Search the archive.

Settlement of Mars—is it a dream or a necessity? From scientific publications to public forms, there is certainly little consensus on whether colonization of Mars is necessary or even possible, with a rich diversity of opinions that range from categorical It is a necessity!20 to equally categorical Should Humans Colonize Other Planets? No.21 A strong proponent of the idea, Orwig puts forward five reasons for Mars colonization, implicitly stating that establishing a permanent colony of humans on Mars is no longer an option but a real necessity.20

Specifically, these arguments are:

The Senate is signaling deep skepticism about NASA’s ambitious plans to fetch samples of soil from the red planet, expressing concerns over the mission’s cost and viability.

Senate appropriators are offering just $300 million in funding for fiscal 2024 for the Mars mission — less than a third of the $949 million budget request from NASA.

A fifth fairness concern regarding BCAs relates to the implications for the creation of a universal climate change regime more generally. BCAs are policy measures that become desirable when there is partial compliance or differential commitments in a regulatory regime for climate change mitigation. BCAs are obsolete if there is a universal regime with equal regulatory measures across the globe. Given the trend towards bottom up commitments on a unilateral basis, BCAs offer a way of achieving more effective mitigation measures despite a lack of commitment on a broader scale. But whilst it is necessary to consider how to achieve mitigation commitments in situations of partial compliance, it is important to remember that a universal regime should remain the overall ideal that we should strive to achieve. After all, such a regime avoids the problems of carbon leakage and should be more just by virtue of the fact that it encompasses all actors on a global level. Consequently, we argue that whilst BCAs are an effective policy measure in a second best situation in which states pursue climate mitigation on a unilateral basis, we should always aim for a universal regime as a first best solution to climate change.

But a problem arises when one considers the damaging effects that BCAs might have on the negotiation process to achieve this first best solution. BCAs represent a relatively strong policy measure on the part of the state enforcing them that can easily be perceived as hostile on the part of other states. They also represent a step away from cooperative attempts to implement a policy on a common basis towards an isolationist approach to dealing with climate change mitigation. Pursuing BCAs might lead states to abandon the process of achieving a comprehensive agreement for collective action on climate change and to pursue unilateral measures instead. This could even lead to a backlash in multilateral cooperation more generally, particularly in relation to trade, as states take retaliatory trade measures in relation to other policy areas,75 or by straining relations within the WTO.76 This point becomes particularly important given that unilateral border measures are tools that are typically available only to powerful trading nations and are not available to nations with little market power.77

When America puts tariffs on Chinese goods, it helps U.S. producers at the expense of U.S. consumers.

What is the likely result of a trade war with China, the European Union and other countries?

A collapse of U.S.-China trade talks and hike in tariffs on Chinese goods would push the world economy toward recession and see the Federal Reserve cut U.S. interest rates back to zero within a year, analysts at Morgan Stanley said on Monday.

While a temporary escalation of trade tensions could be navigated without much damage at all, a lasting breakdown would inflict serious pain.

The problem is that real-world carbon tariffs would almost certainly be a bastardization of the ideal. Those twisted tariffs are far more likely to be economically damaging and to ignite the trade battles that critics fear.

It will be almost impossible to set carbon tariffs at the “right’’ level. Suppose that the United States cuts its emissions by adopting an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that increases the costs of producing a ton of steel by $30. Imagine, though, that rather than imposing its own similar system, China requires that all new steel factories meet certain technological standards.

Four structural forces will shape the future of International Relations: globalization (but without liberal rules, institutions, and leadership)1; multipolarity (the end of American hegemony and wider distribution of power among states and non-states2); the strengthening of distinctive, national and subnational identities, as persistent cultural differences are accentuated by the disruptive effects of Western style globalization (what Samuel Huntington called the “non-westernization of IR”3); and secular economic stagnation, a product of longer term global decline in birth rates combined with aging populations.4 These structural forces do not determine everything. Environmental events, global health challenges, internal political developments, policy mistakes, technology breakthroughs or failures, will intersect with structure to define our future. But these four structural forces will impact the way states behave, in the capacity of great powers to manage their differences, and to act collectively to settle, rather than exploit, the inevitable shocks of the next decade.

