In a conversation on U.S. climate policy, Junior Podcast Editor Moritz Ludwig (MPP ’25) and Trevor Higgins, Senior Vice President of the Energy and Environment Department at the Center for American Progress and Adjunct Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy, talk about the Biden administration’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Centering around the Inflation Reduction Act, the new approach of incentives and investments is portrayed as a promising path towards decarbonization. The interview covers both domestic and international aspects of the climate legislation while also acknowledging uncertainties about the future of the ambitious programs.
Check out more podcasts from the Georgetown Public Policy Review (GPPR) Podcast
Team: https://soundcloud.com/gppolicyreview
To follow GPPR podcasts, click the above link to GPPR’s Soundcloud Page, then click “FOLLOW” on the
right-hand side of the page to be sure to know when our podcasts drop! GPPR Podcasts are also
published to Apple Podcasts and to Spotify (see button at bottom of GPPR page).
[Intro]
MORITZ LUDWIG:
Welcome back to the Georgetown Public Policy Review podcast. I’m your host, Moritz Ludwig, and today I have the pleasure to talk with Professor Trevor Higgins about U.S. climate policy in 2024. Professor Higgins is currently the Senior Vice President of the Energy and Environment Department at the Center for American Progress, and he previously worked as the Legislative Assistant Responsible for Energy, Transportation, and Climate Change for Senator Dianne Feinstein and in the U.S. Department of Energy in the office of the Chief Financial Officer as a Presidential Management Fellow. Thank you for taking the time today.
TREVOR HIGGINS:
Thank you, Moritz.
LUDWIG:
So we met before you taught my first elective last semester at the McCourt School.
HIGGINS:
You were a great student.
LUDWIG:
That’s why we’re here. And there we talked in great detail about the current U.S. climate, energy, and environmental policies, and we will talk about that in a minute. But what I want to know first from you is you are not only an adjunct professor, but you were also a student at McCourt. You’re a McCourt alum. So what was your experience like? What brought you to the Hilltop? And how did that affect your career? And maybe also why did you come back last semester?
HIGGINS:
Yeah, absolutely. I loved being a student at Georgetown. So I, before I was a PMF, a Presidential Management Fellow at the Department of Energy, I was in the grad school program. Back then, it was just before McCourt had its name changed. We were called the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, and we hadn’t moved to Old North yet.
LUDWIG:
Oh, where were you?
HIGGINS:
We were in the Car Barn.
LUDWIG:
Okay.
HIGGINS:
Which was great. I loved it. We had a great view over the river, and it was just a beautiful setting. And I met my wife there, who was also a student at GPPI. And it was, for me, I had been a high school teacher who had just watched politics unfold in the newspaper, and never had a real understanding about how I could get involved in a way that would really matter, that would be informed by policy analysis that could make a difference. And having the opportunity to come to McCourt, or Georgetown, and suddenly see these professors who knew what they were doing, and had a clear theory to understand how policy could unfold, and a practical understanding of what it meant to actually make change happen, it was so exciting. And when I was invited to come talk about my more recent experience watching the Inflation Reduction Act unfold, I was delighted to be able to come and share back into this community that I loved so much as a student.
LUDWIG:
That’s so interesting. So you were a high school teacher, but then at McCourt you didn’t focus on education policy, right? So why did you focus on environmental policy and then ended up in those roles, and here at the Center for American Progress?
HIGGINS:
Well, climate change was just such an important thing for me. And, you know, my students used to ask me, oh my God, what are we going to do about this? Or what’s the path forward? And it’s when I realized that I really wanted to have a good answer to that question that I thought, I’m going to go study policy. So that’s what I did. And in fact, I was delighted when we had our policy simulation my first year, and it was all about the climate policy. At the time, it was a cap-and-trade program. And so we had a fun and exciting adventure trying to negotiate the ideal cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, which was eye-opening and very interesting. And when I reflect back on that, it’s amazing just how far the climate policy discussion has come since that time.
