States That Would Benefit Most from Biden’s Climate Plan

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

The plan is short on details, but from what I gather, it’s not even close to sufficient for climate change mitigation.

The plan is not bad in that there are some decent, common-sense proposals for clean energy, auto-emissions, and infrastructure upgrades. It also appears to recognize the need for investment in climate adaptation, especially for marginalized communities.

However, If the goal is to make a meaningful impact on greenhouse gas emissions, which is the only way to slow rising temperatures, then anything short of a heavy tax on carbon and other greenhouse gasses is not going to be enough.

I find no support for this idea in the plan.  

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

I can’t answer this without looking at some public opinion data, but if I had to guess, the biggest misconception among the general public might be that the plan would be sufficient to mitigate climate change. It is not. 

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Senate, what would it take for the Biden administration to realize its climate plan? How soon could that happen?

The odds of moving forward with Biden’s climate plan certainly increased with the capture of the two Georgia Senate seats, but it’s important to remember that time is short, margins are razor thin, and Biden will have a full plate when he’s inaugurated. GIven the multi-dimensional nature of the plan, it’s likely that he will attempt to tackle it piecemeal, rather than in a single giant bill. If so, the plan’s less-controversial components, especially those that create jobs, such as infrastructure investment, are likely to move forward with less resistance. I also expect Biden to act on the components of his plan that do not require much (or any) Congressional support, such as revising auto-emission standards, encouraging clean manufacturing, or investing in research. I am less confident that he will be able to gain much ground on the more ambitious parts, such as his promise to transform energy sectors and shift reliance away from fossil fuels, especially given that a number of Democratic senators hail from oil-producing states.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy?  

This is a difficult issue, as any societal transition from old to new technology will necessarily have winners and losers.

For both economic and political reasons, it makes sense for the government to invest in job training to help fossil fuel industry workers transition to new jobs in new industries.

I think the argument about shifting jobs overseas is a red herring, in part because it assumes that the global supply and demand for fossil fuels will remain the same if the U.S. invests heavily in clean energy and shifts its energy production away from fossil fuels.

What is more likely is that U.S. investment in clean energy would lower the price of wind, solar, and nuclear technology, which would help facilitate their spread to other parts of the world. 

Moreover, as the world’s second-largest energy consumer (behind China), a U.S. shift away from fossil fuels would be likely to depress their prices through reduced demand. The result would be more of a net loss for fossil fuel jobs than a shifting of jobs overseas. 

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

His plan will help to deal with the most dangerous aspects of climate change, but it will take time for these efforts to have an impact in conjunction with efforts in other countries. 

The process cannot be reversed overnight, but it is possible to begin to move along the appropriate route by limiting out “carbon footprint” which will include energy conservation.

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

Probably the biggest misconception is that it will hurt American manufacturers who will be at a competitive disadvantage. 

Some companies could face a disadvantage while others would have a competitive advantage. The overall impact would be neutral, contrary to the misperception. 

Some industries, however, would have to make adjustments and focus more on conservation and improved energy usage.  

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Senate, what would it take for the Biden administration to realize its climate plan? How soon could that happen?

I do not anticipate major changes.  It will take bipartisan support in the Senate since the filibuster requires 60 votes to pass legislation and there may be a large number of Republicans and even a few Democrats who disagree with the specifics of a bill dealing with climate change.  There are parliamentary techniques that can be used to avoid the 60 votes required as managed by the Republicans the last four years in dealing with the reconciliation of Senate and House versions.  (This was the method used by the Republicans to try to undo the end of Obamacare by a simple majority vote until Senator McCain cast the deciding vote against).  The easiest part will be undoing the actions taken by executive order under the Trump Administration.  I think that climate change efforts will progress slowly but will have a better chance of being adopted with Democratic control of the Senate.  The one key political fact is that while it could be possible to push through some legislation, the new administration will have to choose which programs are the most important (as the Republicans did with the attempt to repeal Obamacare) and for which it will make such an effort to push through.  Even victories have costs, and not all programs will have a high enough priority.  Right now dealing with the Covid pandemic and restarting the economy and dealing with the costs of Covid will take precedence.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural-gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy?  

There might indeed be some job losses in some sectors that would be replaced by jobs in other areas (coal mining jobs lost while jobs in the solar industry would be gained).