Some of these structural forces could be managed to promote prosperity and avoid war. Multipolarity (inherently more prone to conflict than other configurations of power, given coordination problems)5 plus globalization can work in a world of prosperity, convergent values, and effective conflict management. The Congress of Vienna system achieved relative peace in Europe over a hundred-year period through informal cooperation among multiple states sharing a fear of populist revolution. It ended decisively in 1914. Contemporary neoliberal institutionalists, such as John Ikenberry, accept multipolarity as our likely future, but are confident that globalization with liberal characteristics can be sustained without American hegemony, arguing that liberal values and practices have been fully accepted by states, global institutions, and private actors as imperative for growth and political legitimacy.6 Divergent values plus multipolarity can work, though at significantly lower levels of economic growth-in an autarchic world of isolated units, a world envisioned by the advocates of decoupling, including the current American president. 7 Divergent values plus globalization can be managed by hegemonic power, exemplified by the decade of the 1990s, when the Washington Consensus, imposed by American leverage exerted through the IMF and other U.S. dominated institutions, overrode national differences, but with real costs to those states undergoing “structural adjustment programs,”8 and ultimately at the cost of global growth, as states—especially in Asia—increased their savings to self insure against future financial crises.9

First, it would be considered unilateral protectionism and a direct violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. In the past, such behavior led to the trade wars that prompted the Great Depression. Bear in mind that governments, in their wisdom, impose all sorts of taxes on domestic producers as well as regulations (for reasons of health, safety, working conditions, etc.) that are effectively equivalent to a tax (because they add to production costs). All put domestic producers at a disadvantage relative to foreigners. That would certainly be true of a carbon tax or fee. But WTO rules recognize no right to offset the disadvantage for domestic producers by allowing imposition of a tariff or some equivalent measure. In the eyes of the WTO, that would simply amount to unilateral protectionism. Such a blatant violation would undermine the Bretton Woods system, which was created to our advantage and greatly serves American interests by reducing trade inefficiency and promoting trade liberalization.

It is true, of course, that WTO rules do allow for some unilateral protectionist measures, but only in very limited circumstances defined by so-called "safeguard' provisions. Even if a claim could be made that all American exports were now differentiated goods based on either health and safety purposes or technological standards (i.e. labelling, technological advancement), the U.S. cannot initiate such a standard. Unilateral measures are authorized under the escape clause or in response to dumping or illegal export subsidies. The WTO is also authorized, under the dispute resolution procedures, to act if a foreign country is found in violation of the rules, but refuses to change policy. In such instances, the measures are allowed only in response to actions initiated elsewhere. The rules do not recognize a right to "level the playing field" in response to an initiative originating at home. Regardless, the U.S. would likely be challenged at the very least, which could be another cost to consider on the policy implementation side.

Moreover, unrealistically shortening the grace period granted before resorting to the trade provisions would increase uncertainty of whether the measure would withstand a challenge by U.S. trading partners before the WTO. As the ruling in the Shrimp-Turtle dispute indicates (see Box 2), for a trade measure to be considered WTO-consistent, a period of good-faith efforts to reach agreements among the countries concerned is needed before imposing such trade measures. Put another way, trade provisions should be preceded by major efforts to negotiate with partners within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, developing countries need reasonable time to develop and operate national climate policies and measures. Take the establishment of an emissions trading scheme as a case in point. Even for the U.S. SO2 Allowance Trading Program, the entire process from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency beginning to compile the data for its allocation database in 1989 to publishing its final allowance allocations in March 2003 took almost four years. For the first phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the entire process took almost two years from the EU publishing the Directive establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading on 23 July 2003 to it approving the last national allocation plan for Greece on 20 June 2005. For developing countries with very weak environmental institutions and that do not have dependable data on emissions, fuel uses and outputs for installations, this allocation process is expected to take much longer than what experienced in the U.S. and the EU (Zhang, 2007b).

From agricultural goods—for which China has been the United States’ largest market—to an array of raw materials and components for manufacturing, the economic relationship remains profound and is growing deeper in many sectors. In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that farm exports to China alone were forecast to come in at a record $36 billion this fiscal year, more than double the $17 billion of the 2020 fiscal year.

On paper, the U.S. trade deficit with China has dropped significantly—plunging by $8.5 billion to $34.9 billion in April, according to U.S. Commerce Department data released this month. But it’s a bit of a chimera. Trade experts and economists say that reflects in part China’s decision to reroute its U.S. exports through other nations, especially such East Asian economies as Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Taiwan, where Chinese-owned companies are dominant. And overall ​​the U.S. trade deficit has soared massively over the past two years—particularly with those countries toward which Beijing has diverted its operations, as well as others closer to home, such as Mexico, that have received a boom in Chinese business investment in the last few years. Reuters reported this month that China had overtaken the United States in trade with Latin America.

A rapid growth in carbon capture technologies — which remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the air — are critical if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Dramatically reducing current greenhouse gas emissions is essential to slow global warming. But it's not enough. According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the world must also remove around an additional 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year by mid-century. That’s twice what the U.S. emits from burning fossil fuels each year. Capturing CO2 from the air and sequestering it long-term is known as carbon dioxide removal or CDR.

