Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

What Happens to Global Decarbonization in a Trade War?

Rob and Jesse assess the climate geopolitics of Trump’s latest trade moves.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Donald Trump has implemented what is easily the most chaotic set of American economic policies in recent memory. First, the U.S. declared a trade war on the entire world, imposing breathtaking tariffs on many of the country’s biggest trading partners. He’s paused that effort — but scaled up punitive tariffs on China, launching what would be the 21st century’s biggest global economic realignment without any apparent plan. Now Trump says that more levies are coming on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, no matter where we get them.

All of this is a disaster for the U.S. economy — but it’s also ruinous for any potential American role in decarbonization or the fight against climate change. Even more than Trump’s deregulatory actions, his trade war could spell the end of a long-held U.S. decarbonization dream.

On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse chat about what Trump’s chaotic economic policy could mean for the global fight against climate change. What happens to global decarbonization if the U.S. no longer participates? If the U.S. kills its research sector, what happens next? And could China seize this moment to expand its clean tech sector? Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from our conversation:

Jesse Jenkins: Just to put a pin in the second point you raised, too, on finance — this is such, I think, a critical piece of the potential role, as you said, of the United States and others in influencing development paths in emerging economies. In many cases, the sovereign risks of those markets — the risks related to the potential lack of rule of law or presence of corruption or currency risk and uncertainty or fiscal risk, other things that characterize these environments that, in contrast typically, historically, at least, to the United States and its stability — lead to higher financial costs for everything in these countries, whatever you’re trying to build. And since so many components of the clean energy transition are capital intensive assets — investing in a wind farm, or a solar farm, or manufacturing capacity, or new low-carbon steel production, these all require huge amounts of upfront capital investment.

And so if the U.S. and other international partners can help lower the interest rates and costs of financing that are needed for deployment of these technologies abroad, that has a pretty substantial influence on the actual competitiveness or relative competitiveness of this infrastructure and the ability of emerging economies to afford to deploy it. So that’s one of the kind of key levers that I think is often underappreciated in this stor, and I appreciated that you called that out.

Robinson Meyer: And I would say historically, it’s also something we’ve totally underperformed. It’s a hugely important lever, and it’s also something that Republican and Democratic administrations alike — Republican more than Democratic, but both kinds of administrations have really not contributed enough to the financial cause, here. And so the argument is that the Trump administration, with its broad array of policies, but also with this specific reckless, unplanned, and pretty idiotic trade war that it’s begun in the past two weeks, has undermined all of those advantages for the United States and undermined America’s ability to play any of those roles in a global context.

I would add to all of this that I think there’s another part of the story that I hint at, but don’t go into, which is that obviously the U.S. has withdrawn again from the Paris Agreement, or is in the process of withdrawing again from the Paris Agreement. Beyond Paris alone, climate change is a public problem for the world. It’s a problem of the global public. That’s not the only kind of problem it is — it’s also a developmental problem, as we’ve been discussing. But it is generally higher on the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs for governments than other things they might need to attend to. And so addressing climate change is only possible in a world that is peaceful, rule-following, generally ordered by norms and something approaching laws, rather than a simple imperial prerogative. And of course, the Trump administration’s actions — not only in this trade war, but also over the course of a few months — have been disastrous for that. I think that’s worth stipulating going forward.

Part of what I was trying to do with this piece was, we know that Donald Trump is waging war on the regulatory state. We know that he’s waging war on international climate treaties, and people are very used to thinking about that. But I think understanding this most recent imbecilic action, this trade war that he’s launched against the entire world and then kind of focused on China, also massively undercuts any kind of climate action. And we should be unafraid to say that — at least any kind of climate action that the United States would play a role in.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Politics

Can Offshore Wind Survive the Tax Credit Purge?

Empire Wind has been spared — but it may be one of the last of its kind in the U.S.

Sharks circling a wind turbine.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s been a week of whiplash for offshore wind.

On Monday, President Trump lifted his stop work order on Empire Wind, an 810-megawatt wind farm under construction south of Long Island that will deliver renewable power into New York’s grid. But by Thursday morning, Republicans in the House of Representatives had passed a budget bill that would scrap the subsidies that make projects like this possible.

Keep reading...Show less
Politics

Carbon Capture May Not Have Been Spared After All

The House budget bill may have kept the 45Q tax credit, but nixing transferability makes it decidedly less useful.

The Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Climeworks

Very few of the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits made it through the House’s recently passed budget bill unscathed. One of the apparently lucky ones, however, was the 45Q credit for carbon capture projects. This provides up to $180 per metric ton for direct air capture and $85 for carbon captured from industrial or power facilities, depending on how the CO2 is subsequently sequestered or put to use in products such as low-carbon aviation fuels or building materials. The latest version of the bill doesn’t change that at all.

But while the preservation of 45Q is undoubtedly good news for the increasing number of projects in this space, carbon capture didn’t escape fully intact. One of the main ways the IRA supercharged tax credits was by making them transferable, turning them into an important financing tool for small or early-stage projects that might not make enough money to owe much — or even anything — in taxes. Being able to sell tax credits on the open market has often been the only way for smaller developers to take advantage of the credits. Now, the House bill will eliminate transferability for all projects that begin construction two years after the bill becomes law.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Politics

The GOP Tax Bill Is a Dangerous Gamble at a Precarious Moment

House Republicans have bet that nothing bad will happen to America’s economic position or energy supply. The evidence suggests that’s a big risk.

The Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When President Barack Obama signed the Budget Control Act in August of 2011, he did not do so happily. The bill averted the debt ceiling crisis that had threatened to derail his presidency, but it did so at a high cost: It forced Congress either to agree to big near-term deficit cuts, or to accept strict spending limits over the years to come.

It was, as Bloomberg commentator Conor Sen put it this week, the wrong bill for the wrong moment. It suppressed federal spending as America climbed out of the Great Recession, making the early 2010s economic recovery longer than it would have been otherwise. When Trump came into office, he ended the automatic spending limits — and helped to usher in the best labor market that America has seen since the 1990s.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow