Research Library

Speaking from the historic steps of Old North on the Georgetown University campus on June 25, 2013, President Obama unveiled a detailed plan to address the causes and impacts of climate change. In his words, the president promised, “I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.” Not quite a year later on June 6, 2014, Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responded by proposing “state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve the state-specific goals.”

By Steve Nolin

Following the legalization of retail marijuana sales in Colorado and Washington, and medical marijuana in…

President Obama’s commencement address at West Point on Wednesday was clearly aimed at deflecting rising criticism of his administration’s foreign policy. In particular, the speech was designed to address complaints that U.S. foreign policy under Obama has lacked strategic coherence and signaled a U.S. retreat from the international arena. The administration promoted the address as a platform for the president to describe his “vision” for U.S. foreign policy during the remainder of his term. To the extent that the speech did present a vision, it was not a particularly new one.

The recently released National Climate Assessment documents the accelerating rate of climate change caused by human activities, leading to extensive and damaging impacts. The report represents scientific findings on the state of climate change in the United States, summarized in a way that is accessible to its intended audience: the president, members of Congress, and the American people, writes Ron Sass, fellow in global climate change. Will the U.S. Congress respond actively to the report rather than do nothing, as it has in the past? Sass is not sure, but writes that “it is up to the American people to inform themselves and then vote into power those who have the ability and desire to understand the seriousness of the changing climate and are willing to work together to confront it.”

The situation in Ukraine is the most serious foreign policy challenge ever faced by the Obama administration, writes Rice faculty scholar Richard Stoll.

While much media attention recently has focused on the geopolitical fault lines that connect Syria’s violence to wider region-wide trends, the plight of individual women, men, and children displaced within Syria or living in camps beyond its borders shows no sign of ending. As Secretary of State John Kerry has stated, the humanitarian situation in Syria is "an outrage" but the violence only looks set to worsen as opposition groups turn on each other and radical trans-national elements feed off the resulting vacuum of authority and control. This is the task as the international community prepares to reconvene in Switzerland on January 22, writes Baker Institute fellow Kristian Coates Ulrichsen in the Baker Institute Blog.

In a recent commentary, Baker Institute science and technology policy experts described two international court cases that aimed to define “research” — and that ultimately arrived at two different answers. “What makes this interesting is that the courts’ definition of ‘research’ was based on politics — what the court wanted the end result to be,” said Kirstin Matthews, the institute’s fellow in science and technology policy. To reach a decision prohibiting human embryonic stem cell (hESC) patents, the EU court ruled that “research” occurs in a continuum. To reach a decision supporting federal funding of stem cell research, the U.S. court ruled that “research” involves a specific project.