority for the President and Congress.

  • Intro to the Green New Deal

    Intro to the Green New Deal

    Introduction

    There is a growing movement in the US and around the world arguing for the need to combat the growing threat of climate change. The United States has been the largest outputter of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) cumulatively, and has the most powerful economy globally with a track record of technological and scientific innovation. Because of these two factors, many see the US as an essential leader in the global transition to net-zero GHG emissions. The Green New Deal (GND) has been proposed as a progressive framework to drive this transition while also addressing other systemic injustices such as economic, regional, racial, and environmental inequality. 

    Although the concept of a Green New Deal has existed since the early 2000s, the movement gained momentum in 2019 when a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to address climate change and related issues. This policy brief uses H.R. 332, the proposal reintroduced in 2021, as the basis for discussing the Green New Deal. It is a non-binding proposal, meaning that it will not result in legislation if passed, but instead outlines goals and ideas which would be put into effect in ensuing bills. The concept of a “New Deal” comes from the economic and social reforms passed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt responding to the Great Depression in the 1930s. 

    Ultimately, the resolution is likely to meet strong opposition in Congress from Republicans as well as some establishment Democrats, since it calls for an expansive, government-led initiative to address a wide range of environmental and social issues. However, its themes of economic and environmental justice are echoed in recently introduced policies from Democrats, including the Americans Jobs Plan. 

    Policies in GND

    H.R. 332 comes from the perspective that the US needs to take urgent action on climate change, and that this presents an opportunity to address related environmental and social crises. It builds off previous energy investments under the Obama administration.

    The resolution sets the goal of supplying 100% of US power needs through renewable energy sources through a ten year national mobilization plan. Additionally, it states that the world needs to reduce GHG emissions by 40-60%  (of 2010 levels) by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050, though it does not provide goals for the US individually. H.R. 332 outlines several policies which would directly address climate change, including building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change, improving the efficiency of US buildings, and making the public transportation system cleaner and more accessible. It also plans to increase clean manufacturing within the US and work with the agricultural sector to decrease pollution and emissions. 

    The GND also frames heavy investment in energy infrastructure as an opportunity to create a progressive policy which addresses systemic injustices while providing aid to frontline and vulnerable communities. This includes creating more affordable healthcare, higher education, and low-income housing for all people within the United States.

    Supporters

    The GND is strongly supported by progressive Democrats because it addresses climate change and many other progressive issues in a single cohesive package. Figures such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call for the fastest transition to renewable energy possible and greater economic equality nationwide. The GND embodies many progressive goals by calling for radical changes to the current US economy through a transformation of the energy sector and expansion of social services. 

    Supporters argue the long-term effects of climate change pose a threat to the American economy, and the costs will be greater than the investments called for in the GND. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees a transition to renewable energy is needed to keep the effects of climate change within relatively safe boundaries. Supporters of the GND believe that government mobilization is the most efficient way to reduce emissions and keep global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 °C of pre-industrial levels. They also argue that the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic makes implementation of the GND even more crucial as the GND could help the economy bounce back through the creation of new jobs. 

    Moderate Democrats typically support many of the GND’s goals without calling for major economic and social changes. President Biden, for example, expressed support for the “framework” of the GND during his presidential campaign. This middle stance, which affirms the importance of environmental action without calling for social changes—like universal healthcare—is common among establishment Democrats. They also see the GND as energizing a class of younger, more progressive voters who are key for electoral victory. 

    Opponents

    Libertarians and Republicans tend to oppose the H.R. 332 because it calls for extensive government oversight to drive the transition to renewable energy. These groups generally prefer market-based solutions to climate change, focusing on technological innovation and nuclear energy instead of federal mobilization. Senator John Barrasso, Representative from Wyoming, expressed this idea by writing that “innovation, not new taxes or punishing global agreements, is the ultimate solution.” Supporters of the GND argue that market-based approaches will not reduce emissions fast enough, and relying on technology such as carbon capture is dangerous and unrealistic. 

    Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) also criticized the Green New Deal as a “job-killing proposal” that will make American energy more expensive. In April 2021, House Republicans unveiled their climate plan which calls for tax breaks to help encourage the development of carbon capture technology but does not cut the use of fossil fuels. This emphasizes the common belief among Republican politicians that climate change is a less urgent issue than many Democrats believe. 

    Some further argue that climate change can be dealt with in the future at a lower cost, and that slower changes are enough to manage the issue. The GND has developed a reputation as radically progressive, and the social goals outlined alongside climate-related ones also decrease support among some Republican voters. 

    Cost 

    It is difficult to quantify the costs of a Green New Deal, as estimates vary widely and depend on whether they include costs for social and institutional changes, such as universal healthcare and food security, which substantially increase its immediate cost. A recent analysis by Wood Mackenzie, an energy research and consultancy firm, estimates that converting the entire US power grid to 100 percent renewable energy in the next decade would cost $4.5 trillion. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, estimates the cost for a low-carbon electricity grid and net-zero emissions transportation system to be between $6.7 and $8.1 trillion. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stated in June 2019 that the GND would cost at least $10 trillion. She acknowledged that this is a high price, but believes the cost of the GND should be compared to the cost of climate change itself, which the National Resources Defense Council (NDRC) estimated to exceed $800 billion annually within the US alone. 