It is highly unlikely that there would be jobs shipped overseas in the aggregate. This claim by opponents is misleading and is designed to scare voters. 

What does happen, however, is that persons unemployed in coal mining may not be able to get similar jobs in the solar energy industry. 

Winners and losers could even out, but will not necessarily be the same people.

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

Biden will have his hands full initially on trying to recapture lost ground battling climate change during the Trump years. Those years are essentially ones where we got knocked back and off course with respect to combating climate change.

Biden will surely move us in the right direction, but the lost four years will mean that catching up rather than significantly curbing damaging effects will be the first order of business.

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

During the campaign the Republicans portrayed Biden as a radical climate activist willing to sacrifice jobs in the name of combating climate change. He was characterized as fully embracing the Green New Deal, for example.

His commitment to a safer, healthier environment is clear and genuine, but any actions must not harm fundamentally economic interests.

Instead, as he argues, his plan is sensitive and even sold as a bold economic and employment plan as opposed to a strictly environmental policy.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural-gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy?  

First of all, fossil fuel lobbyists are supposed to throw cold water on any initiatives aimed at limiting their production.

Second of all, when the data is evident that moving on a green agenda can at least in some major ways produce positive economic and health benefits even some Republicans will more to the Biden position.

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

I do not know if we can “curb the most damaging effects of climate change” without some radical global intervention at this point, so a national plan developed to pass through a divided government does not seem likely to get us there, but it is a move that can help.

The global position is largely symbolic — the Paris Agreement, while broad-based — committed signatories to no action other than publishing a plan.

That at least gets it on the agenda, and if the U.S. takes a signal position on climate change, it could induce others to join if the U.S. still has some soft power.

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

One big misconception is that it is a radical, anti-energy plan. This is not true. 

The goal is to become carbon-pollution free within 15 years — this is not the same as carbon free, which some have advocated.

Instead it would blend energy production with pollution controls and carbon sequestration while trying to encourage investment in non-carbon energy production. 

This is likely to occur anyway because of costs and industry awareness that has many carbon-based energy companies investing heavily in non-carbon production.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural-gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy? 

The centerpiece of the Biden plan is an environmentally friendly infrastructure and stimulus package. 

This would be a very important step, as it could help reconstruct energy and transportation grids to being more environmentally friendly, setting a longer term agenda that would provide the backbone to non-carbon energy reliant and transportation grids by installing charging stations, subsidizing solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy, developing more efficient and accessible mass transport systems, etc. 

There has been some bipartisan support for both infrastructure and stimulus bills, neither of which was achieved by the last administration. 

Unless some factions are dedicated to denying a Biden administration any successes, this could be possible, particularly with the president-elect’s history of cooperation across the legislative aisle. 

Such a plan could be the job creating engine for these areas where carbon-dependent jobs are concentrated and which face an inevitable decline.

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

It is unlikely to be enough by itself. Tackling climate change, as a global issue, is going to take a worldwide effort well beyond what even large economies like the U.S. can do alone.

There are some aspects to Biden’s plan that are explicitly global, including recommitting the U.S. to the Paris Agreement.

However, the challenge will be to convert any domestic changes the U.S. makes in political capital used to convince other countries to likewise reduce their emissions, especially China.

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

I’d say the biggest misconception is that combating climate change is necessarily at odds with economic growth.

When discussing climate policy, it is frequently described as being a choice between growth and climate.

One thing Biden’s plan tries to do is merge these two goals, speaking much about building infrastructure and creating new jobs in the automobile and construction industries.

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Senate, what would it take for the Biden administration to realize its climate plan? How soon could that happen?

Biden will quickly rejoin the Paris Agreement, sign a series of executive orders, and direct federal agencies to begin the rulemaking processes to interpret existing laws in ways that will enable them to develop policies that address climate change. With narrow control over the Senate, Democrats will propose climate legislation, but it is by no means guaranteed to pass. Unless significant rules changes occur–like abolition of the filibuster, which is an increasing possibility–Democrats will need considerable support from both moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and conservative-leaning Democrats like Joe Manchin. It is unlikely to be easy–or pretty.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural-gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy? 

There may be ways to shift resources to states that see large job losses, particularly through additional unemployment support, job training, and using federal dollars to support individuals with skills in polluting industries to use those skills in more environmentally-friendly ways (again, looking at infrastructure development).

