ACE

Author: Nathaniel Roman

  • Pros and Cons of the Inflation Reduction Act

    Pros and Cons of the Inflation Reduction Act

    In its commitment to addressing climate change, the United States is focusing on transforming its existing energy systems to minimize carbon emissions and enhance the adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, lays out a comprehensive strategy to achieve this transformation. This legislation impacts various sectors including energy, transportation, infrastructure, and construction.

    The IRA’s primary objective is to assist the U.S. in meeting its ambitious emission target, which is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 50% below the levels of 2005 by the year 2030. This target aligns with the commitments made under the Paris Climate Accord. To realize these goals, the Act introduces a range of measures such as tax incentives and credits for electric vehicles (EVs), alongside other federal incentives designed for both individuals and businesses. These measures are geared towards encouraging the adoption of cleaner energy sources and promoting environmentally sustainable practices across different sectors.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) emphasize the pressing need to address climate change and the extensive efforts required to meet the U.S.’s emission targets. They argue that the climate provisions in the IRA will significantly reduce emissions, estimating a decrease to around 40% of 2005 levels by 2030. This projection marks a substantial improvement compared to the current forecast of a 26% reduction from 2005 levels and moves closer to the government’s goal of a 50% reduction.

    The bill has garnered support particularly from the industrial and construction sectors, whose businesses stand to benefit from the IRA’s incentives. These sectors are keen to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the IRA, alongside the advantages brought about by the recently passed Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). An article focusing on the housing industry highlighted that these two laws could collectively reduce emissions from the buildings sector by 33–100 million metric tons, viewing the IRA’s enactment as a significant opportunity for the industry.

    The IRA also offers benefits for individuals, especially through the creation of electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. The Electrification Coalition has lauded the IRA as the most consequential legislation for boosting transportation electrification in U.S. history, calling it a major victory for both consumers and businesses. These transportation initiatives complement the IIJA, with the IRA facilitating the purchase of electric vehicles and the IIJA enhancing charging convenience by allocating $7.5 billion for charging infrastructure development. This synergy between the two acts aims to integrate green energy more deeply into the automotive industry, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

    Arguments in Opposition

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) faced significant opposition, particularly from manufacturing and industrial sectors. The American Petroleum Institute (API) was one of the key opponents, expressing concerns over the increased regulations and taxes included in the bill. The API argued that these measures would hinder their capacity to ensure energy security for American consumers. Their stance was supported by numerous trade groups who shared similar apprehensions.

    The National Association of Manufacturers also opposed the IRA, criticizing the tax measures within the bill as detrimental to the competitiveness of the industry, especially during a period of economic hardship and business turmoil. They advocated for more targeted and specific legislation addressing individual issues, rather than the broad scope of the IRA.

    In Congress, the bill faced significant hurdles and delays in its passage, largely due to opposition from Republican members. Most Republicans objected to the bill, arguing that it failed to effectively tackle inflation and expressing disagreement with its climate-focused proposals. A major point of contention was the IRA’s nearly $750 billion cost, which they deemed inappropriate during a period of economic downturn and high inflation.

    The bill’s journey through Congress was further complicated by dissent within the Democratic Party. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) influenced the bill’s final form by securing concessions for the oil industry, particularly regarding methane emissions taxes, reflecting the fossil fuel interests of his state, West Virginia. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) initially objected to a critical tax provision but eventually supported the bill.

    Despite the arguments from its proponents that the IRA would benefit all Americans, the bill’s passage was largely partisan, with no Republican support in either house of Congress. The division over the IRA largely centered on the contentious issue of climate change, highlighting the ongoing debate between traditional fossil fuel interests and emerging green energy initiatives.

  • Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Infrastructure consists of an extensive network of bridges, dams, highways, and utilities, which are essential for connecting people, goods, and services throughout a nation. Recently, America’s infrastructure has become a hot topic due to its aging condition and the numerous issues that have emerged. There is a general agreement across political lines that the existing approach to infrastructure repair and maintenance needs a major overhaul. However, opinions differ on the methods and funding strategies for such an endeavor. A prime example of these challenges is the recent Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA), proposed by the Biden administration. This act illustrates the complexities involved in defining and tackling various infrastructure issues. After considerable bipartisan negotiations and adjustments to address opposition concerns, the bill finally garnered enough support to pass. This represents a notable instance of cooperation in an otherwise complex and polarized area of policy discussion.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the bill highlight two major concerns related to the aging infrastructure in the United States:

    • The immediate and impending risk of infrastructure failures leading to humanitarian crises. Recent examples include the breakdown of transportation and plumbing systems in New York City during the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Ida, and the catastrophic structural collapse of a condominium in Surfside, Florida.
    • The escalating impact of climate change, which intensifies the likelihood of infrastructure failures. This places an even greater burden on already overstretched systems that may not be adequately prepared to handle extreme weather events and other unprecedented challenges.