    H.R. 332 does not discuss the source of funding for the projects it outlines, and opponents worry about higher taxes and US debt. Supporters of the GND believe the pandemic and subsequent recession make the GND even more urgent and the bill would eventually pay for itself by creating new jobs and minimizing climate change related costs. Opponents argue that after spending trillions on pandemic stimulus bills, the US should focus on economic growth and recovery rather than going further into debt with new and expensive projects. They point out that the debt-GDP ratio has reached roughly 130%, relative to a decade ago when the ratio was roughly 80% after the end of the recession. 

    Other Bills

    Congress has not yet voted on the H.R. 332, though some members have introduced bills that encompass similar themes. President Biden proposed the American Jobs Plan as an infrastructure package that would invest $2.3 trillion into modernizing and repairing US infrastructure, which would be the first step in investing in energy infrastructure needed to get the US to net-zero emissions. In late April 2021, Biden announced a new target for the US to reduce emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030. This is a more ambitious goal than the Obama administration’s reduction target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. In April 2021, Senate Republicans unveiled a $568 billion infrastructure framework to serve as an alternative. Democrats are currently negotiating with Republicans, with the hopes of obtaining bipartisan support for the American Jobs Plan. They primarily disagree on the definition of infrastructure and how the bill would be paid for. 

    Other proposed bills include the Build Green Act (H.R. 2038), intended to jumpstart the transition to electric transportation and modernize infrastructure, and the Federal Jobs Guarantee Resolution (H.R. 145) which guarantees a job that provides good wages, strong benefits, union protections, and safe working conditions to every American who is willing and able. Additionally, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 2307) has been proposed as a market-based approach to reach net-zero emissions. 

    Conclusion

    Although these policies are unlikely to be implemented in their entirety, the GND describes one vision for the future of the US and a path to overcome the worse effects of climate change. There are many unanswered questions, and positions on the bill are likely to differ depending on whether one believes government-led projects are the most practical and efficient way for the US to address climate change, the extent to which the GND should attempt to address issues beyond the immediate impacts of climate change, and whether these goals make the GND a more complete vision for a prosperous and stable future, or alternatively, whether they slow down climate legislation and decrease the ability to generate bipartisan support for countering climate change.

  • Healthcare in America

    Healthcare in America

  • The World Health Organization

    The World Health Organization

    The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 as a UN specialized agency to direct and coordinate international health policy within the UN System with the goal of improving global health outcomes. The WHO would be created with the backing of 61 countries, including the United States, giving it legitimacy to steer the global health conversation as a major international actor. The WHO Constitution defines health as, “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” This definition expanded the concept of health to include not just medical interventions, but also the social determinants of health and healthcare access. Despite this robust definition of health, the WHO initially prioritized communicable disease, women and children’s health, nutrition, and sanitation as opposed to healthcare access or addressing the social structures impacting health. Over time, these facets of health would be more directly addressed by the agency.

    The WHO is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland and has six regional and 149 country offices throughout the world. Delegates from the 194 member states compose the World Health Assembly, which sets WHO policy, approves and monitors budgets, and elects a director-general as a leader of the WHO for 5-year terms. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the current director-general of the WHO after being elected to his first 5-year term in 2017. He is the first African in the organization’s history to occupy the post. The WHO is governed by the member states and must respect their sovereignty. Therefore, it cannot enter a country without their permission and a country does not have to follow the agency’s recommendations. The WHO also maintains an Executive Board that is comprised of 34 members who have technical qualifications in the field of health. They provide proposals, make recommendations to the director-general, and implement the agency’s work plan.

    The WHO rarely provides direct medical interventions or direct funding to implementors, but rather focuses on administrative, logistical, and advisory support for countries and other organizations. Core functions of the organization include partnership development, conducting research, setting global health morns, providing technical support, disease monitoring, and advocacy for global health initiatives. For example, guidelines regarding essential medicines, diagnostics, and medical practices are published by the WHO for countries to follow although they are not obliged to follow them. In addition, the WHO supports initiatives to control epidemic and endemic disease by promoting vaccination programs, the use of antibiotics and insecticides, the improvement of clinical facilities for early diagnosis and prevention, access to clean water and sanitation systems, and health education for rural communities. The final major function the agency has, is the ability to declare a Public Emergency of International Concern or a Pandemic. This function allows the WHO to draw attention to, and rally global resources against, emerging health threats or trends in an effort to address them.

    The WHO can direct the global health discussion through its World Health Report and other tools to influence global actions as well. This can be seen in its 2019 General Programme of Work, where the WHO identified three priorities it seeks to address in the coming years:

    1. Providing health coverage to one billion more people
    2. Protecting one billion more people from health emergencies such as epidemics; and
    3. Ensuring another one billion people enjoy better health and well-being, including protection from non-infectious diseases such as cancer.

