Environment & Climate Change

"To deal with climate change, we have to move our entire economy to low-carbon sources of energy. Tying a carbon fee to lower payroll taxes for workers on a permanent basis can not only take the sting out of what has to be done for the climate, it also can help create thousands of jobs and stimulate more innovation. The current favored approach for climate, cap-and-trade, is dying in the Senate, because its proponents can never guarantee that it won't turn into one more playground for Wall Street traders."

"Without energy, there is no economy. Without climate, there is no environment. Without economy and environment, there is no material well-being, no civil society, no personal or national security. The overriding problem associated with these realities, of course, is that the world has long been getting most of the energy its economies need from fossil fuels whose emissions are imperiling the climate that its environment needs."

Will the Obama administration's plan for vehicle emissions standards and auto efficiency affect consumer behavior? During today's OnPoint, Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center, gives her take on the administration's recent auto emissions announcement and whether it will have any significant effects on the environment. Gallagher, editor of the new report, "Acting in Time on Energy Policy," explains why she believes Congress should consider a variable tax on the price of oil as part of the United States' energy policy.

"...Climate change will put stress on weak governments in poor countries and may lead to an increase in the number of failed states and become an indirect source of international conflict. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon argued in 2007 that the Darfur conflict 'began as an ecological crisis, arising in part from climate change.'

Such direct and indirect effects from human activity, while not malevolent in intention like terrorism, argue for a broadening of our concept of security and the adoption of new policies...."

"Leaders are those who help groups create and achieve shared goals. Traditionally, the leaders in international politics have been the most powerful states. However, while hard military power counts for more in the context of international politics than it does in democratic domestic politics, even in international relations conquest, or pure coercion, is not leadership, but mere dictation. Disproportionate power, sometimes called 'hegemony', has been associated with leadership, but appeals to values and ideology also matter, even for a hegemon...."

"On January 20, you will inherit a legacy of trouble: Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, North Korea for starters. Failure to manage any one of them could mire your presidency and sap your political support—and threaten the country’s future. At the same time, you must not let these inherited problems define your foreign policy. You need to put them in a larger context and create your own vision of how Americans should deal with the world."

"We believe that the United States must become a smarter power by reinvesting in the global good — providing things people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of U.S. leadership. Providing for the global good helps America reconcile its overwhelming power with the rest of the world's interests, values, and aspirations. It is not charity. It is effective foreign policy."

In 2006, CSIS launched a bipartisan Commission on Smart Power to develop a vision to guide America's global engagement. This report lays out the commission's findings and a discrete set of recommendations for how the next president of the United States, regardless of political party, can implement a smart power strategy.

"...the oil-supply problem has become worse and energy security more complex."