LUDWIG:
Right. I mean, cap-and-trade programs are still a very important policy level for climate policy, but not the only one. But before coming to that part, let’s maybe touch upon your experiences after McCourt. And I’m particularly interested in what learnings you took from your master’s in public policy that helped you throughout your career.
HIGGINS:
So the Department of Energy was a great experience. The opportunity I had to participate in the CFO’s office formulation of budget priorities across the whole building was an excellent introduction to the ways that clean energy policy could be developed and priorities could be traded off. McCourt’s coursework on administrative policymaking was a great sampling that set me up to make sense out of what was to come. But the opportunity to dive in and actually do it was just a whole new invitation to understand a part of the world I had never had a chance to see before. But for me, it was a little bit limiting because as career staff, I could see policy choices that needed to be made, but I was not in a position to make recommendations about how the policy ought to change. And so that motivated my move to Capitol Hill, where I had a chance to really weigh options and present recommendations to Senator Feinstein and suggest solutions for intractable problems. And that was a really creative opportunity to use what I had learned at McCourt. It’s tough though on the Hill because you are so reactive to what’s happening day-to-day, week-to-week, that if you can plan ahead more than a few weeks, that’s a rare opportunity. So coming to the think tank world, I felt like all of a sudden it was a breath of fresh air that I could look down the field and think, what do we need to be true 18 months from now to make that policymaking moment different than this one? What new ideas are we going to need? What new coalitions are we going to need? And that’s a real privilege to be able to think about how you match the way that policy gets made with the goals that policy needs to solve. And working at a think tank has been a great chance to do that.
LUDWIG:
Well, I’m glad to hear. And it seems like your jobs definitely were always an opportunity for growth and for seeing maybe also the limits which led to your next step. So here at the Center for American Progress, you think about the big picture, about climate and energy policy. And that’s what I want to talk with you about right now, the current U.S. approach to climate change. We all know the administration revamped U.S. climate policy, starting, first of all, with rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, and then leading to legislation like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, other acts like the CHIPS Act, and of course, also the Inflation Reduction Act. What would you say makes this approach distinct from past efforts which maybe weren’t really successful?
HIGGINS:
After the failure of the Waxman-Markey approach to passing an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill, the entire climate movement went into a deep period of rethinking. And one of the lessons of many was that policy needs to be speaking to people in their everyday lives, and not just something that we’re solving at a technocratic level. And that observation, I think, motivated a lot of the approach to Build Back Better, which became the Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. That approach attempts to make investments in people’s communities in ways that they’ll experience the economic opportunities of the clean energy transition as something positive that brings them along into the future, and not just as something that’s changing about the economics of an energy sector, or is threatening changes that they don’t see themselves a part of. So there’s plenty of things going on in these bills. They are large bills.
LUDWIG:
Right.
HIGGINS:
But one of the things that they are doing is trying to invest in ways that people will experience the benefits of. And I think that was a mental shift in the climate world between 2010 and 2020.
LUDWIG:
You said the coalition. What can I picture is the coalition? Is it only think tanks, or what parts are there of the coalition that led to this new effort?
HIGGINS:
One of the exciting parts about policy change is realizing how many people need to be involved. So, yes, there are committees on the Hill that are working through the policy details. There are presidential campaigns that are building the momentum and making the promises. There are think tanks that are working on which ideas are going to work and what kind of emissions do they deliver in an energy systems model. And there are movement-based organizations that are putting forward promises like the Green New Deal that motivate people’s thinking about what’s possible. There are protests. There are businesses. There are litigators. The range of people who are committed to dealing with climate change has grown exponentially in recent years. And all of it was necessary to get this legislation across the finish line. If any one of those pieces had not been in place, the groundbreaking legislation wouldn’t have been possible.
LUDWIG:
Okay. So it was this patchwork of different actors. And what is the role of the think tanks in this patchwork? What were the think tanks contributing to this effort?
