This event seeks to discuss the potential way forward for the US energy and climate policy, and its implications for both global energy markets and global climate change mitigation efforts.
During the electoral campaign, Donald Trump illustrated his climate-sceptic views, defining climate change as a ‘hoax of the Chinese government’, and promising to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Following the presidential inauguration of January 20, the White House immediately released the ‘America First Energy Plan’, which calls for a deep de-regulation of the energy industry, including the elimination of key environmental policies, and for a wider exploitation of domestic oil, gas and coal resources.
Unsurprisingly, climate change is not even mentioned in the plan
This event will be livestreamed starting at 12.30. There is no need to register for the livestream.
Check in and lunch
Chair: Simone Tagliapietra, Research Fellow
Kristine Berzina, Transatlantic Fellow, Brussels GMF
Tim Boersma, Senior Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University
Connie Hedegaard, Chair, KR Foundation
Zhang Xumin, Political Counselor for energy issues,Chinese Mission to EU
Transatlantic Fellow, Brussels GMF
Senior Research Scholar, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University
Chair, KR Foundation
Political Counselor for energy issues,Chinese Mission to EU
In this paper the authors explore what the EU’s strategic reaction should be to US diminishing giant policies, and the EU’s role in a world of declining hegemony and shifting balances
If the US moves ahead with Republican plans to introduce a border adjustment tax, the EU will need to decide on its response. Marek Dabrowski argues that the EU would be unwise to retaliate with its own anti-import policies: the border adjustment tax would be difficult to implement and damaging to the global trade order. Instead the EU should build a broad coalition of allies to defend free trade.
Reflecting the fact that the United States imports more than it exports, border adjustment tax is considered by its proponents as an essential part of the Trump tax reform package.
Privacy Shield was put in place in 2016 to ensure that transfers of personal data from the EU to the US would be in compliance with European Union privacy law, and thus permissible. The institutional framework of Privacy Shield was weak, and depended on the good will of the US administration. Recent actions by the new administration, including the famous executive order forbidding residents from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to enter the US, may have (presumably unintended) effects on Privacy Shield. To preserve the validity of Privacy Shield in European Courts, strong EU-US cooperation and potentially additional agreements may become necessary.
This is not the first time that the United States has antagonised Europe. And Europe can provide an effective response to such external challenges when it stands united.
The Trump administration seems more than willing to break with liberal orthodoxy on trade. Could this lead them to introduce a "destination tax", essentially penalising imports? If the USA moves ahead with this idea, Mark Hallerberg argues that the EU should seriously consider doing the same. Not only would it balance out some of the trade effects of the US move, it might also have positive political implications for Europe.
What’s at stake: Ever since the 2016 Paris Agreement to reduce emissions was signed, researchers have been looking at the impact that moves towards a low-carbon economy might have on financial markets and financial stability. We review these contributions here.
As US President Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May meet in Washington, Bruegel researchers look at bilateral trade flows between the US, UK and EU27.
It seems increasingly likely that President Trump will govern according to the values of his campaign. On trade, this might lead to major disturbances in the global rules-based order. The EU needs to decide how it will react, and it needs to decide fast.
What’s at stake: much has been said and debated — during the US election and beyond — about the distributional impact of free trade on the disadvantaged. But what would be the distributional impact of a new protectionism instead?
An event about the implications of Donald Trump's emerging trade agenda on global trade.
Trump has set out a plan to repatriate highly-paid manufacturing jobs to the US. But the idea that manufacturing jobs are better paid than service roles is a myth. Moreover, labour markets are slow to shift between sectors. An aggressive trade policy may create some jobs in manufacturing but will not be a benefit to US citizens in general.