Columbia Energy Exchange

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the United States' energy transmission, pipeline networks, and wholesale rates for electricity. For much of its history, FERC was a little-known federal agency. But that's changing.  Today, topics like energy affordability and the urgent build-out of data centers to support AI are putting FERC in the spotlight. The Trump administration is also exerting pressure on the agency. This fall, Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed the commission to fast-track grid connections for certain large loads, such as data centers. But many communities have pushed back against new energy infrastructure.  So how is this independent agency handling pressures to reform its policies? How might politics play out — or not — in its rulings and in key court decisions that impact the agency? Outside of the agency, what are some solutions to building more energy infrastructure faster? This week, Jason Bordoff talks to Neil Chatterjee about FERC's role in energy policy.  Neil is a former commissioner of FERC, where he also twice served as chairman. Neil recently joined the Center for Global Energy Policy as a distinguished visiting fellow. He also currently is an advisor and investor in a number of organizations and is the chief government affairs officer at residential clean energy company Palmetto. Early in his career, Neil worked for Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as his energy policy advisor. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Around the globe, and here in the United States, energy markets face huge uncertainties. They include everything from rising geopolitical tensions to a wave of new liquefied natural gas supply, and from concentrated critical mineral supply chains to growing demand for electricity. These uncertainties are reflected by the International Energy Agency in this year's World Energy Outlook, which explores a range of possible energy futures — particularly around oil and gas demand.  So how have energy policies at the country level, growing economic warfare, and rising prices impacted the IEA's outlook? How should we understand the role of energy security and geopolitical risk? Here in the US, how have energy policy shifts impacted the outlook? And what role do the transition to electric mobility and the pace of energy innovation play? This week, Jason Bordoff talks to Tim Gould about this year's World Energy Outlook, the IEA's flagship annual report. It projects a world with as much as 3 degrees of warming by 2100, under current policies, or with as little as 1.5 degrees of warming by 2100 if global energy systems quickly decarbonize. Tim is the International Energy Agency's chief energy economist. As part of this role, he co-leads the World Energy Outlook. Tim joined the IEA in 2008 as a specialist on Russian and Caspian energy. Before joining the agency, Tim worked on European and Eurasian energy issues in Brussels. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Elected officials face huge challenges when it comes to energy policymaking. They have very little time to learn complicated, nuanced issues. They're bombarded by information — some of it from organizations that are tightly aligned with ideological or political movements.  Whether it's from industry or civil society, the information policymakers receive, even if accurate, can often come with an agenda. Plus, translating academic research into policy comes with its own challenges. All of this makes building energy policy based on independent, trusted expertise difficult, especially in a time of deep partisanship.  So how can evidence and analysis best be used to design and build good energy policy? How can philanthropy drive innovative solutions to pressing challenges, like the energy transition? Where are the disconnects between high-quality research and thoughtful policymaking, and how can those efforts be bridged? This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with John Arnold about the hurdles and opportunities for building energy infrastructure and the power of evidence-based policymaking. John Arnold is co-founder and co-chair of Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic organization that supports initiatives in a range of sectors. He is also co-founder of Grid United, which develops high-voltage transmission projects. Previously, John was the CEO of Centaurus Energy. He started his career at Enron, where he oversaw the trading of natural gas derivatives. John is also an advisory board member at the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, and serves on the board of other organizations, including Meta. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The ten years since the Paris Agreement was signed at the UN Climate Change Conference, COP 21, have been the ten hottest years on record. And the outcome that the Paris Agreement sought — limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — is now widely considered unattainable. There are other hurdles as well. Many nations have not submitted climate action plans, or nationally determined contributions, to the UN. And President Trump says he plans to re-withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Still, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change marches on. Next week, delegates, activists, and journalists will converge in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th Conference of the Parties, or COP30. So what are some of the possible outcomes of this year's climate summit? Will the absence of the United States even matter? Will the issue of climate equity and financing garner much attention? And what could come from a new forum that Brazil is planning, where governments will discuss how climate policy affects trade? This week, Bill Loveless speaks with Elliot Diringer about the issues that are likely to dominate the upcoming COP. Elliot is a global fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy directing its International Dialogue on Climate and Trade. He brings decades of experience in climate diplomacy as a negotiator, journalist, and policy strategist. He first engaged with the topic as a reporter covering the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and later served in senior roles in the Clinton administration, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and more recently as a senior policy advisor to Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry during the Biden administration.   Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Last week, President Trump announced that he was imposing significant new sanctions on Russia. It's an effort to cut off revenue Russia needs for its war in Ukraine. This comes at a time when Russia's oil industry is also under pressure from intensifying Ukrainian attacks on refineries, crude pipelines, and export terminals.  It's also happening as producers have been ramping up output amid signs of cooling demand growth. Yet the sanctions could still bite. Especially given that the Treasury sanctions announcement came with the explicit warning that secondary sanctions—targeting buyers of Russian crude oil from these companies—could be coming next. So why did Trump take this step now? Will these sanctions be strongly enforced? What's the point of these sanctions? And what do they mean for global energy flows, energy markets and geopolitics?  This week, we are sharing a recording of a Rapid Response webinar from Monday, October 27, in which Jason Bordoff spoke with three experts from the Center on Global Energy Policy — Richard Nephew, Tatiana Mitrova, and Daniel Sternoff — about these new Russian oil sanctions.  Richard Nephew is senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy and a former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Iran. Tatiana Mitrova is a global fellow at the Center and has deep expertise in Russian and global energy markets. Daniel Sternoff is a senior fellow at the Center. He also leads Energy Aspects' executive briefing service. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Energy has long been used as a weapon. The United Kingdom blocked oil exports to Germany during World War I. Hitler's fall was due in part to losing access to oilfields in the Caucasus. And the most recent example: the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which shocked the global economy.  During the following fifty years, the energy weapon largely receded from the geopolitical stage, and in many countries energy security started to feel like a given. But developments including Russia's weaponization of natural gas against Europe, China's restrictions on critical minerals, and growing trade tensions around the world have brought energy back to the center of great-power competition.  So is this a new age of energy weaponization? What would that mean for global energy security? What new vulnerabilities are emerging as the clean energy transition accelerates and electricity demand surges? And how can countries protect themselves in this new age of fragmentation and rivalry? This week, Bill Loveless speaks with Jason Bordoff and Meghan O'Sullivan about "The Return of the Energy Weapon," a Foreign Affairs essay published today, in which they explore how, after a fifty-year period of relative stability, the use of energy as a coercive tool of statecraft is making a comeback. Jason is the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, where he is a professor of professional practice. He is also on the faculty of the Columbia Climate School, where he is cofounding dean emeritus. He previously served as special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the staff of the National Security Council.  Meghan is the Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, director of the Geopolitics of Energy Projects, and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School. She has served in multiple senior policymaking roles and has advised national security officials in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Trade tensions between the US and China have hit a new high mark. Last week, after China announced plans to ratchet up its export controls of some rare-earths and magnets with strategic uses, President Trump threatened to retaliate with 100% tariffs, which would go into effect on November 1 or sooner. But the competition between these two world powers goes far beyond trade disputes and tariffs. It's a contest between fundamentally different approaches to governance, technology, and economic development. China, of course, dominates critical supply chains for clean energy technologies. But many of the innovations that spawned those technologies were born here in the US. China builds, and governs through strong state control. The US innovates, but struggles to build. How did these two nations develop such different capabilities? What does China's dominance in manufacturing mean for American competitiveness and national security? And can the United States learn from China's approach to building at scale without sacrificing democratic values and individual rights?  This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with Dan Wang about his recent book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. They discuss the book's framing — that China is an engineering state and America as a lawyerly society — and how those orientations undergird what, and how, these world powers produce. Dan is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab and studies China's technological capabilities. He was previously a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Industrial policy, supply chain security, and economic competitiveness are central to how we think about clean energy deployment. As the Trump administration pulls back federal support for the clean energy transition, there are more and more calls for pragmatism and realism.  The shifting conversation around clean energy is visible in other ways, too. During last month's Climate Week in New York, there was more focus on a broader set of energy policy goals that included not only decarbonization but also energy security, energy affordability, and energy for economic development. So what does effective energy policy look like in this new era and under new pressures? How should we balance climate ambitions with energy security and economic competitiveness? And what does all of this mean for domestic leadership and investments in things like manufacturing and modernizing the electricity grid? This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with Sarah Ladislaw about the risks and opportunities they both see in this evolution towards building a better energy system. Sarah is managing director of the US Program at Rocky Mountain Institute, where she leads work on federal, state, and local energy policy, and runs the New Energy Industrial Strategy Center. Previously, she worked in the Biden White House, leading climate and energy efforts within the National Security Council. Before that, she was senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Last year, an energy permitting reform bill sponsored by Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso passed out of committee but failed to gain full support in the US Senate. Since then, rising energy costs and infrastructure backlogs have only heightened pressure on Congress to take another run at reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a result, momentum behind permitting reform is building again. Several legislative efforts are underway, most notably the bipartisan SPEED Act, which would change NEPA requirements in order to streamline the permitting process. It would also set limits on judicial review.  