Biden’s Plan B for the climate crisis, explained: Revamped Build Back Better Act and executive actions

After a major setback in a historic climate legislation package, President Joe Biden along with Democrats in Congress are trying to find other ways to reduce US emissions. As they race to create a Plan B for an escalating climate crisis, they stand to learn a lot from the Obama era — a history that’s littered with similar setbacks and climate policies that never saw the light of day.

The legislation is one of the most powerful climate policies Congress has ever considered. Clean electricity payment program(CEPP) is being axed. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) He said he would not supportA bill that penalizes coal- and natural gas for the large part they play in US polluting. Democrats can’t pass their budget bill, the Build Back Better Act, without his support, and its size and scope has been shrinking.

Meanwhile, a window of opportunity is closing. Top Democrats have committed to negotiating a domestic climate deal before Biden speaks at the pivotal United Nations. Climate conference in GlasgowThis begins October 31. If Congress fails to enshrine key climate policies as federal laws, Biden’s Plan B includes executive orders and major regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, the New York Times reported.

The problem is that executive actions aren’t an ideal substitute for federal laws, and may last only as long as Biden’s presidency. EPA regulation also “tends to lag [behind] the technological realities,” meaning it may only modestly nudge the economy in a new direction, Jesse Jenkins, an environmental engineering professor at Princeton University, told Vox. It’s also vulnerable to intervention by the Supreme Court.

In some ways, Democrats have been there before. A similar political bind in Congress led to President Barack Obama’s climate actions being weaker and more susceptible to reversal. “I am not sure there are easy ways to avoid the pitfalls the Obama administration faced in taking regulatory action on climate change,” Matto Mildenberger, a University of California Santa Barbara political scientist who has written on the History of US climate policyVox.

Democrats still have options. The $500 billionDemocrats have said that climate funding would represent historic congressional investments, and approximately a third the funding in the Build back Better plan. However, it would not compensate for the policies that have been eliminated. If the past is any guide, they have the best chance to address the climate crisis at every level of government.

To make sweeping and lasting progress, they’ll need to outdo the Democrats of the Obama era by pushing not only for executive and state action, but also funding for smaller climate policies that can fill what experts described as the “CEPP-sized hole” in the budget bill. If Democrats do that, Mildenberger still believes the US could manage to have a “world-leading” climate agenda.

Democrats are at risk of repeating the Obama era’s mistakes

Obama’s strategy for tackling climate change counted on Congress passing a bipartisan bill, which would have capped climate pollution and created a market for trading credits. Success was dependent upon the support of both wary Democrats, as well as some Republicans. By summer 2010, Obama appointees admitted they didn’t have the votes in the Senate. The bill was quietly killed that summer and the path to passing federal legislation was closed when Tea Party-backed Republicans won the midterm elections.

As the New Yorker reported at the time, “Obama said that he knew ‘the votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months.’ He never found them, and he didn’t appear to be looking very hard.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Obama administration didn’t charge ahead to find other ways to deliver pollution cuts, at least not right away. Climate activists spent the subsequent years accusing Obama of “Climate silence,” according to the Washington Post. It wasn’t until his 2013 State of the Union that he made his lengthiest Comment on climate change in years and promised: “If Congress won’t act soon … I will … with executive actions.”

By summer 2013, well into Obama’s second term, the administration was pushing forward with a new comprehensive strategyClimate change can only be addressed by executive and regulatory actions to reduce power and transport emissions. First time that a president had the courage to realign the executive, especially the EPA to issue landmark standards to clean up power plants and cars, as well as methane from gas operations.

Obama was unable, however, to replicate the Congress’s success. For example, his first-ever coal regulations were ambitious, but they were not realistic. haltedBefore taking effect, they were approved by the Supreme Court. Even without them, utilities managed to keep pace even with the most ambitious targets on their own, which shows how moderate the regulations are.

There are other reasons that a new wave of EPA action won’t be as powerful as federal climate legislation. Regulations take time to create and finalize and are often challenged in court. The Supreme Court has moved to the right under former President Donald Trump, and appears even more so Be skeptical of the EPA’s powers.