    Since at least half of the world’s population does not currently have full coverage of essential health services, publishing this document allows the WHO to highlight a global health challenge and set a goal for the countries of the world to strive for.

    The WHO is funded through a combination of assessed contributions, which are calculated based on each member countries’ wealth and population, and voluntary contributions which are provided at the discretion of governments and private donors. Approximately 17 percent of the WHO’s budget comes from assessed contributions, with the rest coming from voluntary contributions. This has increasingly made the WHO dependent on voluntary contributions and placed pressure on the organization to align with the goals of their donors. This was seen in 2020 with President Trump’s plans to withdraw completely from the WHO and take U.S. funding with it due to his belief that the WHO was too deferential to China. Non-government donors also impact the WHO’s direction as seen when private donors make voluntary contributions with the understanding that the donors’ preferred projects will be addressed. One example includes the donations given to the WHO by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has prioritized the eradication of polio and the increased resources allocated to this cause by the WHO reflect the foundation’s priority. This has presented a growing challenge to the WHO as monetary contributions are increasingly becoming inflexible through donor restrictions. 93 percent of funds given to the WHO for its health programs is now earmarked and cannot be distributed to other projects that may have a greater need.

    The WHO has accomplished remarkable feats through its global leadership and coordination during multiple outbreaks, vaccination campaigns, and other global health initiatives. What many point to as the agency’s greatest achievement began in 1967 when the WHO started a smallpox vaccination campaign. By 1980, smallpox was eradicated due to the coordination and determination of the WHO’s staff and leadership. Similarly, the WHO’s role in the polio vaccination campaign has been highly lauded, with polio currently on the verge of eradication. The WHO’s handling of the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak in 2003 was widely praised for the agency’s quick medical and travel guidance. The WHO’s decisive action and travel recommendations were crucial to the successful containment of what many feared could be a global health disaster. The impact of the outbreak was contained mostly to Asia and the death toll was quite low.

    Conversely, the most common criticism of the WHO comes in the form of mismanaged and slow responses due to poor coordination or political considerations. Political friction between WHO headquarters and the regional offices has been a hindrance to the agency’s efficiency, as many believe the regional offices have too much autonomy which leads to a lack of internal cooperation. During the 2014 Ebola outbreak, the WHO was criticized for waiting 5 months to declare a public health emergency despite the pleas of many organization such as Doctors Without Borders. More recently, many criticized the WHO’s response to COVID-19 as being too deferential to China. In particular, the Trump Administration believed the WHO accepted misinformation from China at face value due to the country’s political power within the agency. In general, critics believe the WHO should have been more forceful in its requests for accurate information at the start of the pandemic.

    The United States has played an outsized role in the WHO from its inception due to its monetary contributions and international political clout. The United States’ support for the creation of the United Nations (UN) following World War II was integral to the creation of the WHO as a UN specialized agency. Ever since the agency’s establishment, the United States has traditionally been the largest donor to the WHO. In 2019, the U.S. provided a of total $419 million through assessed and voluntary contributions of the WHO’s $5.624 billion budget. Additionally, The U.S. has been an active participant in WHO governance and provided technical support for health initiatives. This is seen in the country’s representation on the Executive Board along with U.S. government experts and resources being provided for research, laboratory work, and international outbreak response teams.

    As it relates to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO responded with its coordination, technical support, and advisory expertise. On December 31st, 2019, China reported a cluster of unknown pneumonia cases to the WHO. One month later, before any deaths were reported outside of China but a sharp increase in cases was seen outside of the country, the WHO declared a Public Emergency of International Concern. By March of 2020, the agency declared it a Pandemic as cases spread around the world. Additionally, the WHO provided critical supplies such as diagnostic tests and personal protective equipment to member states and created online courses to train health care workers in diagnosis and treatment methods for COVID-19. Furthermore, the WHO is providing medical and technical guidance to countries as they continue to investigate the virus and its new variants. The agency has sent more than 70 teams of technical advisors to assist countries with their COVID-19 responses. 

  • Understanding the Social Determinants of Health

    Understanding the Social Determinants of Health

    The social determinants of health are the conditions where people live, work, grow, and age that impact their health outcomes. Other factors, including social structures and economic conditions, are also considered to be social determinants of health. These social, economic, and physical conditions can be essential to health outcomes, and in part explain existing health disparities in the United States. Many of the challenges which lead to lower health outcomes are intertwined; for example, low-income families are more likely to live in unsafe housing conditions as well as be further from healthcare resources, and racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the low-income population. Disparities in health also exist across sexualtiy, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Community ties, neighborhood quality, and education are all impact health outcomes and can affect children starting at a young age. This brief discusses social determinants in 3 categories: marginalized populations, socioeconomic status, and community/location. 

