• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "William J. Burns"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Economy",
    "Climate Change",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Clean Power Plan and American Global Leadership

Even though the Clean Power Plan’s opponents will present the battle against climate change as one we cannot afford to fight, in reality it is one we cannot afford to lose.

Link Copied
By William J. Burns
Published on Oct 12, 2016

Source: Hill

With the EU’s ratification, the Paris Climate Agreement is set to enter into force.  This is a historic turning point in the fight against one of the most consequential global threats of our time.  Here at home, we face another turning point with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s hearing of a case that will determine the future of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. 

The Paris Agreement created a framework in which all nations knew that their efforts would be matched by others. This unprecedented global commitment only happened because the United States showed that it was willing to take the first step – and convinced China to come along.  Well in advance of the Paris meetings, the two countries jointly announced transformative climate goals. China – which currently pumps out a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – agreed to halt its emissions growth by 2030, including by generating hundreds of gigawatts of solar and wind power.  The United States pledged to promote renewable energy, to modernize the electric grid, to promote energy efficiency and fuel economy, and to make other changes that will help usher in the clean-energy future. A centerpiece of the United States’ commitments was the Clean Power Plan, which will reduce emissions from power plants by nearly a third below 2005 levels by 2030.

Research released this summer suggests China may meet its goals well ahead of schedule.  The United States is off to a strong start as well, and the Clean Power Plan promises to accelerate further the transition to cleaner energy generation. Unfortunately, as soon as the EPA released the Clean Power Plan in August 2015, opponents filed suit, arguing that the Obama Administration’s authority under the Clean Air Act did not extend to regulating carbon emissions from power plants – or at least not in the way that the Clean Power Plan did.  The D.C. Circuit – often called the “second highest court in the land” – is considering the merits of their arguments.

The stakes could hardly be higher. By taking the first step, the United States was able to generate a planet’s worth of ambitious commitments – such as India’s goal to generate 40% of its energy from non-fossil-fuel sources, Mexico’s commitment to cut carbon emissions in half by 2050, and comparable commitments from the European Union and Brazil. We need to keep moving forward to ensure countries meet their commitments and sustain momentum for further global action on climate change.

If the present opportunity is missed, we – and future generations – will look back with regret as the effects of climate change take a greater and greater toll.  It has become impossible to ignore the effect of climate change on the environment – rising sea levels threaten coastal communities and island nations; storms of unprecedented frequency and severity cause billions in losses; droughts turn once-fertile regions into deserts; and irreplaceable habitats and species are lost.  It is equally impossible to ignore the effect of climate change on global order.  The Department of Defense has concluded that climate change “poses immediate risks to U.S. national security.”  In addition to the danger it poses to our coastlines, cities, and environment, the report argues that climate change is a “threat multiplier” that makes nearly all other global challenges – from poverty to pandemics – more severe and intractable.

Even though the Clean Power Plan’s opponents will present the battle against climate change as one we cannot afford to fight, in reality it is one we cannot afford to lose.  That’s why all eyes were on the United States when it took the first step, and led the world in making a historic commitment to change.  The world will be watching again.

This article was originally published in the Hill.

About the Author

William J. Burns

Former Career Diplomat

A former career diplomat, William J. Burns served as director of the CIA, deputy secretary of State, and ambassador to Russia and Jordan. Burns was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 2015 to 2021.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    Reimagining Transatlantic Relations
      • +8

      William J. Burns, Michael Chertoff, Catherine Ashton, …

  • Commentary
    A New U.S. Foreign Policy for the Post-Pandemic Landscape

      William J. Burns

William J. Burns
Former Career Diplomat
William J. Burns
Political ReformEconomyClimate ChangeForeign PolicyUnited States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A white humanoid robot with a black head and hips stands behind a rope barrier. It stands with its feet apart, knees bent, and elbows raised at its sides.
    Commentary
    Europe Is Falling Behind in General-Purpose Robotics. Here’s What It Can Do to Catch Up.

    The continent needs to improve conditions for production of complete AI robotic systems and preserve its edge in hardware.

      Pavlo Zvenyhorodskyi

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.Trump raises hands behind a lecternCarney speaking on stage
    Collection
    The Middle Power Moment?

    The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.

    Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?

  • Mullin with his hand raised, taking an oath
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Can Mullin Revive FEMA?

    Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.

      • Sarah Labowitz
      • Debbra Goh

      Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.