The Obama administration may have miscalculated the likelihood that its climate policy would last beyond his presidency in hindsight. The office of Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), who sponsored the clean electricity plan, told Vox that politicians can’t take for granted that all climate policies will last. Smith’s staff said that Biden’s Plan B must find other ways to cut emissions, even as Manchin insists on cuts and the bill’s price tag keeps shrinking.

Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Obama-era Democrats left other climate policy in a precarious position: Key tax breaks, for example. wind solarEnergy was repeatedly extinguished throughout the 2000s. They were only renewed after the fact, slowing progress in the renewable energy sectors. Even when Democrats controlled Congress during Obama’s presidency, these credits received short-term extensions. And by waiting until Obama’s second term to roll out key climate regulations for the power sector and transportation, the administration took a risk that some wouldn’t be finalized before the next administration, making it that much easier for the incoming Trump to halt.

Trump It is easy to block Rules for methaneBecause they were still being drafted, existing oil and natural gas facilities. “There are tiers of executive actions, each of which have different relative permanency,” CNN explanation2016 And finalized rules take longer for an incoming president to reverse than rulemaking that’s still underway.

The Biden White House’s climate strategy in 2021 may end up not so different from the course of the Obama administration. Obama faced with the reality of a gridlocked Congress and relied on executive actions to push the country forward on climate. Trump changed his mind on climate policy. Some states ContinuedThey Your own shiftsTo clean energy.

Democrats can still learn from history and take action in three key ways: 1) push the executive branch to quickly approve regulations for the largest emitters, such a coal-fired power plant and oil and gas producers; 2) write climate standards into their subsidies to other polluting sectors like industry, transport, and buildings; 3) update the Build Back Better budget bill to fund every incremental way to reduce emissions.

They must also remember what has changed: The political movement for climate action is much larger than it was a decade back. The problem is that climate science warns of inaction more often than ever. In terms of ambitions and pace, the Biden administration will need to surpass the Obama administration.

Biden’s goals are bigger than Obama’s, but he has less margin for error

The world has lost precious time because Congress has been inactive for a decade, allowing it to avoid the worst effects of climate change. According to the report, the global goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement could be lost in a matter months. World Meteorological Organization Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Every fraction of an inch of warming can result in loss of lives and livelihoods. It ripples through ecosystems and water supplies, and affects agriculture and other sectors.

The US is making some progress, but not enough quickly. Domestic climate pollution has fallen to less than 22 percentBetween 2005 and 2020. Biden, after joining the Paris climate accord this year, announced a new goal: reducing US climate pollution to at least 50% by 2030.

This is the best way to ensure that the US reaches its target. Vox heard from climate experts that they believe there would be ambitious congressional action. Federal laws could be used to transition the electricity sector from fossil fuels to electric vehicles.

Now that the Senate appears have lost its best single weapon against climate changes, Clean electricity payment program, the White House is falling back on a “Three-pronged approach” to meet its goal.

One prong is still dependent on Congress passing historic clean fuel funding as part of The Build Back Better Act (albeit, a smaller package than what the White House wanted). The White House must set ambitious regulations in electricity, transportation and natural gas production. And the third prong depends on states — especially the 25 that are already committed to climate action — ramping up energy efficiency, fuel standards, and clean energy to match the most ambitious regions in the nation.

This Plan B is more difficult than the climate activists had hoped and will prove to be less challenging than Plan A. A clean electricity policy would have provided for this. Around 25 percent of the package’s pollution cuts, according to a Princeton Zero Lab analysis from Jenkins and his colleagues. Democrats may also abandon their Second major climate proposalThe Build Back Better act includes a plan to fine oil producers for methane pollution. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gasThis causes the planet to heat up faster than carbon dioxide in the short-term.

Other powerful tools for combating climate change, such as a carbon taxes or penalties on fossil fuels are also unlikely to make the final plan. So the final infrastructure package and budget bill likely won’t make as big of a dent in climate pollution as many Democrats once hoped.

