Environment & Climate Change

6 Items

California Air Resources Board voting to adopt sweeping clean air regulations in Sacramento, Dec. 16, 2010. The new rules set up the nation's most extensive carbon trading market that will provide a financial incentive to cut emissions.

AP Photo

Policy Brief - UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development

The National Context of U.S. State Policies for a Global Commons Problem

| November 2011

In this policy brief, Harvard Project Director Robert Stavins focuses on how subnational policies will interact with a federal climate policy. It turns out that some of the interactions will be problematic, others will be benign, and still others could be positive. He also examines the role that could be played by subnational policies in the absence of a meaningful federal policy, with the conclusion that—like it or not—we may find that Sacramento, California comes to take the place of Washington as the center of national climate policy. This case study might provide insight for COP 17 delegates in designing the next steps toward a flexible international agreement.

British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, left, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shake hands as they display an agreement they signed to fight climate change in Vancouver, May 31, 2007.

AP Photo

Policy Brief - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center

AB 32 and Climate Change: The National Context of State Policies for a Global Commons Problem

| February 2011

"...[B]ottom-up linkage of state and regional cap-and-trade systems could be an important part, or perhaps even the core, of future of U.S. climate policy, at least until there is meaningful action at the federal level. In the meantime, it is at least conceivable—and perhaps likely—that linkage of state-level cap-and-trade systems will become the (interim) de facto national climate policy architecture."

A customer prepares to pump gas at a filling station in Springfield, Ill., on Jan. 29, 2010.

AP Photo

Policy Brief - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Reducing the U.S. Transportation Sector's Oil Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This policy brief is based on Belfer Center paper #2010-02 and an article published in Energy Policy, Vol. 38, No. 3.

Oil security and the threat of climate disruption have focused attention on the transportation sector, which consumes 70% of the oil used in the United States.
This study explores several policy scenarios for reducing oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

Testimony

Harvard's Gallagher Discusses New Report on Energy Policy Challenges Facing U.S.

| May 28, 2009

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.

Policy Brief - Consortium for Energy Policy Research

Acting in Time on Energy Policy

| May 20, 2009

This policy brief outlines urgent priorities for U.S. energy policy at the dawn of the Obama administration, and recommends specific steps that the U.S. government should take to address the numerous energy-related challenges facing the United States. It is based on the book, Acting in Time on Energy Policy (Brookings 2009), edited by Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.

We concentrate on six topics: climate change policy, carbon capture and storage policy, oil security policy, energy-technology innovation policy, electricity market structure, and infrastructure policy. The United States cannot afford to wait any longer to enact long-term policies on these topics. In fact, acting early is clearly in the longer-term interest of the United States.