    Advocates of the bill argue that numerous recent infrastructure disasters, exacerbated or caused by climate change, underscore the urgency of their position. They reference incidents like the 2022 water crisis in Jackson, Mississippi, to emphasize the impact on the accessibility and safety of basic necessities for everyday Americans. The human and material losses resulting from such disasters highlight the humanitarian dimension of the infrastructure issue. Supporters also draw attention to data on infrastructure maintenance, noting that out of approximately 591,000 bridges in America, about 27% are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This statistic is used to illustrate the immediate risk posed by the nation’s infrastructure, much of which dates back to the 1950s.

    Proponents of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) address concerns about the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag by emphasizing the economic benefits it would bring. They point out that the bill will create new construction jobs with a focus on diversity, which are expected to positively impact both local and federal economies.

    Arguments Against

    Opposition to the bill primarily focuses on its high cost, the means of funding it, and the feasibility of its implementation. Critics in Congress point to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) could increase the national debt by up to $256 billion over a decade. There is also concern about the tax implications of the bill, which necessitates $550 billion in new expenditures. This amount is proposed to be covered through a combination of tax increases, reallocation of unused COVID relief funds, and other government revenues.

    Some adversaries of the bill suggest an alternative approach to funding infrastructure reform, advocating for a “user-pays” system. This would involve raising the gas tax to generate the required funds, placing the financial burden directly on consumers. Furthering this perspective, another analysis references the 2010 National Broadband Plan as a case study. This plan successfully expanded broadband infrastructure using incentivized private funding, without the need for any tax increases. This example is used to argue for the viability of private investment as a funding source for infrastructure projects, avoiding additional tax burdens on the public.

    Conclusion

    The numerous and varied arguments surrounding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) played a significant role in shaping the infrastructure debate. Although the taxing methods debated were not ultimately incorporated into this legislation, they present potential avenues for future infrastructure funding. The successful passage of the IIJA sets a precedent for further collaboration and progress on this vital and often contentious topic. This development indicates a possibility for more concerted efforts and innovative solutions in addressing America’s infrastructure challenges in the future.

  • Global Status of Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weaponry and Testing

    Global Status of Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weaponry and Testing

    Anti-satellite weapons, or ASATs, are a growing topic of international concern in the 21st century. These weapons usually consist of a projectile, launched into space on a missile, for the purpose of destroying a target satellite in low Earth orbit. The kinetic impact of an ASAT projectile into its target satellite can create millions of long-lived, microscopic pieces of debris. This millimeter-scale debris poses the highest risk of mission-ending damage to orbiting satellites, and, with over 100 million pieces of debris on the millimeter scale or larger, states and organizations have an interest in decreasing the risk to satellites by preventing the creation of further debris. ASAT tests—which are known to produce large volumes of small, difficult-to-track debris – frequently face international condemnation and rebuke, as they are seen to further endanger and militarize the shared domain of space. Several states, including the US, China, India, and Russia have ASAT capabilities, and all have tested these weapons on their own satellites in the last 20 years. Each state has its own public reasons for possessing such capabilities, and takes a unique approach to the issue of ASAT testing. 

    Current National Positions on ASAT Testing

    The US announced a unilateral moratorium on ASAT testing in 2021, and last tested its capabilities in 2008. The US has sought to act as a global peacemaker on the issue, using the moratorium to progress efforts on banning destructive ASAT testing. The Biden administration is also pursuing a parallel strategy of improving US defenses to ASATs and achieving non-destructive means of disabling satellites.

    Russia has tested its ASAT weapons as recently as November of 2021, and faced swift international backlash, including calls for multilateral treaties and bans on destructive ASATs. The negative response was mainly due to the threat to satellites from the created debris, even requiring an emergency avoidance maneuver by the International Space Station. Russia had its own political motives for conducting the test. It wanted to establish and display these capabilities before any treaties or regulations were established on the matter. States consider the advantages and potential negative consequences before testing, as the backlash might not be more significant than the strategic benefits a state gains from performing an ASAT test.

    China and India have both tested ASATs as well, with China last performing a destructive ASAT test in 2007. Despite a claimed opposition to the militarization of space, the US Pentagon says China is building up an “arsenal” of ASAT capabilities. China used the familiar reasonings of national defense and security to justify the test, which faced similar criticism to the Russian test for its long-lived debris in relatively high orbit. India, which claimed to be confronting the regional threat of Chinese ASATs among other security concerns, completed a test in March 2019. The international response was milder, but India faced some domestic opposition to the test not seen in other countries. 