But that doesn’t mean all hope is lost for US climate action. “Even with what some would view as moderate congressional action, there is still a pathway to meeting the target,” John Larsen, climate director of the energy research firm Rhodium Group, told Vox. “It’s just going to mean that there needs to be sustained effort by other parts of the federal system and state level to really follow through.”

How Democrats can still make progress on climate policy

In a Monday speech in New Jersey, Biden projected optimism that his Build Back Better agenda is “going to address the root cause of ever-increasing extreme weather and destruction.”

Evan Vucci/AP

For him to follow through on this promise, he’ll have to avoid the pitfalls that Obama faced. The past decade highlights how critical it is for a Build Back Better plan that closes the gaping holes likely left without the clean electricity payment program and methane fees — and for Democrats to maintain a sense of urgency and chip away at the climate crisis at every level.

• The Obama era has taught us one important lesson: There is no time to waste. Regulations take years to draft and finalize, so the earlier in Biden’s term that his administration creates them, the better shot they’ll have at outlasting his presidency.

Biden seemed to be able to learn from this lesson. His EPA has been busy preparing upgrades for Obama-era climate regulations in the power sector, transportation and oil and natural gas production. “If you don’t have the methane fee, then the methane regulations that EPA is cooking up are going to be that much more important,” Larsen pointed out.

• It’s still possible to meet Biden’s goals even without the CEPP and methane fees, according to a Analysis of Rhodium GroupLarsen co-authored the last week. Rhodium calculated the effect of aggressive action, which would include almost a dozen core executive steps that the Biden administration would need. These would need to expand on Obama’s original plans, but at a much larger scale, such as new climate standards for power sector. Larsen suggested that Biden should test the Clean Air Act by implementing new climate regulations for industrial pollution. He would also require that every new chemical plant and natural gas terminal be equipped with carbon-capture technology.
• Congress must still pass as many climate priorities in the infrastructure deal as possible and the Build Back Better plan. Democrats still have the chance to finance clean energy tax cuts, improve electricity transmission to link renewables to new areas, and expand access for electric vehicles.

“My view on climate policy is you just keep accelerating things as much as you can, wherever you can,” Jenkins said. Some Democratic senators hope to redirect the CEPP’s $150 billion price tag to other programs.

“Carbon pollution is all throughout the American economy,” making it possible to pull levers that “together create something that would fill the CEPP-sized hole,” said Mildenberger, the USC political scientist. These cuts could be made through energy efficiency in industrial manufacturing, building electrictification, or stopping nuclear plants from retiring.

Democrats could change the requirements for projects that are funded by new infrastructure spending. For example: Congress could require that federally-funded building projects meet higher energy efficiency standards.

What other climate policies could be benefited by an infusion of cash to fund? Sen. Smith’s office suggested funding for renewable energy and transmission — though Manchin, as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, might still have influence over that.

The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer also Designed for long-distance electricity transmission:

The U.S. must TripleAccording to a landmark Princeton study. Steve Cicala is an economics professor at Tufts University. Recently, I was toldIn some areas of the country, solar and wind are the most affordable forms of electricity generation. But those cost declines only matter if the largest power markets are connected—via new transmission!—to those areas.”

The group We ACT for Environmental Justice suggested the funding should be used to clean up highway pollution that disproportionately affects communities of color — for example, by increasing funding for clean cars and zero-emissions heavy-duty trucks.

Meanwhile, Mildenberger suggested, funding for nuclear power would ensure that the US doesn’t lose the 20%Because it is free of carbon, unlike the current nuclear energy. Otherwise, this electricity could be replaced by gas and coal.

Larsen stated that Biden will need multitasking to make Plan B work. “If any one component were not to take place in the timeframe that we’re talking about, then something else is going to have to happen,” he said. “That could be additional regulations, it could be new states that are leading; it could be future congressional action. But you would need to see other actions somewhere else to make up the difference.”