    Inequalities based on gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity are replicated through health outcomes in the United States. These fall into two main categories: discrimination and structural challenges:

    Experiencing discrimination has a physical toll on the body. Discriminatory experiences induce chronic stress, which over time produces high blood pressure, anxiety, and mental health issues like depression and substance abuse. Ethnic and racial minorities who experience racism are more likely to have children born with a low birth rate, high blood pressure, and overall poorer quality of health. Women who experience discrimination are more likely to be depressed or experience other mental health issues. In addition, women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ individuals can experience discrimination within the healthcare system, making them less likely to seek out discretionary care like preventative care. For example, minorities report less trust in the medical system and are less likely to believe that their physician will act in their best interest. Distrust in the medical system can worsen health outcomes by leading to lower rates and delayed utilization of beneficial health care services, like primary care. For LGBTQ individuals, discrimination is associated with higher rates of mental health related issues and a higher prevalence of suicide. 

    Structural challenges also impact health by limiting access to health services. This is often the case for racial and ethnic minorities, who often have less access to physical and mental healthcare resources. They are more likely to face disparities in regards to physical health, mental health, and healthcare quality. Minorities are less likely to receive preventative services, including yearly checkups and screenings, which can lead to worse health outcomes. When receiving medical care, that care tends to be lower quality care when compared to non-minority counterparts and they are more likely to suffer from morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases. Structural barriers in healthcare usage also differ by gender, since women tend to have higher rates of morbidity yet have a longer life expectancy than men. Men are more likely to die at younger ages, despite having overall better health than women during their lifespan. This could be attributed to men being less likely to seek out medical care than women and being more likely to engage in high risk behaviors. LBGTQ individuals are less likely to receive care and are less likely to have insurance, fill prescriptions, and use emergency services. They are also more likely to report poorer health and suffer from chronic conditions. 

    Both structural barriers and discrmination impact the access and utilization of health services  which can greatly affect health outcomes. It is important that people both have access to health services and an understanding as to how health services can impact their own health, or health literacy. The first involves having access to comprehensive, high-quality health care services which includes health insurance and primary care services. Health literacy is also important, because it allows individuals to make appropriate health decisions for themselves. When discrimation and structural barriers get in the way of access to comprehensive care, worse health outcomes can occur. For example, in the United States there are prevalent disparities in health outcomes when it comes to race. Black and Native Americans have the lowest life expectancy in the United States. Disparities even exist with infant mortality rates, with black infants having mortality rates 2.3 times higher than white infants. LBGTQ individuals are also impacted by discrimination and structural barriers, and are at higher risk for substance abuse disorders, STDs, cancers, cardiovascular disease, obesity, bullying, isolation, rejection, anxiety, depression, and sucide compared to the general population. 

    Socioeconomic status is a fundamental cause of disease which disproportionately impacts many groups. The relationship between socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity is intertwined, with racial and ethnic stratification leading to higher rates of poverty for these individuals. In the United States, 39% of Black children and 33% of Latino children live in poverty, while only 14% of non-hispanic white and Asian children live in poverty. Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Hispanics, and Pacific Islander families are more likely to live in poverty compared to white families. Individuals who identify as LBGTQ are also more likely to be of low socioeconomic status. This, in part, might be due to access employment opportunities, with around 42% of LBGTQ individuals reporting employment discrimination. The elderly also disproportionately experience low socioeconomic status, with 14.6% of older adults (65 years or older) living below the poverty line. Factors, including the death of a spouse, decline in health, relying on social security for a primary source of income, and the inability to work, can greatly impact financial stability. 

    Those with low socioeconomic status are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and have higher morbidity and mortality rates. Individuals with low socioeconomic status are disproportionately impacted by not having access to healthcare, poorer working conditions, and less safe housing. There is a positive relationship between people’s financial circumstances and their health. Financial circumstances include income, cost of living, and socioeconomic status, which all can affect key issues like food security, housing security, and employment. Individuals without steady employment are more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to be unhealthy. Those with disabilities may be limited in their ability to work, contributing to a low socioeconomic status. Those without steady employment might also struggle to afford supplies and services that support health, like medications, copays at the doctor’s office, or high quality healthy foods.

    An individual’s social relationships and community ties can affect health outcomes as well. The social and community context of health includes social relationships with friends, family, co-workers, and community members. Having healthy relationships at home, at work, and within the community can reduce the negative impacts of stress and  discrimination. Social support works as a protective factor for both physical and mental health by enhancing resilience to stress. Stress can contribute to many health problems, such as high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, so managing stress leads to better health outcomes. When an individual experiences discrimination, their health can be impacted by both psychological and physiological repsonces to stress. Family connectedness, social support, religious involvement, and diversity of friendships can improve health outcomes by reducing stress and promoting healthy coping mechanisms. 

    Location and housing also impact health and wellbeing. Both the physical infrastructure and the social impact of a neighborhood can directly affect health outcomes. Due to the exposure to hazardous conditions, low quality housing is associated with chronic disease, injury, and poor mental health. Some neighborhoods also have worse air quality and water quality. Healthy food and access to resources such as transportation are less available in certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with high rates of crime and violence can cause both short and long-term health effects by exposing individuals to violence in their community. Where you live also impacts access to care. This is especially true for individuals who live in rural communities, where less health services are available. Worse health outcomes are seen in rural areas as compared to urban areas. Rural areas tend to lack access to care and individuals in rural areas are more likely to live in geographic isolation, engage in higher health risk behaviors, and be of lower socioeconomic status. 