    Future Developments

    The future of ASAT weapons will be complex, as states have interests in maintaining such capabilities for defense while simultaneously seeking to prevent their testing and use due to space debris concerns. Many developments in ASAT tech are leading towards ground-based, non-destructive methods that use electronic systems to jam or disable satellites. This appears to be the future of ASATs, and would enable a state to sign treaties banning destructive ASAT testing without compromising their national defense interests against similarly-armed states. Such treaties are already being pursued and gaining the support of states and organizations. The reduction in space debris could be a welcome change for all states with satellites and other interests in space, who are equally at risk from the millions of pieces of space junk that a country’s ASATs are responsible for. When it comes to global security in space, destructive ASATs and the debris they create are part of the problem, not the solution.

  • Effects of War in Ukraine on the Global Space Industry

    Effects of War in Ukraine on the Global Space Industry

    The space industry is a collaborative, international field of study. Space agencies rely on states’ diplomatic efforts to establish and sustain partnerships that facilitate manned and unmanned missions to space. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 had significant diplomatic ramifications, particularly because Russia is a major player in the space industry. Waves of US and EU sanctions led states to reduce their reliance on Russia for essential equipment and technology, and establish domestic space capabilities. Days before Russia’s invasion began, European Union (EU) astronauts published a manifesto pushing for Europe to pursue a domestic crew launch vehicle to ensure its independent access to space.

    Impacts on Space Missions

    The European Space Agency (ESA) is experiencing the consequences of depending on the US and Russia for human launch capabilities. With the unavailability of Russia’s Soyuz, the US Dragon spacecraft remains the only option for EU astronauts to travel to the ISS. Additionally, ESA had to cancel its Soyuz launches and delay flagship missions after Russia withdrew its crews from launch sites in response to EU sanctions.The US is taking steps to ensure its own launch capabilities by replacing Russian engines and Ukrainian designs in its fleet with domestic alternatives. In the past, the US had bought Russian engines known for their performance and reliability as part of a space partnership between the two countries. However, in response to Russia’s invasion and the subsequent US sanctions, there is now a shift towards a more nationalistic approach in the space industry. Since the war, Russia has adopted a nationalist approach, creating challenges in NASA’s collaboration with Roscosmos on the ISS. The relationship between the two space agencies has been strained due to heightened tensions, issues with spacecraft, and ambiguous statements from Moscow regarding Russia’s commitment to the station. Russia now claims that it will withdraw from the ISS in 2024, adding to the complexities of the partnership.

    Satellites and Space in the War

    Russia’s invasion has featured the use of satellites and space infrastructure from the beginning, a unique aspect of modern warfare. Just before the invasion, the Kremlin attempted a large-scale hacking operation targeting satellites used by Ukraine. As the war has unfolded, the balance of satellite power has shifted in favor of Ukraine. Companies worldwide have stepped up to provide various satellite services to Ukraine. Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet constellation has been instrumental in providing connectivity and countering communication infrastructure disruptions caused by Russia. Additionally, satellite imagery companies like Maxar and Planet Labs have offered high-resolution imagery from their Earth-observing CubeSats for free online. This not only documents the progression of the war but also equips Ukraine with valuable tactical information for troop positioning, monitoring enemy movements, and countering Russia’s misinformation campaign about the war.

    Future of Space Collaboration

    Despite disruptions to global cooperation in space, there have been promising collaborative developments. NASA and Roscosmos successfully negotiated a seat swap during the conflict, with two Russian and two American astronauts flying to the ISS on Dragon and Soyuz spacecraft, respectively. Americans flying on the Soyuz returned home safely in compliance with international laws. After leadership changes in both space programs, tensions have eased, and there is hope that this niche of cooperation will continue despite diplomatic tensions.

    While the war continues, predicting the future of this East-West space partnership remains uncertain. However, space will undoubtedly remain an important aspect of the relationship between these two countries.

  • Nathaniel Roman, Lafayette College

    Nathaniel Roman, Lafayette College

    Nathaniel is a sophomore at Lafayette College with a great interest in debating and solving world issues. Since high school, he has pursued this passion through classes in government, law, and international relations, as well as through extracurricular Model UN conferences. These courses built up his knowledge of and passion for the field of international affairs, and participating in Model UN solidified his teamwork, public speaking, and debate skills, and allowed him to tour the UN headquarters in New York City. He is experienced in French and plans to study abroad in France pursuant to his goal of an International Affairs degree with a focus on Europe. He has strong written and oral communication skills from his hard work and experience in humanities classes, and appreciates the art of effectively analyzing and discussing complex topics required for research papers. He follows international news and was particularly intrigued by the unprecedented effects of the war in Ukraine on foreign policy and state behavior. He is continuing to explore this path in search of relevant career opportunities in college and beyond. 

    Linkedin