Can Joe be a captain to address climate change? (On Hope: "Elevate" 9 of ...)

Gotta go hard (gotta go hard)
I ain't got time to waste (I ain't got time)

We don’t have time to waste.

At the end of 2019, I shared a few predictions that I thought would happen by 2025. It turns out that the biggest one would affect all of our lives a lot sooner than I thought. I wrote:

There will be a recession between 2020 and 2025. Some will use this as a reason to delay climate change efforts…

Mental health services… will increasingly matter…

…and here we are. This is not a post about why to vote against Trump - there are a lot of reasons in that vein, but I think those arguments tend to just bring us back to what we’ve already decided.

This post outlines the biggest reason I’ve seen to vote for Biden.

Before I start, everything below assumes the climate is changing based on human activity and rising CO2 emissions. These trends cause warmer global temperatures, leading to more frequent and higher severity weather events (among other effects) than we have seen in the past. If the science on climate change hasn’t convinced you, at least think about the storms that have received supervillain status in the past three years alone, and wouldn’t it have been nice to avoid them altogether? Since 2017 - Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Irma, Nate, Michael, Barry, Flash Floods, Tornadoes.

Biden’s climate plan history

Let’s rewind a bit. When Biden launched his campaign, he included a climate plan that came out close to June 2019. Compared to other democratic election years, it was ambitious, including:

• $1.7 trillion in new spending over ten years, paid for by reversing GOP tax cuts

• Target of net-zero emissions by 2050

• End to fossil fuel subsidies

• Ban on oil/gas permits on public lands on "Day One"

The plan was lofty but not specific. It covered talking points he could point to during his campaign but it was not a driving force. However, Biden’s original climate plan did not go nearly as far as his counterparts, with some describing his plan as “very weak on what levers he would pull when to make his plan happen by which dates.”

Ranking from November 2019:

Why do we need a climate plan anyway?

My take is that unless the climate plan is the backbone of a candidate’s decision making, America will not reverse the course it’s currently on. We have portions of the country like California that are living out the best and worst sides of climate effects. California will phase out sales of new, gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and are simultaneously dealing with worsening wildfires and winds. Problems like those will show up more and more in other states unless there direction provided at a federal level.

This list for areas a plan should address is taken from the article above:

• CO2 Emissions: Will it significantly improve the US’ CO2 emissions and hence help with global warming? Does it cover the big hitters of electrical generation, transportation, industry land use, and the military with useful plans? Requires a carbon price to achieve 5 points.

• Pollution: Will it improve water quality, air quality, and reduce habitat destruction in addition to its CO2 impacts? This is the other big negative externality of the same things that cause climate change.

• Timeframe: Is it reasonable from a timeframe perspective, both aggressive enough for the magnitude of the issue but also viable in terms of timeframe? That includes aggressive early targets for big hitters such as electrical generation and transportation, and a clear goal for complete decarbonization.

• Planning: Does the plan have specific actions against clearly stated legislative or regulatory targets with drafted or identified legislation?

• Economics: Is it economically sensible, both something the US can afford to do and one which maximizes economic benefits for the country? The transformation is an opportunity for economic growth, so it’s not just the committed dollars that make it economically sensible.

• Leadership: Will it help globally with the US both being a strong positive example, but also a global leader of other countries? Is it democratic (small d) as opposed to authoritarian?

• Voters: Will it motivate the Democratic base and Democratic-leaning Independents, attract other Independent voters necessary to secure the Presidency, and assist with House and Senate elections? Populism is too narrow and ill-fitting for climate action, so points are lost for that.

Biden’s current climate plan

But wasn’t this supposed to be an argument for Biden? Yes, it is.

The original plan he backed is no longer part of his platform.

Biden has the capacity to change and will listen to a good idea.

That is the reason to vote for Biden.

After winning the primary, Biden had the opportunity to shift back to center on a policy like his original climate plan. Thankfully he didn’t. He instead chose to put together a climate task force that included the climate staff that worked on Gov. Jay Inslee’s campaign (who later went on to Warren’s campaign) in conversations as well as listening to Green New Deal backers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and other climate policy thought leaders.

This is the plan that now appears on Biden’s website.

The biggest changes to the plan are:

• The addition of an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Justice Department that will spend some 40 percent of the money earmarked for clean energy in historically disadvantaged areas. That target is in line with the Green New Deal's demand to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” of what it calls “frontline and vulnerable communities.

• Moves forward the spending timeline for the original plan from 10 years to 4 years

• Includes the goal to achieve a carbon-free pollution power sector by 2035

The modified climate plan is not perfect. Many want it to move further to reduce carbon emissions and protect indigenous lands from fossil fuel pollution or include a carbon tax that is the teeth of enforcing the stated goals. This tax could be a fee on imports from countries without a carbon tax and also pledge to re-invest money from the tax back into climate efforts. In addition, Biden has chosen to distance himself from the Green New Deal in an effort to include supporters whose economy is dependent on fossil fuels like natural gas. This is a political calculation, and one that is tough to swallow for some but if those same communities can find a way to refocus on wind, solar or battery production with the incentives that are in place for renewable energy, I do think there is a (hard) way forward.

For too long, “the environment” has been an abstract issue focused on polar bears and ecosystems rather than preventing asthma and creating jobs. By backing a plan like Biden’s, there is a path to address America’s current economic crisis while not ignoring those who have been dealing with powerplants placed in their backyard or contaminated water supplies.

Returning to my 2019 predictions for the years ahead, there was a little more:

There will be a recession between 2020 and 2025. Some will use this as a reason to delay climate change efforts, but overall, there will be a government stimulus program that is put in place that places infrastructure and energy needs back as a primary topic for US politics. Some companies will not be happy, but the smart ones will position themselves to receive some stimulus money and pretend they were always a climate leader.

The fact that Biden can adapt on an issue as big as the climate in the direction of the majority is a reason to vote for him. I voted for him for other reasons as well, but please consider if you want a leader who can listen to people he admits are smarter than him and act on those ideas.

I think we will all be better for it in the long run.

(Note: The opening lyrics are from the song “Elevate” which is the framework for my posts from 2019 onward. Click back a few posts for more context.)