So how likely is meaningful permitting reform, this time around? How would it enable timely development of energy infrastructure without jeopardizing environmental concerns? And what might make it feasible to supporters of fossil and renewable energy alike? This week, Bill Loveless speaks to Jim Connaughton about shifting motivations for permitting reform in DC, and whether policymakers can find enough common ground to push reforms forward. Jim is the CEO of JLC Strategies and the former chairman and CEO of Nautilus Data Technologies. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and directed the White House Office of Environmental Policy.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Following the rollback of key climate provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act, the debate over America's energy future is increasingly contentious. The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has eliminated, or at least cobbled, many of the clean energy incentives that were centerpieces of Biden-era climate policy.  This week, climate policymakers, business leaders, investors, and advocates are converging in New York City for Climate Week. With so much happening and many questions around the pace of the energy transition, it's a crucial moment in US energy policy. So how are policymakers facing these challenges and working to accelerate clean energy deployment in a shifting political environment? What does pragmatic energy policy look like in an era of deep partisanship? And what should the policy response be to rising electricity demand in the US? This week, Jason Bordoff speaks to Congressman Sean Casten about the current state of clean energy deployment in the US. Congressman Casten represents Illinois's 6th congressional district and serves on both the House Financial Services Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. He's also vice chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Before entering Congress, Rep. Casten was a clean energy entrepreneur and consultant, serving as CEO of Turbo Steam Corporation and as founding chairman of the Northeast CHP Initiative. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Everyone from energy executives to traders on Wall Street to policymakers across the US depend on accurate, timely information about energy production, consumption, and trends. At the heart of this critical infrastructure sits the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global, has called EIA's data the "gold standard." But while the amount and complexity of energy data is growing, federal support for ensuring robust energy data collection is waning. The agency underwent substantial staffing cuts this spring — part of the Department of Government Efficiency's reductions. After the EIA's most recent Annual Energy Outlook forecast the growth of renewables, the Department of Energy criticized the findings.  So how vulnerable is the agency to losing more support from the administration? What's at stake if EIA cannot retain or recruit people with expertise in not only traditional energy but emerging fields, like critical minerals? And who else stands to lose if the agency that provides national energy data collection and objective analysis falters?  This week, Bill Loveless speaks to former EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski about the state of play at the EIA and what is at risk if support for the agency continues to erode.  Adam is a senior advisor to the board at KAPSARC, a non-profit energy, economics, and sustainability think tank in Saudi Arabia, where he earlier served as president. He was the administrator of the EIA from 2012 to 2017. Prior to joining the government, Adam spent years as Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist and integrated oil company analyst.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Before it invaded Ukraine, Russia was Europe's single largest supplier of imported natural gas. But now that the European Union is considering an outright ban on all Russian gas by the end of 2027, Russia is pivoting to Asia, courting China as both a crucial new market for its gas and an important geostrategic ally. When Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to China at the end of August, the visit produced a series of cooperation agreements. Among them: a deal between Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation to advance the long-discussed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, a massive project that, if completed, could send 50 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to China each year. But the announcement is short on many details, including pricing, financing, and a timeline. So what — beyond symbolism — does this deal actually deliver for both Russia and China in the short term? What prompted China to sign the agreement after years of delays? And what does it tell us about China's efforts to diversify its energy imports?  This week, Jason speaks with three scholars from the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Anne-Sophie Corbeau, Tatiana Mitrova, and Erica Downs, about the possible impacts of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline agreement. The trio also recently co-authored a post about the PoS2 news on the CGEP website.   Anne-Sophie is a global research scholar at CGEP, where she focuses on hydrogen and natural gas. She previously worked as a senior analyst at BP and the International Energy Agency. Tatiana is a CGEP research fellow with twenty five years of experience dealing with Russian and global energy markets. Erica is a senior research scholar at CGEP, where she focuses on Chinese energy markets and geopolitics. Earlier in her career she held senior roles in the China Studies program of the CNA Corporation and at Eurasia Group. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has reshaped America's climate and energy landscape by cutting tax incentives for wind and solar power and electric vehicles while maintaining some federal support for sources like nuclear reactors and geothermal plants.  