An Experienced Economist Reflects on Government Service, Carbon Pricing, and Climate Policy

Having served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate & Energy Economics in the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2021-2022, Catherine Wolfram has some particularly relevant insights to offer on the development and implementation of climate change policy in the most recent episode of my monthly podcast.  Wolfram is the Cora Jane Flood Professor of Business Administration at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, currently on leave at the Harvard Kennedy School.  In the podcast, we discuss her time in government service and her thoughts and hopes for a carbon pricing scheme.  You’ll find this and much more in the newest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to our complete conversation here.

In this new podcast episode, Catherine Wolfram, who earned her PhD in Economics from MIT, begins by reflecting on her service in the Biden Administration, and she does so in very positive terms, saying that it was an “honor and thrill of a lifetime.”

“I would say the high point was definitely the work on the price cap on Russian oil. That was the main thing that I spent time on in the last 10 months of my time at Treasury, and was absolutely fascinating from so many different perspectives,” she says. “I learned a lot about foreign diplomacy, or I should say that I observed foreign diplomacy in action.”

During her time at the Treasury Department, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, important legislation that authorizes $391 billion in spending on energy and climate change initiatives, making it the most important climate legislation ever enacted in the United States.

“A lot of the Inflation Reduction Act is being implemented through tax credits, and that’s Treasury’s purview, so [although] it was not my office within Treasury (it was another office, the Office of Tax Policy), I … [attended] many meetings about what started out as the Build Back Better Act and became the Inflation Reduction Act. So, that was really fun to see, and is certainly a momentous piece of legislation,” she remarks.

Despite the reliance on subsidies (tax credits) in the Inflation Reduction Act, Catherine says that she remains optimistic about the potential role of carbon pricing in climate change policy.

“I would not call carbon pricing dead,” she argues. “I could see it coming back in some form, maybe not the economy-wide carbon price that textbooks favor, but maybe something that starts, for instance, with the industrial sector … on a more limited scale.”

More broadly, Wolfram expresses optimism that the international community will figure out creative ways to adopt climate policies that will make a positive difference.

“I think if the G7 countries can get together and figure out how to put a price cap on Russian oil, [then] hopefully the G7 countries can get together and figure out good ways to use their presence in the international trade community to address climate change.”

However, Catherine also expresses concern about the possibility that an overreliance on tax credits and government subsidies in the design of climate policy could set back efforts to impose effective carbon pricing.  

“I worry that there’s a future that evolves where the European Union gets pressure from its industry, and loses enthusiasm for its carbon price, and so the competitive pressures from industry that are seeing these subsidies over in the U.S., and thinking of moving to the U.S., that causes the EU to backtrack on climate policy, just because we have these different approaches to reducing emissions.”

For this and much, much more, I encourage you to listen to this 44th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Another Informed View of the Outcome of COP-27 in Sharm El Sheikh

According to my most recent podcast guest, Billy Pizer, the Vice President for Research and Policy Engagement at Resources for the Future, agreement by negotiators at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, earlier this month on a mechanism to provide funding for particularly vulnerable nations suffering from climate change was a significant outcome, while the negotiators’ inability to achieve substantive commitments by nations to increase their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) was a disappointment.  Dr. Pizer offers those views and much more in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to the interview and our conversation here.

[As you know if you follow this blog, I have my own views of the outcome of COP27, about which I wrote just a couple of days ago, but in these podcasts I strive to feature the work and views of my guests, so in the podcast you won’t hear much from me on the various issues that arose at COP27.  If you want to get my own take on that, you can find it here and here.]  Now back to Billy Pizer …

The eyes of the world were focused on Sharm El Sheikh as negotiators representing nearly 200 countries discussed myriad issues with the goal of advancing international efforts to limit global warming to well below 2° C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5° C this century, as specified in the Paris Agreement.  COP27 did not have a particularly ambitious agenda, Pizer observes in our conversation, but it did move the ball forward.

“We’re now at a place after Paris where everything is a little bit lower stakes, in a sense, because we have the framework in place. And everything now is simply moving that framework along to the next step,” he says. “I think it’s inevitable that there’s a little bit less high-level drama and stakes going on at the COPs. That doesn’t mean they’re not unimportant, it just means that the nature of the COPs is different.”

Pizer says that one of the most significant outcomes during the two weeks of the COP took place 6,000 miles away, at the G20 summit in Bali, where President Biden and China President Xi agreed to resume bilateral cooperation on climate change as well as other issues. 

“Now the negotiations have stepped back up,” Pizer remarks. “And I think that is certainly a significant development because I think it’s just very hard to make progress [on international climate policy] without the US and China talking.”

Another major outcome from this year’s COP was the agreement to establish a “Loss and Damage” fund to help poor nations suffering from the impacts of climate change. Pizer admits that he was somewhat surprised that the U.S. supported that proposal. 