    From a young age, children’s health can be impacted through access to education. Primary and secondary educational access and quality can have an impact on health outcomes. Education is important for the development of social ties, which can impact stress management and coping mechanisms. Education is essential to children’s social and cognitive development and can impact both emotional and social wellbeing. Education can help develop skills including internal control, multitasking, planning, self-awareness, and social cognitive skills like perceptive talking and the understanding of social emotions. Children who are living in poverty are less likely to receive a high quality education. The stress of living in poverty can affect children’s ability to do well in school and affect children’s brain development. Schools in low income areas are more likely to be lower quality, and growing up in a poorer neighborhood is associated with reduced educational attainment. Those with low educational attainment are more likely to work in less safe and low paying jobs. They are also more likely to have health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and depression.

  • Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Read this page as a PDF.

    History:

    The term “special relationship” is used as a catch-all term for the political, diplomatic, military and economic relations between the US and the UK. Although the unofficial term became popularized in a speech by the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, in 1946, it is also widely acknowledged that the two states have enjoyed close political and military relations for much of the 20th Century. During this time the two countries were military allies in a number of wars and have often shared prioritized access and close cooperation on a range of issues.

    The relationship is not a consistent one, with the personality traits and policies of both countries’ leaders reportedly playing a significant role in determining its closeness during specific periods of time. The two countries were considered particularly close during the Clinton/Blair period, when the two leaders, as friends more than representatives, would frequently talk about the issues of the day and provide support and guidance to each other. This relationship is often thought to have been a significant factor in the decision by the UK Government to enter the Iraq War alongside the United States.

    Present:

    President Biden’s first phone call to a European leader was to the current British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the call included a joint commitment to strengthening the relationship. However, this came not long after Biden had publicly voiced major concern about the direction of UK policy regarding Brexit. His particular focus was on the UK Government’s decision to break the Good Friday Agreement in order to deliver a Brexit deal that would leave the UK out of the European Union’s Free Trade Agreement.

    It is this disagreement—amongst other differences—that has led to less focus being given to the relationship in recent years. An example of the tension during Trump’s presidency is clear in the following passage in a briefing available to MPs and advisers in 2018:

    “Against the backdrop of increasing American isolationism, the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the United States and the United Kingdom has arguably been subject to even more intense scrutiny, particularly as the UK seeks to define its global role in light of its withdrawal from the European Union. In particular, opportunities for cooperation such as a mooted bilateral trade deal, and areas of disagreement such as the US’s stance on the Iranian nuclear agreement, have prompted a number of questions about the potential nature of future relations between the two countries, and the wider ramifications.”

    HOL Library, 2018

    Future:

    It is clear that the future of the relationship will depend largely on the personality and politics of the future leaders of both countries. The UK Government is eager to see the relationship culminating in a US-UK trade deal. However, given Biden’s recent announcement that a trade deal may not occur till 2024, it is clearly not a US priority. Nevertheless, both countries seem to remain committed to keeping at least a facade of proximity, given their shared values and their status as two of the world’s key powers, economically, militarily and diplomatically.

  • U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    Click here to read this paper as a PDF.

    The Rohingya people of Myanmar are a majority-Muslim ethnic group native to the coastal Rakhine State in Myanmar. Before the mass migration of Rohingyans, there were an estimated 1.5 million living in Myanmar. 

    Despite making up only 2% of the entire Myanmar population in 2014, the Rohingya people have been subject to numerous human rights violations such as having their right to vote and citizenship stripped away in 1974 and 1982. As a result, the Rohingya people have been subject to state-sponsored, violent crackdowns such as Operation Dragon King in 1978, Operation Clean and Beautiful in 1991, the 2012 Rakhine State Riots and the recent Refugee Crisis.

    The current refugee crisis began on August 25th, 2017, when a group of militant Rohingya Muslims attacked police bases in northern Myanmar. The army retaliated by burning villages, killing civilians, and raping women. More than 420,000 Rohingyas have crossed the border into Bangladesh, thereby making them stateless refugees. 

     In September 2019, the United Nations-backed International Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar found that the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar “may face a greater threat of genocide than ever.” Although some news sources have dubbed the state-sponsored violence a genocide, the UN and other state authorities such as the United States government have yet to officially declare it a genocide.

    The Rohingya Crisis has sparked an international backlash from the global community, particularly regarding the military’s actions and the failure of the governing Aung San Syu Kyi administration. Syu Kyi’s government has repeatedly failed to condemn the attacks and avoided mentioning the Rohingyas by name, claiming that no violence or village clearances had occurred. Her reaction to the event has resulted in criticism from the media and sparked discussion around revoking her 1991 Nobel Laureate award. However, as of 2021, no actions have been taken to do so. 

    The United Nations condemned the crisis, and the UNHCR launched a Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, calling for US$951 million to continue delivering lifesaving assistance from March to December 2018. As of early August 2018, the JRP remains just 32 per cent funded.