HIGGINS:
So at the Center for American Progress, we are in a unique position to be a think tank that touches on all the issues of the day. And it’s unified by a common set of values and desire to make change for progress. But it’s a unique position to be able to look at all of the different issue areas. And for a multi-issue think tank to look and say, you know, the focus of the next piece of legislation has to include climate change, that was an important signal to the legislators and to others in the movement about just how important and how real this opportunity was, how important it was for people to put the thought in and the work in to making coalitions exist in a strong way. And so there was an important kind of a signaling step there. The most important thing was to offer up ideas about how do you construct a set of investments that could result in climate outcomes. It’s not an obvious equation to solve for. In fact, a lot of policymaking to date, especially the academic efforts I had studied as a student, were focused on pricing. How do you create a cap-and-trade program? Or how do you create a carbon tax? How do you equilibrate the social marginal damage to match, you know, follow Pigouvian thought to come up with the perfect ideal solution? And it turns out that wasn’t right for the moment. That wasn’t the political opportunity on the table. What was available was investments through reconciliation. And how to make a program of investments that could actually yield pollution benefits or pollution reductions, benefits for people’s lives, and propel the transition to clean energy forward, it was not easy to figure out. And so it was the role of think tanks like CAP and many, many others to come up with some good ideas and determine how they fit together and present some options and put them on the table and get people excited about what could really be possible through this approach.
LUDWIG:
So again, maybe the big picture, which you hoped for in your new position here. Before we come to the international perception, just one last question. You mentioned that the Inflation Reduction Act and all the related legislature aims to give people something they can see in their everyday lives. Would you say that so far this worked? Or would you say that there has to be some more effort for people to actually see that the legislature makes a difference for them in their everyday life?
HIGGINS:
I would say that it hasn’t worked yet. We proved this exercise proved the first part of the equation, that the politics of addition can be more powerful than the politics of subtraction, and that this method of making policy could make it through Congress. But the second part of the equation that people will notice and will care about it and will come to see themselves in the clean energy future and want to see more climate action, which is what we need to do for decades to come. That part hasn’t happened fully yet. The public is largely unaware of the legislation. The programs are only still just beginning to roll out. The tax credit guidance is still being written. There are pieces of this program that haven’t come into place yet. And it’s a question, I think, about whether these investments will unfold in a timeline that people will recognize before there are attempts to repeal the legislation. And I think we have a good shot. But that’s the status that we’re in right now. The government is working hard to move these investments and fulfill the legislation as fast as possible. And the hope is that there can be broad public understanding of what that means.
LUDWIG:
I think it’s interesting to think about the time frames and the long-term and short-term effects of any political effort. Let us shift a little. I’m always interested in the international view. And in my last podcast, I talked with Stormy-Annika Mildner from the Aspen Institute Germany about the initial international reaction to the Inflation Reduction Act, about how internationally it was maybe seen a little bit protective, especially because of the domestic content requirements. You were at the Conference of the Parties, the COP28 in Dubai in December. And you might also be in contact with other international partners in your day-to-day job. What would be your assessment of the current international perceptions of U.S. climate action? Has there been a shift? Or are international partners still concerned about certain elements of this legislation?
HIGGINS:
So immediately after the Inflation Reduction Act passed, especially in Europe, as you said, Moritz, there was a real concern about what it meant. Was this protectionist? Was it going to fuel a trade war? What did it mean for European industry to see all this investment happening in the United States? And our organization has a good dialogue with other think tanks in Europe and India and China and other countries. And so we were immediately thrust into the position of answering some questions. Because you have to keep in mind, the bill, although it was in the works for a long, long time, and it took, I think, longer than anyone expected, it actually kind of all came together. It finally only clicked in a very short period of time. And some of the provisions that I think most caught certain European partners of ours off guard were last minute additions that Senator Manchin inserted about the automaking provisions, which required certain levels of domestic content. So there was a fair degree of explanation that we went through to try and show what we understood those provisions to mean. And the main point that we made in these discussions was that there would not have been climate action in the United States if it was not communicating benefits to people in their everyday lives, including through, that means opportunities for jobs, which means domestic content standards, and high job quality standards, investments in energy communities. But that first part, the part about the domestic content piece, that was where the hang up was. I think that the reactions over time in Europe have shifted from surprise to concern to, wait a second, isn’t there an opportunity here for Europe to do the same thing? Can’t there be a little bit of pro-climate competition to see who can build the domestic manufacturing base that we’ll need to build the clean energy future? And to the degree we’re in that situation, I think it’s a good thing, because the world needs more clean energy technology being manufactured, and a little bit of healthy competition there can be a good thing. At the end of the day, these are not tariff-based protections. These are investments in making manufacturing of nuclear energy possible. And what it means for Europe, I think, is not just about competition with Europe and the United States. It’s also about how China is showing up in manufacturing cars, manufacturing solar panels, and the many provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act are creating a brand new dynamic for international trade relations.