“The United States has been very concerned about whether or not there would be a notion of liability that went with such compensation. But remarkably, it was on the agenda, it got negotiated. And in the end, there was an agreement to a new fund,” he states. “The United States typically does not like to create new funds. But in the end, they were isolated, and I don’t think they wanted to be responsible for a bad outcome. And I think they also recognized the writing on the wall, that this was what the majority of countries wanted, and so they agreed to it.”

As an aside, I will note that as a result of work by the United States – and other delegations – at COP27, the Loss & Damage Fund is explicitly not about compensation or legal liability.

On another topic, Dr. Pizer observes that the negotiators made little progress on the issue of increased ambition among the parties to increase their commitments through their NDCs, an outcome which Pizer found disappointing.

“There is a broad recognition that we’re not on track to meet the targets, the goals of the convention or the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to two degrees or 1.5 Degrees. And despite that, there weren’t dramatic increases in ambition announced. So that’s almost like the lack of an outcome that was notable,” he says.

The author along with Billy Pizer and others at RFF’s recent Net-Zero Economy Summit in Washington, D.C.

On a very positive note, Billy Pizer cites the power of recent youth movements of climate activism to help advance international climate efforts.

“I think the youth movement and the popular movement to address climate change has that sort of catalyzing role to help move things along,” he notes. “And I think it also creates a dynamic where, with the younger generation … even more committed to taking action, it helps decision makers, businesses, people that are betting literally their money on different events taking place, that this sort of action in the future is going to even accelerate more because the younger generation is even more concerned about it.”

Again, I encourage you to listen to this 42nd episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Regulatory Skepticism and Technological Optimism from a Prominent Environmental Lawyer

Although I’ve featured economists in my podcast, I’ve also been privileged to host some top environmental lawyers and legal scholars, including:  Sue Biniaz (now at the U.S. State Department), Ricky Revesz (at NYU Law School), Dan Esty (from Yale Law School, now at the World Trade Organization in Geneva), Jody Freeman (of Harvard Law School), and Jonathan Wiener (of Duke University’s School of Law).

That’s a diverse group in terms of gender, but I will acknowledge that it is not a very diverse group politically.  In my latest podcast, I begin to make up for that with an environmental lawyer who has worked closely and held important positions in Republican administrations.  But I did not invite him to the podcast because of his political background and viewpoint, but simply because he is one of this country’s leading and most prominent environmental lawyers.  As I assume people of all political stripes will readily acknowledge, he’s both smart and articulate.

I’m talking about Jeffrey Holmstead, who served as Associate Counsel to the President in the George H.W. Bush administration, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the George W. Bush administration, and now leads the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell in Washington, DC.  My conversation with Jeff Holmstead is featured in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Our complete conversation is here.

Despite his solid Republican credentials, Holmstead praises the Biden Administration’s early efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in two specific ways.

“They have made very clear that climate change is one of their highest priorities, and they’ve actually done a couple of very important things,” Holmstead says. “Their first priority was in the transportation sector, and they finalized much more aggressive CO₂ emission standards for vehicles. And then they have proposed, but not yet finalized, a pretty aggressive approach to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas operations.”

As readers of this blog know, the Biden Administration has also promised to revise the Social Cost of Carbon, but Holmstead argues that its fate may rest with the courts, depending on how it is used.

“I think the courts have correctly said that in and of itself, that alone is not the type of action that is reviewable in court, and it won’t be reviewable until it’s used in a regulation. I think it will depend on the specific contours of the regulation that they’re doing,” he says. “All these regulatory programs have different standards that the agencies have to meet. And if it’s the kind of standard that allows them to consider benefits and costs, I think it depends on the specific context. And I think there will be some interesting litigation about that.”

Holmstead also remarks that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal requiring public companies to provide certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports is likely to run into significant legal challenges.  

“The idea that the Securities and Exchange Commission would essentially be regulating greenhouse gases and they would do it in the form of a disclosure, but at least as proposed, it would be a pretty intrusive form of disclosure. And so, I think that there’s a fairly good chance that if the SEC finalizes what it proposed, that it’s likely to run into trouble in the courts,” he says.

Yet Holmstead also said in our conversation that he believes there is a “good chance” of having comprehensive climate change legislation in the United States fairly soon.

“I think there are many people in the business community that would like to have the certainty of legislation. And so, I’m still optimistic that we could see something like that in the relatively near future,” he remarks. “But … ultimately it seems to me that it’s a technology question. And until there is a way to provide people with electricity and to power mobility, that is at least close to being cost competitive with coal and oil, I think it’s going to be an uphill battle.

At the end of our conversation, Jeff Holmstead concludes with a note of technological optimism: “I think that there are technological breakthroughs that are at least on the horizon that could help us solve the problem. But ultimately for me, climate change is a technology issue and not a regulatory issue.”

For all this and much more, I hope you will listen to my compete conversation with Jeffrey Holmstead, which is the 38th episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share