default article image
Politics

Biden’s Plan for Climate Change, Explained

With the 2020 election underway, the climate crisis has proven itself to be a primary concern for many voters. As it stands, the world is on track to pass its “carbon budget” of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, according to the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on climate change. 

The key takeaway from the report was the daunting reality that we have just a decade to reduce our carbon emissions by at least 50 percent, in order to avoid irreversible, damage.

What made the report so significant was its illustrations of the vast discrepancies between how the crisis is being felt by different communities, in respect to wealth, geographic placement, and public health. 

According to most progressive advocates of environmental policy, Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s plan to combat the climate crisis is the strongest of any Democratic presidential candidate. But prior to securing the nomination, Biden’s climate plan was the subject of immense criticism from the same groups. It was not until he appointed both former Secretary of State John Kerry and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14) to his “climate task force” that he openly championed key components of the much discussed Green New Deal, the comprehensive resolution to combat climate change at a structural level. 

This has been a vital aspect of bridging the divide between progressive and moderate Democrats. Biden has stated on day one of his presidency that he will rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, that the United States is slated to officially withdraw from on Nov. 4th, 2020, just one day after the election.

It should be noted that Joe Biden does not endorse the entirety of the Green New Deal, despite what the President has claimed. In fact, President Donald Trump has made a habit of making false claims regarding the former Vice President’s plan to combat climate change.

At the first Presidential debate, Trump claimed that Biden would not only implement the Green New Deal, but also ban fracking, as well as “take out the cows,” all of which Biden has clarified as being categorically false. 

The climate policy Joe Biden has brought forward has suggested a few strategies the U.S. needs to implement if it wants the edge on the battle with climate change. A major aspect of this is to ensure the U.S. achieves a net-zero, clean energy economy by the year 2050. This means that the U.S. will be generating emissions equal to the amount removed in Earth’s atmosphere. Biden has also acknowledged that climate change does not impact all equally—stressing the need for environmental justice, or, the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Echoing the demands laid out in the IPCC report, those in the scientific community agree that ensuring environmental justice is paramount to rectifying the climate crisis. 

Randall Abate, J.D., environmental lawyer and professor at Monmouth University, reiterated these concerns, stating, “Climate change disproportionately impacts minority and low-income communities.  As such, legal measures need to be in place to account for those disparities. Climate change is not just an environmental problem. It is a product of the failures of capitalism on many levels in the U.S. and overseas.” Abate also addresses his concerns regarding the plan, stating, “Biden’s climate policy has limitations. Politics is a game of compromise and Biden’s plan is no exception. His plan is not as ambitious as it should be, largely in an effort to secure support from centrist voters.  

For example, his plan would not ban fracking, even though it should if his administration claims to be serious about the goal to transition to renewables by 2050 and respond to the environmental injustices to vulnerable communities that accompany fracking. Second, his plan does not adequately address the need to target consumer behavior to effectively regulate climate change within the 12-year time frame that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us is necessary.  For example, his plan should but does not target significant drivers of climate change such as industrial animal agriculture and individual transportation choices.” 

To further clarify, Biden’s climate plan also includes a number of executive actions to ensure that the U.S. meets IPCC standards. The most notable examples include aggressively regulating methane pollution for oil and gas operations, implementing renewable energy sources in government facilities, investing in clean public transportation, and requiring that companies disclose the risks to the environment regarding their greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted that conversely, the President has rolled back ninety-nine Obama-era environmental regulations: 72 have been completed, while the remaining 27 are still in progress, as per The New York Times. 

Part of why climate change policy is so polarizing is the potential cost of implementing these actions. Mitchell Hendricks, a political science student, said, “I think it’s great that Biden is willing to take input from those who know more about the issue, and wants to develop a comprehensive plan that is both effective and amicable to both parties.” 

“In the first debate, [Biden] said ‘I do not support the Green New Deal’ and went on to clarify that that’s because he is working on creating a new plan that would take the best parts of the Green New Deal and improve on what he didn’t agree with. Cooperation is extremely important right now, so I’m really glad to see that from him,” Hendricks added. 

Also, during the debate, Trump has cited his economic concerns, claiming that Biden implementing the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers $100 trillion. This is a patently false claim for two reasons: one, Biden has made it abundantly clear that he is pursuing his own plan to combat climate change as opposed to the resolution put out by Senator Markey (D-MA) and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. Secondly, according to Biden’s website, his plan would cost $2 trillion, most of which would be funded by repealing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which benefited mostly wealthy individuals and cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 trillion. 

From the perspective of environmental consultant and adjunct professor, Daniel Feinberg, Ph.D., the costs of doing nothing to mitigate the climate crisis will be astronomically worse than the costs of taking bold, preventative measures now. Feinberg stated, “Investing in mitigation can feel distant and abstract, but if we don’t address emissions and warming, science tells us that many communities will experience more severe extreme weather events, which will require investments in adaptation. As a nearby example, Atlantic City, NJ, spent $40 million in government funds to rebuild from Hurricane Sandy and to protect the city from future storms. By increasing the likelihood of events like Sandy, climate change ends up costing taxpayers one way or another.”

 

PHOTO COURTESY of Monmouth University