With the impacts of more extreme weather already being felt across the globe—July 2019 was the hottest month on record to date [9]—the pressure to decarbonize and address rising CO2 emissions is intensifying. As part of this global challenge, innovation in the energy, industrial and manufacturing sectors must therefore enable sustainable growth. Continued economic prosperity will depend on countries’ ability to reduce their energy intensity. Carbon capture is expected to play a key role, particularly due to three key characteristics of the US economy.

The first is the power sector, which is largely seen as the easiest sector to decarbonize vis-à-vis transportation and industry, yet still faces complex challenges. Despite renewable-energy generation more than doubling since 1990, the USA remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels to satisfy energy demand. In addition, the future of its nuclear fleet, which provides more than 60% [10] of the country’s carbon-free power, remains uncertain. Analysts expect retiring nuclear to be replaced not only by renewable energy, but also by unabated fossil-fuel additions. These asymmetries, coupled with a young natural-gas fleet of 22 years average age [11] and further unabated, natural-gas capacity underway, underpin the need to deploy carbon capture in the US power sector.

Depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs have a smaller (10%) storage potential compared to deep saline aquifers but are seen as a critical early opportunity in developing geological CO2 storage technologies. Fortuitously, CO2 has historically been injected into numerous depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs as a means of enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR). This provides a unique chance to evaluate the (bio)geochemical behaviour of injected carbon over engineering timescales.

‘CCS will be a key tool in our battle to avert climate change. Understanding how CCS works in practice, in addition to computer modelling and lab-based experiments, is essential to provide confidence in safe and secure CO2 geological sequestration,’ said Dr. Rebecca Tyne, Dept Earth Science, the University of Oxford

In conclusion, going forward, Miller suggested that the United States needs to do three things:

1. Prioritize and invest in resilience for nuclear strike systems and for long-range conventional platforms.

When the child tax credit, first established in 1997, was expanded for a year in 2021, it was a major political and social win for the country. At a time when the pandemic had worsened many families’ financial distress, the Biden administration’s decision not only added to the amount of the tax credit and converted the payment from a year-end lump sum to monthly payments; it also abandoned the work requirement for parents. This immediately affected one third of all children in the U.S., including 52 percent of Black children and 41 percent of Hispanic children, whose families were formerly excluded because the parents earned too little to qualify for the tax credit. The tax credit expansion lifted 3.7 million children out of poverty by December 2021 without significantly reducing parents’ work participation.

Then in January 2022, the expanded tax credit expired, which plunged 3.7 million back into poverty, with higher percentage increases in poverty among Hispanic and Black children. The credit showed us that cash assistance could help families stay afloat and, contrary to some political beliefs, parents would not leave the labor system because of it. Even so, the failure to renew the expansion should not negate this important political milestone: Congress came within one vote of abandoning parental work requirements as a condition to get cash assistance for their families.

The Congressional Budget Office just projected a series of $1 trillion budget deficits—as far as the eye can see. Narrowing that deficit will require not only spending reductions and economic growth but also new taxes. One solution that I’ve laid out in a new Hamilton Project paper, “Raising Revenue with a Progressive Value-Added Tax,” is a 10 percent Value-Added Tax (VAT) combined with a universal basic income (UBI)—effectively a cash payment to every US household.

The plan would raise substantial net revenue, be very progressive, and be as conducive to economic growth as any other new tax. The VAT would complement, not replace, any new direct taxes on affluent households, such as a wealth tax or capital gains reforms.

Many wealthy Americans escape big income tax bills. Here’s how they do it

Advisors look to lessen toll of Biden’s retroactive capital gains tax hike

The Congressional Budget Office just projected a series of $1 trillion budget deficits—as far as the eye can see. Narrowing that deficit will require not only spending reductions and economic growth but also new taxes. One solution that I’ve laid out in a new Hamilton Project paper, “Raising Revenue with a Progressive Value-Added Tax,” is a 10 percent Value-Added Tax (VAT) combined with a universal basic income (UBI)—effectively a cash payment to every US household.

The plan would raise substantial net revenue, be very progressive, and be as conducive to economic growth as any other new tax. The VAT would complement, not replace, any new direct taxes on affluent households, such as a wealth tax or capital gains reforms.

Other Policies May Better Address Gaps in the New Federal Climate Strategy

Economists can be proud of their long-standing and unwavering support for a price on carbon dioxide emissions. After all, a carbon price encourages emissions reductions wherever and however they can be achieved at a low cost, while providing revenue for an equitable energy transition. The most successful decarbonization efforts in the world are in Europe,[1] where carbon prices above $50 per ton are central elements of climate policy strategies.[2]

The study deals with public preferences concerning redistribution policy, and their effect on actual policy. Redistribution is defined in the literature as a reduction of inequalities in the distribution of wealth through government taxes and transfers (Durante & Putterman, 2009). There is a mismatch between public preferences and policy in this field in certain countries. That is, in some countries the public displays a high demand for redistribution policy, but the government's social spending is low or vice versa.