    Under the administration of Donald Trump, the United States denounced the actions of the Burmese government, with former Vice President Mike Pence calling the situation a “historic exodus” and a “great tragedy.” Vice President Pence also noted the situation could, “sow seeds of hatred and chaos that may well consume the region for generations to come and threaten the peace of us all.” The United States State Department issued a statement condemning the issue and applauding the efforts of the neighboring Bangladeshi government to provide aid and refuge to fleeing Rohingya.

    In 2018, the U.S. Government responded to the Rohingya by imposing sanctions on the Myanmar military over the Rohingya crackdown. These sanctions were imposed on top Myanmar generals, police commanders, and two army units, accusing them of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims and widespread human rights abuses. Since August 2017, the United States has provided humanitarian aid amounting to more than $760 million to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. This aid was allocated to the UN bodies working in the area to establish refugee schools and provide necessary food, shelter, and other resources. The Biden administration is yet to give an official response concerning the crisis, but has continued former President Donald Trump’s sanctions on key military generals involved in engineering the crisis.

  • Introduction to Global Health

    Introduction to Global Health

    Read this page as a PDF.

    Global health is defined as the study, research, and practices related to improving health and achieving health equity on a global scale. Global health focuses on health issues that are cross-cultural, cross-regional, or global in scope and local health issues that have transnational significance. It includes both population-based preventative measures along with individual-based clinical interventions. The major components of global health include disease monitoring, data gathering, direct medical interventions, addressing social and economic factors that impact health outcomes, and the coordination between international actors and implementors to fund and execute health solutions.

    Global Health can be broken down into three functions.

    1. The generation of knowledge regarding global health issues to develop global solutions.
    2. The distribution of knowledge through education, training, and publication of research.
    3. The application of global health knowledge and interventions to solve global health problems.

    The historical roots of global health can be traced back to the European colonial era. During the 16th and 17th centuries, as European powers started to explore and colonize new regions, they encountered new infectious diseases. As settlers and native populations suffered from contact with new diseases, colonial powers sought to study and negate the impact of infectious disease upon their settler population and military personnel. These international health measures taken by colonial nations and their colonies were referred to as tropical medicine.

    As the world became more interconnected over the course of the 18th century and international trade expanded, nations began to take greater notice of disease and its relationship with their global trade interests. This led to The International Sanitary Conference which was held between 11 European powers and Turkey in 1851 with the goal of standardizing quarantine regulations and preventing the importation of cholera, plague, and yellow fever through foreign trade. A total of 10 conferences would be held between 1851 and 1897 with little in the form of international agreements to show for them until the 1890’s, but a norm of international dialogue concerning international health was born. These conferences led to the International Sanitary Regulations (ISR) of 1903 which established a requirement for international disease reporting, initially only for cholera and plague outbreaks, to mitigate the impact of disease outbreaks on the commercial interests of industrialized countries while preventing the importation of diseases from developing countries. In 1907, the Office International d’Hygiene Publique was formed in Paris and began to monitor disease outbreaks throughout the world.

    Following the First World War, the League of Nations established a Health Committee with the aim of cooperating with new regional organizations, international organizations, and foundations. However, developments in global health were stalled by World War II and global health would not return to the forefront until the late 1940’s with the rise of the new liberal world order. In 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was created as a UN specialized agency and institutionalized the concept of global health. U.S. support for the UN was crucial, and the U.S. has historically provided more funds to the WHO than any other country.

    The WHO sought to bring disease outbreak monitoring and technical assistance to developing countries to mitigate infectious disease outbreaks. In addition, WHO guidelines and statistics are used by countries from across the income spectrum to make informed decisions on health policy. The WHO Constitution defined health as, “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, thus providing a robust definition for the global health agenda that did not limit health to clinical parameters but expanded it to include social determinants and healthcare access too.

    Following the end of the Cold War, leading nations in global health, like the United States and United Kingdom, grew concerned that direct aid to developing countries contributed to corruption by local governments. Additionally, many believed the WHO was focusing too much on preventing infectious diseases to the detriment of basic healthcare. This presented an opportunity for NGOs and other philanthropic organizations to play a role in global health as implementers who specialized in addressing specific regions, diseases, or health challenges in partnership with donors (Governments, Development Banks, etc.). NGOs filled the gaps which the WHO was not addressing while reducing corruption as they were more accountable to donors than sovereign states. NGOs now play a significant role in implementing global health initiatives for the U.S. In 2014, USAID disbursed 41% of its global health activities budget to NGOs.

    During the 1990’s, the HIV/AIDS crisis spurred an increased interest in international cooperation on global health between governments, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and NGOs. In addition, a growing recognition formed that the vast growth in human contact facilitated by increased trade and travel could lead to the increased transmission of infectious diseases between countries. In short, diseases do not respect national borders. 

    In 2000, the WHO released eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to establish a global health agenda for the 21st century.

