scholarly journals Clean Energy in City Codes: A Baseline Analysis of Municipal Codification across the United States

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Cook ◽  
Alexandra Aznar ◽  
Alexander Dane ◽  
Megan Day ◽  
Sivani Mathur ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Alexander Simmons ◽  
Christoph Nolte ◽  
Jennifer McGowan

AbstractOn January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, committing the United States to various goals within his campaign’s major climate policy, the Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. Included in this executive order is a commitment to “conserving at least 30 percent of [the United States’] lands and oceans by 2030.” This ambitious conservation target signals a promising direction for biodiversity in the United States. However, while the executive order outlines several goals for climate mitigation, the ‘30×30’ target remains vague in its objectives, actions, and implementation strategies for protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity urgently needs effective conservation action, but it remains unclear where and what this 30% target will be applied to. Achieving different climate and biodiversity objectives will require different strategies and, in combination with the associated costs of implementation, will lead to different priority areas for conservation actions. Here, we illustrate what the 30% target could look like across four objectives reflective of the ambitious goals outlined in the executive order. We compile several variations of terrestrial protected area networks guided by these different objectives and examine the trade-offs in costs, ecosystem representation, and climate mitigation potential between each. We find little congruence in priority areas across objectives, emphasizing just how crucial it will be for the Biden administration to develop clear objectives and establish appropriate performance metrics from the outset to maximize both conservation and climate outcomes in support of the 30×30 target. We discuss important considerations that must guide the administration’s conservation strategies in order to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes can be achieved over the next decade.


Author(s):  
Daniel J. Fiorino

Ecological policy and politics in the United States and most other countries has turned on the almost inevitable conflicts between ecological and economic goals. US policy recognized this in defining policy as a process of minimizing negatives: of limiting ecological harm while also controlling for pollution and other effects of growth. Instead, policy choices should be built on a green growth strategy—of maximizing the opportunities for positive relationships. This goal is supported by evidence. Ecological policies in the United States have had limited adverse effects on economic growth and competitiveness; at the same time, strategies built on such concepts as clean energy and green infrastructure define options for positive-sum solutions. Evidence of both ecological and social costs of unguided economic growth, as well as the realities of American politics, makes a compelling case for a green growth framing.


2018 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 281-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongyuan Yu

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is both a major reversal of the Obama administration’s climate policy and a huge blow to global climate governance. The comprehensive regression of President Trump’s climate policy manifests mainly in three aspects: abolition of the clean energy plan, exit from the Paris Agreement, and a return to traditional energy policies, which reflect the cyclical and volatile nature of the U.S. climate policy. With its lasting negative impact, the China-U.S. cooperative leadership in global climate governance is stranded. In this light, China should strive for a bigger role in leading global efforts to address climate change and enhance cooperation through various mechanisms. Under the current U.S. policy environment, China can still strengthen cooperation with the United States in such fields as traditional energy, infrastructure investment, global energy market, and green finance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Felix Mormann

Abstract The United States (US) is frequently portrayed as a nation with a deep distrust of big government and a strong commitment to markets and competition. In contrast, the prevailing image of the European Union (EU) is that of a highly bureaucratized polity favouring interventionist economic governance over free market capitalism. In the context of clean energy, however, these roles appear to be somewhat reversed. A top-level survey of the US clean energy policy landscape reveals a surprisingly pervasive reliance on government subsidies with few, if any, competitive elements. EU clean energy policy, meanwhile, reflects an unexpected commitment to market-based instruments and competition. This article suggests that these counter-intuitive policy trends can be explained by critical differences in the black-letter law of both jurisdictions and its enforcement in the courts, among other factors. Unlike their American counterparts, EU judges prioritize the timely transition to a low-carbon energy economy over unrestricted competition among Member States. As the EU pushes for greater intrastate competition in clean energy policy, the US focuses instead on defending the Founding Fathers’ ideal of unfettered interstate competition.