Of course, the challenge will be convincing individuals and states that they will ultimately benefit from implementation of a Biden climate plan even if it means that their current jobs will become obsolete.

That will not be an easy task, and is already one reason why oil- and coal-heavy states like West Virginia have turned sharply against Democratic administrations in recent years.

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

No. No single plan is up to the task, and certainly none of the plans out there now respond nearly aggressively enough.

With each day that ticks by, the need for us to act grows greater. But Biden’s plan is the best we’ve seen in the White House up until now, and it has the potential to place us back into a leadership role — or at least a respectable role — in this area.

What is the biggest misconception about Joe Biden’s climate plan?

That it kills jobs. Biden’s plan is a jobs plan. He wants to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in research, manufacturing, and construction.

In fact, I think that, if carried out, Biden’s plan would be more effective as an economic stimulus than as a climate mitigation effort.

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Senate, what would it take for the Biden administration to realize its climate plan? How soon could that happen?
Biden will quickly rejoin the Paris Agreement, sign a series of executive orders, and direct federal agencies to begin the rulemaking processes to interpret existing laws in ways that will enable them to develop policies that address climate change. With narrow control over the Senate, Democrats will propose climate legislation, but it is by no means guaranteed to pass. Unless significant rules changes occur–like abolition of the filibuster, which is an increasing possibility–Democrats will need considerable support from both moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and conservative-leaning Democrats like Joe Manchin. It is unlikely to be easy–or pretty.

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Senate, what would it take for the Biden administration to realize its climate plan? How soon could that happen?

Biden will quickly rejoin the Paris Agreement, sign a series of executive orders, and direct federal agencies to begin the rulemaking processes to interpret existing laws in ways that will enable them to develop policies that address climate change. With narrow control over the Senate, Democrats will propose climate legislation, but it is by no means guaranteed to pass. Unless significant rules changes occur–like abolition of the filibuster, which is an increasing possibility–Democrats will need considerable support from both moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and conservative-leaning Democrats like Joe Manchin. It is unlikely to be easy–or pretty.

Fossil-fuel lobbyists argue that Joe Biden’s climate policy would “eliminate jobs and shift energy production overseas.” If this is true, how could the Biden administration best support states that depend heavily on oil, natural-gas and coal production to sustain their economies in the transition to renewable energy?

I don’t believe this is true for the economy as a whole or in the long run. These are scare tactics.

It is, however, true that areas economically dependent on fossil fuels will experience short-term pain without a good transition plan.

One of the best things Biden can do, I think, is to invest in these places as centers of green innovation and manufacturing, thus enabling them to modernize their economies through stable, high-paying green jobs.

Much of this is in Biden’s plan; it also happens to be the basis for the Green New Deal.

Is Joe Biden’s climate plan enough to curb the most damaging effects of climate change? Why or why not?

Due to the urgency of climate change and expensive repercussions from fires, hurricanes, flooding, drought and other disasters, transition away from fossil fuels like coal, oil, gas and LNG must occur immediately.

All subsidies to fossil fuels and all bailouts to fossil fuel companies must end right away under the Biden administration.

COVID-related relief distributed to energy companies was used irresponsibly in corporate buybacks, bailouts, and large executive bonuses, while workers were laid off.

Global banks are avoiding coal — it is a liability. Similarly European investors recently decided U.S. fracked gas was too dirty.

Oil and gas impacted communities in the U.S. are asking local and state governments to ban fracking, to stop building pipelines, to avoid risky transport by road and rail, and to halt export terminals.

Fracked gas is not viable due to the costs associated with water and air pollution, particularly leaked methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and toxic pollutants spread throughout the gas lifecycle, including from radioactive waste.

Moving forward, one of the most effective investments the Biden administration could make to benefit the whole economy would be to support clean, distributed (localized), sustainable energy.

Renewable energy needs to be the cornerstone of an equity-centered Green New Deal.

Wind and solar are cost competitive with other energy sources. Renewables create more jobs than fossil fuels and well-paid green energy jobs have fewer occupational risks, thus contributing to a more resilient economy by supporting a healthier workforce with job security, rather than the boom-and-bust economies and health risks (asthma and respiratory disease, cancer, etc.) associated with fossil fuels.