    1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
    2. Provide universal primary education
    3. Improve gender equity and empowerment of women
    4. Reduce childhood mortality
    5. Improve maternal health
    6. Combat HIV/ AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
    7. Promote environmental sustainability
    8. Develop global partnerships for development

    These goals highlight the evolution of global health from its initial focus on infectious disease intervention to also address socio-economic factors that limit healthcare delivery. This modern vision of global health has corresponded to increased investments in global health development. Spending on development assistance for health (DAH) increased from $7.1 billion USD in 1990 to $37.6 billion USD in 2016.

    Traditionally, the U.S. has been a leader in global health efforts as the largest funder in the world. The U.S. motivations for funding global health initiatives coincide with its larger international development goals. These goals include the promotion of democratic stability, fostering diplomatic relations, promoting economic development, and preventing disease outbreaks that could threaten U.S. citizens. Under the Trump administration, this leadership role was called into question as plans were made to withdraw from the WHO and reduce global health funding for FY 2020. However, the U.S. seems poised to rebound in its leadership role as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden, advised the WHO in January 2021. The meeting pledged a recommitment to U.S. leadership on global health security, HIV/AIDS, malaria, women’s health, and epidemic preparedness initiatives.

    Global health faces enormous challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only does the COVID-19 pandemic constitute a serious global health crisis in its own right, but it also threatens to set back decades of progress as COVID-19 takes precedence over other global health initiatives such as measles and polio vaccine campaigns. In addition, experts are worried about increased malnutrition in children and increased infectious disease rates due to resource diversion to COVID-19 activities. Global health faces one of its greatest challenges yet and rebuilding the capacity of global health systems in a post-pandemic world will be just the beginning.

  • U.S Role in International Development

    U.S Role in International Development

    Read this brief as a PDF

    International development encompasses the knowledge, resources, and financial assistance employed by various international actors to improve economic, educational, health, and human rights conditions in developing countries. These actors include states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international governmental organizations (IGOs), philanthropists, foundations, and even individual donors. International development assistance comes in the form of direct bilateral payments between states and recipients, multilateral payments between IGOs and recipients, loans, material resources, technical assistance, information sharing, and training.

    Following the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in the inception and advancement of international development. In 1948, the first large scale international development initiative was enacted by President Truman to provide technical and financial assistance to Europe in order to rebuild the continent’s economy, infrastructure, and governmental capacities. This initiative was known as the Marshall Plan, named after then Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. At the same time, the United States would play a lead role in the creation and promotion of IGOs, none more important than the United Nations (UN). The UN would go on to develop their own international development programs through offices such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Health Organization (WHO).

    President Truman saw international development as a means of effectuating the foreign policy agenda of the United States. In 1949, he proposed a foreign aid program that would become the 1950 Point Four Program to support technical assistance and capital projects abroad. This program had two strategic goals:

    • The creation of economic opportunity for the United States by opening markets in developing countries through poverty reduction and economic development initiatives
    • Limiting the influence of communism by promoting capitalism in developing countries through economic incentives

    Thus, President Truman saw international development as a long-term investment to boost global economic opportunities, while also holding the United States’ geopolitical rival, the Soviet Union, at bay. 

    In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law, creating USAID via executive order. This act introduced USAID as an autonomous federal agency that could implement international development assistance as its sole directive. The USAID Administrator would lead the agency, a position that is still appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, although it is not a cabinet-level position. President Kennedy institutionalized international development as he believed it was vital to the United States’ foreign policy objectives. In this way, USAID could advance the moral, economic, and strategic considerations of the United States as a bulwark against totalitarianism and instability around the world.

    During the 1970’s, USAID began to shift focus from technical and capital assistance programs towards programs that focused on basic human needs. These basic needs can be characterized as food and nutrition, population planning, health, education, and human resources. Today, this is referred to as human capital development. By adding this facet to its strategy, USAID widened the scope of what was considered part of international development. Thus, giving us the more comprehensive definition of international development, we have today.

    The 1980’s would largely see the United States retain its strategy of using international development to encourage economic growth and combat the influence of communism. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, one of the major motivators of U.S. foreign aid would cease to exist. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, foreign aid was viewed as an unpopular political topic that left USAID and the funding of international development in limbo. 

    The events of September 11th and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would see the U.S. invest heavily in the rebuilding of those two countries and the resurgence of international development. U.S. international development is now seen as focusing on four main areas: long-term development aid, military and security aid, humanitarian aid, and political aid. These areas of focus highlight the areas the U.S. believes it must invest, to tackle the political and economic challenges of the future.

    The federal budget request for USAID is combined with the U.S. State Department within the federal budget. On a year to year basis, the United States has provided more foreign assistance than any other country in terms of a total dollar amount but falls short of other countries as a percentage of its gross national income. Foreign assistance is generally about 1% of federal budgets, although the public believes it to be much higher. Historically, the public has also believed foreign assistance is favored more by the Democratic Party, but this too is a misconception. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have shown strong support for foreign assistance with some of the most rapid increases in such aid occurring under Ronald Regan and George W. Bush. It is worth noting that the Trump administration broke this bipartisan trend of favorability towards foreign assistance. The administration threatened to cut budgets on multiple occasions which would have abandoned programs in up to 27 countries. This was highly irregular compared to past Republican and Democratic administrations. 