While there is some uncertainty about how those policy changes will play out, there are even broader questions about what this all means for the Republican Party's energy policy agenda and approach to climate change.  So where is the party headed and what could bipartisan cooperation on energy policy look like in today's Washington? Can Republicans and Democrats still find common ground on issues like climate adaptation, energy security, and permitting reform? And what is shaping the Republican Party's approach to energy policy?  This week, Jason talks to Carlos Curbelo about the current state of Republican thinking on energy and climate policy. Carlos is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He served Florida's 26th congressional district from 2015 to 2019. During his time in Congress, Carlos was a leading Republican voice on climate policy, co-founding and co-chairing the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. After leaving Congress, Carlos served as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Center for Global Energy Policy. He also co-founded Vocero, a communications and strategic consulting firm based in South Florida. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Jensen Huang, who founded NVIDIA in the early 1990s and built it into one of the most valuable companies in the world today, has thought a lot about AI's impact on global energy and climate systems.  Jensen has much to say about AI's potential benefits for energy innovation, power demand for AI, and a range of related topics, as David Sandalow — the inaugural fellow here at the Center on Global Energy Policy — learned when interviewing him. Today, we're bringing you their conversation in full from the AI Energy and Climate podcast which originally aired in April of this year.  Jensen and David explore why AI requires so much energy, but also how the technology can actually reduce energy consumption in applications from weather forecasting to manufacturing. Jensen describes innovations like silicon photonics that could save megawatts of power in data centers, and he shares a few ideas for using AI to improve efficiency in the industrial and power sectors. Moreover, he explains his vision for what he calls "AI factories" — and how they could be powered in ways that can reduce strain on the grid. Jensen Huang is the president of NVIDIA, which he founded in 1993 to advance accelerated computing. In 1999, NVIDIA released the GeForce 256 which it called "the world's first GPU". It became a key enabler of PC gaming and computer graphics, and ignited the era of modern AI.  

In July, the Trump administration released what it calls an AI action plan. In it, along with several executive orders, the White House lays out its vision for building and expanding the country's AI infrastructure.  Key tenets of that vision include removing regulatory hurdles and accelerating US dominance in the industry. It also has broad energy and security implications. So how could the administration's high-risk, high-reward approach increase US market share in AI? Will it create tensions with major AI companies while potentially democratizing access to AI capabilities? And how does the plan diverge from Biden-era AI support, especially around environmental and energy considerations? To discuss the action plan, we convened some of the leading AI experts at the Center for Global Energy Policy in early August, and this week on Columbia Energy Exchange we are sharing an audio recording of their discussion.  David Sandalow, CGEP's inaugural fellow and the host of the AI, Energy and Climate podcast, moderated the panel. David also co-directs the Energy and Environment Concentration at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and was the lead author of the "Artificial Intelligence for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap" report for the Innovation for Cool Earth Forum. Aaron Bartnick, Jared Dunnmon, and Ashley Finan joined David on the webinar. Aaron Bartnick is a global fellow at CGEP, where he focuses on technology and economic security. He also serves as chief of staff at the neural engineering company Science Corporation and as a fellow at Carnegie Mellon University's Critical Technology Initiative. Jared Dunnmon is a non-resident CGEP fellow and the co-founder and chief scientist of a maritime logistics startup. He previously served in the Department of Defense as technical director for artificial intelligence at the Defense Innovation Unit, was vice president of future technologies at battery firm Our Next Energy, and was an early team member at Snorkel AI. Ashley Finan is a CGEP global fellow who previously served in senior leadership roles at Idaho National Laboratory, where she worked on nuclear energy and national security issues.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

After President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Modi met in the White House back in February, US-India relations appeared to be on solid ground. Back then, Trump was still confident he could broker a quick resolution in Russia's war against Ukraine.  Then, last week, the Trump administration said that if India continues to import Russian oil, the US will double tariffs on Indian goods, starting August 27. This move threatens to undermine relations between the US and India — and it could impact more than India's energy imports. The dispute is forcing bigger questions about India's approach to foreign policy and the country's long-standing policy of strategic autonomy. So will India bow to US pressure and reduce its Russian energy imports? Or will India continue to import a significant amount of oil from Russia? And what does all of this mean for global energy markets  and the use of coercive economic tools like tariffs or sanctions in the years ahead? In this special episode of Columbia Energy Exchange, Jason speaks with Richard Nephew, Tatiana Mitrova, and Shayak Sengupta about this latest development in President Trump's trade war. Richard Nephew is a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) and former US Deputy Special Envoy for Iran, where he played key roles in economic sanctions policy. Tatiana Mitrova is a global fellow at CGEP and former deputy director general of the National Energy Security Fund in Moscow. She brings deep expertise on Russian energy markets. Shayak Sengupta is a senior research associate at CGEP and leads its India program. He's an expert in South Asian energy policy and US-India relations. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by James Rowlands.  