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Larisa G. Chuvakhina ◽  
Nikolai A. Moldenhauer ◽  
Anahita Nasirbeik

The development of the energy sector in the United States of America (USA) represents a rivalry between two different approaches, which has intensified under the last three American administrations. The competition of approaches is expressed in the confrontation between supporters of energy based on renewable sources and supporters of traditional energy resources. A comparative analysis of changes in the energy sector, depending on the prevalence of a particular approach to energy development, shows that external conditions play a key role in promoting the energy strategy. The strategy of priority development of “green” energy carried out under Barack Obama could not be realized because of the shale boom. As a result, many companies working with renewable energy sources did not stand up to the competition. The opposite approach of Donald Trump’s focus on developing traditional energy resources to ensure US energy security and to increase jobs has been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has virtually nullified the US administration’s efforts under this approach. The current concept of President J. Biden is aimed at continuing the strategy of Barack Obama for the development of “green” energy in the United States. Proponents of this concept hope for the possibility of its at least partial implementation in the absence of a shale boom. The lifting of the embargo on the export of American oil has led to an increase in oil supplies abroad. As of 2018, the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia in terms of oil and gas exports, taking a leading position in the global oil market. In 2019-2020, the United States retained the first place in the world in oil production. This article examines the conceptual approaches of American administrations to the issue of energy policy and analyzes the statistical data that characterize the traditional and “clean energy” industries. An important factor is the degree of influence of the US energy policy on global oil prices. To analyze this issue, this research uses curved regression equations to assess the impact of US energy policy on world oil prices under the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The results of the correlation show that a more effective interaction between the variables was carried out during the presidency of Barack Obama, when Exports of Crude Oil influenced the price dynamics of oil quotes with an inverse relationship. With the arrival of the Biden administration, the strategy started under Obama in favor of developing clean energy was continued. In the context of the spread of covid-19, the growth of crisis phenomena in the national economy, the growth of production costs in the oil and gas industry, and the fall in the world energy prices, the development of green energy can have a certain effect, given the Biden administration’s approach to energy development. The subsequent actions of the Biden administration may offset Trump’s efforts to develop traditional energy to strengthen the economic potential of the United States and strengthen the position of American companies in the global oil market.


Author(s):  
Susan M. Hess

As the nuclear industry continues to grow throughout the world, we find that support from government officials, local business leaders and the general public is becoming more and more important. In order to help raise awareness and inform these various publics, AREVA expanded upon a best practice from its worldwide operations and recently established a Community Advisory Council in the United States. The member organizations represent a variety of grassroots and minority organizations from across the United States and are active in various ways in local, state and federal arenas. AREVA’s objective for the Council is simple — listen to concerns, engage in dialogue and raise awareness about the intrinsic link existing between energy, CO2 emissions, global warming, and economic growth, so these same people can make decisions when it comes to energy sources in the future. We want our members to help us better understand their communities, listen to their concerns and answer their questions openly and honestly. AREVA understands that this outreach and education are just the first steps toward helping clean energy sources grow. We must maintain regular dialog and operate in a safe manner, because in the long run, it is these community members who will ensure energy security for the country. And it is only by working together as an industry that we can ensure a safe, clean air future for generations to come, no matter where in the world we live.


Subject Renewable energy in the Caribbean. Significance At the Summit of the Americas on April 10-11, US President Barack Obama said that the United States would help Caribbean countries develop renewable energy sources. The Caribbean had an average cost of 0.33 dollars per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2012, nearly three times the US cost of electricity -- a considerable economic burden, not just in the region, but in nearly all island economies. Impacts The World Bank may attract attention as a focus point for investment less politically contentious than the United States or Venezuela. Renewable energy concepts may be first tested in Puerto Rico, which offers US legal protection to investors. Low oil prices may aid the shift to renewables in the region, by damaging Venezuela's regional influence.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Craig ◽  
Elizabeth L. Petrun Sayers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document