LUDWIG:
You mentioned Senator Manchin from West Virginia. Why would you say he had such a big influence, especially in this last part, to get in some of the a little bit more protective provisions into the Inflation Reduction Act?
HIGGINS:
So the Inflation Reduction Act was passed through the budget procedure called reconciliation, which meant that in the Senate it wasn’t subject to the filibuster, but you still had to have 50 votes in the Senate plus one. And it was a very narrowly divided Senate, and no Republican senators were interested in negotiating on the Inflation Reduction Act, despite several senators trying to interest them. And so Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were the two most reluctant Democratic senators. And so first Sinema got on board, and then eventually Manchin got on board. But until they both did, it wasn’t possible to move the legislation through the Senate.
LUDWIG:
All right. And coming back to maybe your experiences internationally, you were in Dubai, like I said. What would you say is the role the US plays in international climate action right now? Are they perceived as a credible player? Are countries reluctant to cooperate with the US? What would you say?
HIGGINS:
So at the Conference of the Parties in Dubai this year, which was hosted by the UAE, a fossil fuel producing country, it was very interesting. I was actually sick for most of it, which was a great disappointment for me. But my team was there, and I was there also, just not feeling well. And we were greatly impressed by the way that the United States was able to show up and push for what became an unprecedented outcome with regard to speaking about the transition from fossil fuels. But first, I’ll answer your question. The United States has not been seen as a reliable actor on climate. We helped negotiate Kyoto and then did not ratify it. We helped negotiate the Paris Agreement and then pulled out. We never enacted nationwide climate legislation until the Inflation Reduction Act. And this presents an opportunity to show the world that we’re putting our money where our mouth is. And if the Inflation Reduction Act can motivate the long-term investments, the manufacturing renaissance, the technological innovation and deployment that it’s projected to do, that will fundamentally change the economics of the clean energy transition in a way that should be durable to changes in political administration, and may be seen internationally as a more reliable basis for their own decisions about their own energy system, because they’ll have a better understanding of where the United States is heading, where international trade is heading. And that can be very favorable. At the same time, the pressure is on to act. The effects of climate change have never been more present and felt throughout the world. So for 30 years at the UN negotiations, there never was the role of fossil fuels outright acknowledged in the documents. The science talks about the sources of emissions and how they’re even caused. But the implication that we therefore have to phase out fossil fuels was never really tackled. In Glasgow, they talked about the need to transition away for phase out coal. But it wasn’t until Dubai that the world agreed to talk about a transition away from all fossil fuels, including oil and gas. And to be able to win that global consensus to say that was a really big step for the United Nations Framework Convention.
LUDWIG:
Right, right. So I guess this perception of the US in the long term also hinges a little bit on this year, on 2024, which is an election year. So maybe let’s look ahead. In this election year, questions of durability, stability of climate legislation occupy many discussions about the Inflation Reduction Act and about the other climate efforts. What do you expect? Will the IRA and the related legislative efforts last in the long term? What parts of it will last? Or what might even be repealed?
HIGGINS:
It is a nearly trillion dollar question. I don’t think anyone can say for sure. There’s reasons to think that the investments that the Inflation Reduction Act are motivating will change the political economy. In fact, when you look at where the investments are happening, the majority are happening in districts represented by Republican members of Congress. Will that ultimately change their voting behavior? We’ll see. So far, there have been 31 attempts by the House Republicans to repeal parts of the Inflation Reduction Act. So we’ll see. They might be approaching this the same way they approached the health care law from President Obama. Right. So they haven’t they haven’t matched that record yet, but they’re on their way.