President Trump's threat to double tariffs on Indian goods, to 50%, as punishment for the country's continued purchase of Russian oil, puts India in an untenable position. The US is its top export market, but India is deeply reliant on importing energy to support the needs of its 1.4 billion people. As the world's most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing economies, India faces unprecedented energy demands and also pressure to meet that demand with clean energy. Today, around 70 percent of the country's electricity comes from coal — a major contributor to air pollution in India's large cities. So how can India meet its fast-growing energy needs while also ensuring energy affordability, equity, and public health? Where is India in making progress toward deploying clean energy? What role might conventional energy continue to play? And how does India's relationship with China factor into its decarbonization efforts? This week, Jason talks to Sunita Narain about the state of India's clean energy transition. Sunita is executive director of the Centre for Science and Environment, a research and advocacy center where she has worked since 1982. In 2016, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

The US Environmental Protection Agency plans to rescind the foundation of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  Eliminating the so-called "endangerment finding" is a key part of President Trump's efforts to reverse Obama- and Biden-era climate policy. The finding was also targeted in the conservative Project 2025 strategy to reshape the federal government. But the rollback won't happen without a fight, and the endangerment finding has held up to past legal challenges. Meanwhile, international courts are moving in the opposite direction. The International Court of Justice recently ruled that countries have legal obligations to address climate change and that fossil fuel subsidies could constitute "internationally wrongful acts." So what would overturning the endangerment finding mean for US climate policy? What legal and scientific arguments is the administration using? And how do these conflicting domestic and international trends shape the future of energy and climate policy? This week, Bill speaks to Michael Gerrard about how the EPA is rescinding its own ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Six months in, President Trump's trade war has entered a new phase. Just this weekend, the European Union agreed to a trade deal that includes a promise to buy $750 billion worth of American energy products over the next three years. And this week, with the August 1 tariff deadline looming, the US and China have restarted negotiations. Trump has been using tools of economic warfare since his first term. And the Biden administration embraced policies such as steep tariffs on electric vehicle imports from China, and levying sanctions against Russia aimed at stifling its energy sector.  These economic chokepoints are part of a broader shift of the global economy. Countries are weaponizing economic power through sanctions, tariffs, and export controls — tools that were designed before the complex geopolitical competition we see today.  So how did we get here? What does this new age of economic warfare mean for global stability and the global economy? And how might these tools reshape everything from energy markets to global banking systems in the years ahead? This week, we're revisiting a conversation Jason Bordoff had with Eddie Fishman about his book "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare," which came out in February. The book traces the evolution of economic warfare from the "War on Terror" to today's great power competition. Eddie is a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy and an adjunct professor at Columbia University SIPA. He also serves as an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Additional support from Martina Chow and Richard Nephew. This episode was engineered by Sean Marquand and Gregory Vilfranc. Note: This episode is a re-run. It was originally published on February 11, 2025.

Countries around the world, including the US, are rushing to secure critical mineral supply chains. As these essential resources, which are key to building clean energy infrastructure, become a major focus in policy and trade discussions, Latin America sits at the center of the competition. It is home to vast lithium reserves in the Lithium Triangle and it holds nearly 40% of the world's copper deposits.  But recent price volatility and geopolitical concerns have created new challenges. Early this month, President Trump announced a 50% tariff on copper imports, further jolting markets as copper prices jumped over 13% in a single day.  So how are countries in the region navigating these new trade and market realities? Can Latin America build mineral supply chains that are more resilient to geopolitical shocks? And how are these governments responding to the environmental and economic concerns of Indigenous and local communities? This week, Jason speaks with Juan Carlos Jobet, Tom Moerenhout, and Diego Rivera Rivota about Latin America's critical mineral supply chain. Juan Carlos is the dean of the School of Business and Economics at Adolfo Ibáñez University and Chile's former Minister of Energy and Mining and a former distinguished visiting fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy.  Tom leads the Critical Materials Initiative at the Center on Global Energy Policy and is a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.  Diego is a senior research associate at the Center on Global Energy Policy. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.