So far this summer, politics has dominated the news. Which makes sense – it’s a presidential election year after all.

But climate change and its effects haven’t gone anywhere and are getting worse. Just last week, Europe’s climate change service Copernicus announced that Earth hit the hottest temperature ever recorded for two consecutive days. 

The same service also said we’ve lived through more than a year now of record-breaking temperatures.

During the June presidential debate, climate change did take center stage – but only for a moment. CNN moderators asked former President Donald Trump what he would do, if re-elected, to slow the climate crisis. His answer deviated quickly to other topics. 

For his part, President Joe Biden – who has since announced he’s leaving the race and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris – played up his landmark Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in clean energy and climate action in U.S. history.

But where is the American public in all this? 

How worried, frustrated, or hopeful are people feeling about global warming? And how do those sentiments compare to other countries around the world? 

This week we return to a conversation from last fall, when host Bill Loveless talked with Anthony Leiserowitz about Yale’s Climate Change in the American Mind surveys, and what they reveal about public opinion around climate change both here in the U.S. and around the world. They also discussed the current discourse in American politics, and how attitudes differ among registered voters. 

Anthony is the founder and director of the Yale University Program on Climate Change Communication, and a senior research scientist at the Yale School of the Environment. He has worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the World Economic Forum, and many other major organizations to understand the psychological, cultural, and political factors that shape climate change beliefs. Anthony also hosts "Climate Connections," a daily 90-second podcast about the climate crisis.

Since Bill’s interview, Anthony’s program at Yale has released its Spring 2024 Climate Change in the American Mind survey results for Beliefs & Attitudes and Politics & Policy.

Russia’s energy exports, including its significant natural gas capacity, are geopolitical currency for the country. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russia was Europe’s single largest supplier of imported natural gas. But since the global fallout after the invasion, Russia is setting its sights on China as a new market for the country’s gas and as an important ally. 

The proposed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline would transport Russian natural gas to China via Mongolia. The project is a window into Russia’s energy export strategy and the evolving relationship between China and Russia. 

So what is the strategic importance of Chinese-Russian energy diplomacy? How significant was Russia’s loss of the European gas market? And has Europe left its energy crisis behind?

This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Erica Downs, Akos Losz, and Tatiana Mitrova about their recent CGEP commentary, The Future of the Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline. They discuss the geopolitical significance of the proposed pipeline and the evolving Russia-China relationship. They also cover a range of other topics including the outlook for European energy security and climate goals, China’s energy demand, and the global gas market. 

Erica is a senior research scholar at CGEP focusing on Chinese energy markets and geopolitics. She previously worked as a senior research scientist in the China Studies program of the CNA Corporation.  

Akos is a former senior research associate at CGEP where he specialized in natural gas markets and the role of gas in the energy transition. He recently left CGEP and is returning to the International Energy Agency as its lead natural gas analyst. 

And Tatiana is a research fellow at CGEP. She’s spent her career focusing on Russia and global energy markets. Tatiana previously served as the executive director of the Energy Centre of the Moscow School of Management and the head of research in the Oil and Gas Department in the Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. She is also an independent director of SLB, the large energy services firm.

(Note: This conversation was taped prior to President Joe Biden’s July 21, 2024 announcement that he was suspending his campaign for a second term in office.)

Energy is central to economic development, and access to energy is intrinsically linked to prosperity. As standards of living improve, energy use could double by the end of the century with a majority of this growth occurring in the developing world. Meeting this demand with zero-carbon, affordable energy is a herculean task. 

Powering economic growth with zero and low-carbon energy resources will require both the development of new technologies and the rapid deployment of existing technologies. But reinventing the global energy mix continues to be extremely challenging, and there are open questions regarding the affordability and feasibility of new technologies. 

Why is energy so important for development? And where are the opportunities for innovation in the energy transition? 

This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Eric Toone about the intersection of energy and economic development, and the challenge of increasing energy access in the developing world while rapidly cutting emissions.

Eric is the technical lead on the Investment Committee at Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Before joining Breakthrough in 2017, he was the vice provost and director of the Duke University Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative, and a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Duke.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 40-year precedent established in the landmark 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

The precedent, commonly referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine,” gave federal agencies considerable discretion to interpret laws passed by Congress when implementing regulations and policy. But with the court’s new ruling, federal agencies no longer have the final say on how laws are interpreted. Instead, the judiciary will hold that power. 

So, how will the new ruling impact energy policy and environmental regulation? What are both proponents and opponents saying about the court’s decision? And what does this mean more broadly for the modern administrative state? 

This week host Bill Loveless talks with Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead about the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine.

Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. From 2012 to 2018, he was the chair of the faculty of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades.

Jeff is a partner and co-chair of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell LLP. From 2001 to 2005, he served as the assistant administrator for air and radiation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Throughout the world, climate change is influencing human mobility.

In a 2022 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that devastating floods and storms have triggered the displacement of 20 million people per year since 2008. While migration is influenced by many factors, including socio-economic status and political stability, research by the IPCC and others tells us that climate change is increasingly significant.

So, how is climate change impacting human mobility? And what can policymakers do to address climate migration? 

This week host Bill Loveless talks with Shana Tabak about how climate change influences migration both within and across borders.

Shana is a human rights lawyer and the director of immigration strategy at Emerson Collective, where she leads engagement at the intersection of global migration and the climate crisis. She is also an adjunct professor of human rights at the Georgetown University Law Center and an affiliated scholar with Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of International Migration.