LUDWIG:
Do you know the number for that?
HIGGINS:
Well, it was over 100 that I don’t know.
LUDWIG:
Wow. Okay. Okay. Well, we’re not we’re not quite there yet.
HIGGINS:
And so the difference is that the House Republicans weren’t playing with a real fire yet. It was obvious that no matter what they passed, the Senate wasn’t going to go along with repealing nor was the president. But if the election results change, I think it’s uncertain what would happen. And even if they can’t muster the votes to repeal. After all, the Democrats never repealed the Trump tax cuts, and President Obama didn’t repeal the Bush tax cuts. So it’s not written in stone that even with a certain election result that the Congress would choose to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. But even so, you can see there are right-wing think tanks who’ve authored things like Project 2025 to lay out their plan for what the next term would look like if a conservative president wins.
LUDWIG:
Right.
HIGGINS:
And it talks very explicitly about the ways that they would try to stall implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, try to roll back the regulations that go along with it, try to change the guidance that’s been issued about how to interpret the tax credit eligibilities. All of those things could slow or delay implementation to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. And the question I think comes down to one of time. How much will the economy shift in response to incentives, in response to climate change broadly, to lock in place a new inertia towards a clean energy economy, which I think is inevitable. It’s just a question of the timing and who benefits along the way. And the main question I think will be, do those changes happen on a time scale that makes them durable, no matter what the political winds in Washington dictate? Or will changes happen so abruptly and severely that that transition gets knocked off course, delayed, or done in a way that’s not as beneficial for people? And that future hasn’t been written yet.
LUDWIG:
Yeah, we will see. Lots of uncertainties. Do you think that bipartisan efforts like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will continue to be part of the political agenda? Or do you think that it will be a little bit more partisan again?
HIGGINS:
It’s hard to forecast. I think that the bipartisan infrastructure law of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was a unique moment in history. It’s really interesting to go back and study it. I’m not sure that that law would have looked the same if the threat of a reconciliation bill hadn’t been hanging over the Senate Republicans. And there are parts of that law that I think look very different. In fact, possibly even the fact that that law exists. They would look very different if the Inflation Reduction Act hadn’t always been there ready to go in the background to pick up whatever was left on the cutting room floor. In the absence of that sort of dynamic, the bipartisan approach to infrastructure in Congress’s past was different. It was narrow. It was focused to just the water infrastructure bill or just the surface transportation bill. I think we’ll see legislation like that continue on a bipartisan basis no matter what. But will we see the same kind of magical moment in Congress where they’re willing to go much larger and much farther with incentives for unionization and with opportunities for vehicle electrification? I don’t think so. I think that was a unique moment that was structured in the legislative calculus that was dominated by the prospect of reconciliation at the end of the day. All right. Yeah, that makes sense.
LUDWIG:
Well, I could keep talking with you about climate policies for quite a while, and we talked about it for an entire semester, I would say. But let’s maybe end on a positive note. What is your hope for the next few years for climate policy in the U.S.?
HIGGINS:
My hope is that the Inflation Reduction Act is the very start of a steady drumbeat of policy progress that’s needed at every level of government, across every government in the world, to meet the moment that we have in front of us right now, to change the trajectory of fossil fuel combustion globally and bring emissions in line with net zero by 2050 so we can stabilize global temperatures. And I think we’ve got a real shot at accomplishing that. And I think these next few years are the pivotal moment in that history.
LUDWIG:
All right. And I guess that coalitions will be very important for that. So thank you for taking the time today.
HIGGINS:
Thank you, Moritz.
LUDWIG:
Tune in to other podcasts of the Georgetown Public Policy Review and also keep an eye out for our journal’s Spring Edition. And also definitely check out the work of the Center for American Progress. Thanks for tuning in and until next time.
[OUTRO]
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
