Competing energy futures: Industrial policy, energy markets, and the global implications of Biden's IRA and Trump's 2025 fossil-fuel strategy
競合するエネルギーの未来:バイデンのIRAとトランプの2025年化石燃料戦略の産業政策、エネルギー市場、および世界的影響 (AI 翻訳)
Stuart P. M. Mackintosh, Thierry Warin
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、バイデン政権下のインフレ抑制法(IRA)などグリーン政策と、トランプ政権の2025年予算による化石燃料拡大戦略を比較。政策転換が投資フローやエネルギー市場に与える影響を分析し、長期的不確実性を指摘する。
English
This article compares Biden's clean-energy industrial policy (IRA, CHIPS, etc.) with Trump's 2025 fossil-fuel strategy, analyzing how the policy shift affects investment flows and energy markets, and highlights the uncertainty for low-carbon and conventional energy investments.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
米国は世界最大の経済・排出国の一つであり、その政策転換は日本のGX戦略(特にエネルギー安全保障・供給網・水素・CCS)に直接影響する。投資家はサプライチェーンリスクと市場変動を注視すべき。
In the global GX context
As the world's largest economy and historical emitter, U.S. policy swings between clean-energy leadership and fossil-fuel revival create global uncertainty. This paper offers a structured comparison useful for international investors, firms, and policymakers assessing risk in energy transition scenarios.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:A comparative framework for analyzing how political cycles shape energy transition pathways and market expectations.
🏢実務担当者:Useful for corporate strategy teams assessing policy-driven volatility in U.S. energy investments and supply chains.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the systemic risks of policy reversals for long-term decarbonization goals and international climate governance.
📄 Abstract(原文)
This article presents a comparative analysis of United States industrial and energy policy under the Biden administration and the subsequent redirection under the Trump administration's 2025 omnibus budget. Under President Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act together constituted a major federal commitment to clean-energy deployment and climate-oriented industrial policy. These measures embedded decarbonization goals into a broader strategy of place-based industrial revival, technological leadership, and supply-chain resilience. By contrast, the Trump administration's 2025 budget adopts a markedly different framework, phasing out many of these provisions and reorienting federal priorities toward expanded fossil-fuel extraction, regulatory flexibility, and tariff-based industrial protection. Rather than treating one approach as normatively superior, the analysis conceptualizes each as a distinct policy paradigm, rooted in different understandings of energy security, competitiveness, regional development, and technological strategy. Using an analytical framework that integrates policy objectives, energy-market instruments, regulatory design, and projected emissions trajectories, the article examines how this policy change has affected investment flows, altered expectations in electricity and fuel markets, and shifted the balance between emerging and incumbent energy technologies. Early evidence from project pipelines and firm announcements suggests a deceleration in some clean-energy deployments and a renewed expansion of oil, gas, and coal activities, although the long-term effects remain contingent on future political cycles and international market conditions. These domestic trends are interpreted in the light of global decarbonization pathways, declining costs of clean technologies, and geoeconomic competition around semiconductors, critical minerals, and clean-energy supply chains. The article argues that movement between a clean-energy industrial strategy and a fossil-fuel-centered model introduces significant uncertainty into U.S. energy markets and complicates planning for both low-carbon and conventional energy investments. It concludes that this volatility has implications not only for long-term innovation and international competitiveness, but also for the evolving architecture of global climate and energy governance, and that a full assessment of each paradigm requires attention to both its advantages and its structural risks.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115393first seen 2026-06-18 04:40:35
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。