    As the United States looks to the future, the influence of China in the international development sector will be one of the most important factors in our approach to foreign assistance. International development has become a larger part of Chinese policy in recent years as strategies like the Belt and Road Initiative seek to fund infrastructure projects in developing countries to spread China’s influence. In this way, international development as part of U.S. policy will again be a response to a geopolitical rival like it was during the Cold War. As we look to the future of the United States’ role in international development, the two main goals that drove its creation, opening economic markets and containing the political influence of a geopolitical rival, have returned to the forefront. 

  • Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Read this brief as a PDF

    President Richard Nixon’s trip to the People’s Republic of China in February, 1972 marked the formal establishment of normal relations between the United States and China, and can be arguably considered one of the most significant moments in modern world affairs. It was not just significant as the first ever visit of an American President to China, but it also signaled the end of a quarter-century of hostilities between communist China and the United States. The new relationship marked the beginning of a sizable shift in the Cold War arena, and brought China into the international community. The relationship between the two powers continues to play a major role in the current climate, so understanding its establishment is vital. 

    China had a tense relationship with the West throughout the 19th century. Western imperialism contributed to the eventual disintegration of the Qing dynasty and left China on the brink of collapse. During the ensuing civil war, the US backed the Nationalist faction against the Communists. By 1949, the Chinese Communists were victorious and gained control of mainland China, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and established the Republic of China there.

    The relationship between the PRC and the United States was hostile from its inception. They were ideologically opposed, and the US continued to support the Nationalist government in Taiwan which claimed sovereignty over the entire county. The US also attempted to keep the PRC out of the United Nations and other international forums. The two countries were on opposite sides of the Korean and Vietnam wars, with China supplying arms and troops to communist forces and the US supporting the anti-communist factions.

    Shifting dynamics in both countries created the opportunity for normalized relations. The Soviet Union and China split over ideological and geopolitical differences, and the Communist bloc appeared to be crumbling as the two states turned against each other. As the 1960s progressed, China found itself isolated; it was threatened by the Soviet Union, India, and large American deployments across Asia. The ongoing Cultural Revolution had also pushed China into turmoil and instability. The United States was also vulnerable on the global stage. It had been involved in the Vietnam War for almost two decades which had been largely unsuccessful, as well as unpopular both at home and abroad. It had damaged the United States’ perception on the global stage, and worried allies. China was an important actor in the Vietnam war, and building relations would aid American interests in the region. President Nixon also believed the Soviet Union was the primary enemy, and the U.S should capitalize on the Sino-Soviet divide by establishing closer ties with China to weaken Soviet influence in Asia. Both leaders in China and the United States began expressing a desire for normalized relations, but the road to reconciliation was delicate and complicated. Various diplomatic overtures were made from both sides through intermediaries such as France and Pakistan. Pakistan also arranged the secret visit of the U.S National Security advisor, Henry Kissinger to Beijing for his meeting with Chinese Premier, Chou Enlai in July 1971, where they agreed that President Nixon would visit China in the following year. 

    Normalized relations with China faced considerable opposition at home and from American allies. US allies were distrustful of communist China and felt the United States was abandoning Taiwan. Anti-communist Republicans provided internal opposition, and Nixon faced considerable pressure from both Democrats and the press, who felt that Nixon was betraying America’s close allies like Taiwan. Despite the opposition, Nixon and his administration pushed through the China trip and tried to manage the image they presented at home and abroad. Nixon felt that establishing closer ties with the People’s Republic of China would shift the balance of the Cold War in Asia and help to further American interests globally. This hypothesis proved to be correct, and the opening of relations had three immediate impacts:

    1. Chinese support aided America’s position during the Vietnamese peace negotiations. Because of the damage done to the US’s image (domestically and abroad), a swift but ‘honorable’ exit to the conflict was crucial. China had been a principal ally of the North Vietnamese, and was able to pressure the North Vietnamese to come to the negotiating table. China also virtually ended military support for North Vietnam in 1973. 

    2. China also worked with the US in Korea, even though both powers continued to support opposing sides in the Korean war. The United States had clear objectives in that region, as it wanted “to bring about stability in the peninsula, avert war and lessen the danger of the expansion of other powers”, and Chou Enlai “in effect” accepted these aims and objectives during his meeting with Kissinger.. 

    3. The most important benefit for both countries from the new relationship was increased leverage against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had been increasing in military strength by acquiring advanced nuclear weaponry. It was also becoming more aggressive, and adopted the Brezhnev doctrine which justified military interventions in Central and Eastern Europe. Together, China and the US worked against Soviet expansion and influence over Asia and the Communist bloc which remained split between the Chinese and the Soviets. 

    The normalization of relations between these two countries in 1972 had major long-term reverberations. China, the most populous nation in the world, was brought into the international system and began playing a major role in the international community. The long-term economic relationship between China and the United States also grew out of this establishment, which continues to shape their respective economies to the present day.