Last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that combined, Biden’s two bills would cut emissions 45% by 2030. This, he said, together with the actions on the state level by a cadre of high-income, left-leaning states (CA, HI, MA, MD, NY, NJ, among others), would get the US to Biden’s goal of cutting emissions 50% (compared to 2005) by 2030.
Sounds great, right? After all, scientists say we need to cut our emissions at least 50% by 2030 in order to be on pace for carbon neutrality by 2050. (If you’re wondering why it will take 20 years to go from 50% to 100% but only 9 years for the first 50%, not all sectors of the economy are equally difficult to decarbonize. Transportation and electricity are the biggest and easiest, and that’s where Biden’s bill puts most of its climate focus. Industry, heating, and agriculture will be harder and will take more time).
However, there are a lot of caveats here. First, the final version of the bill hasn’t been announced, Schumer says it will be announced by Sept 15. Until then, we are just guessing at what it contains, we have some topline numbers, but no details. The centerpieces of the reconciliation package are the clean energy payments program and the extension of the clean energy tax credits.
Second, this bill is almost certainly going to get cut. The topline number is $3.5 trillion, and a coalition of conservative Democrats, especially Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, will demand that the total amount be reduced. This will be of critical importance. How much will be cut and from which programs? The bulk of the spending is for social programs, so will they bear the brunt of the cuts? Or will climate be sacrificed because it isn’t the main focus of the bill?
We’ll need to keep an eye on both of these things. But, assuming it is actually passed (another question mark) and assuming the climate portions remain relatively unscathed, then what? Do we just sit back and celebrate?
If both of these proposals are passed, then I will celebrate for a day. However, the work is far from over. Immediately following the success or failure of these packages the COP26 summit will commence in Glasgow. Almost every nation in the world has failed to live up to its Paris Agreement commitments, and the Paris Agreement wasn’t sufficient in the first place. Time is running out to craft an effective international treaty that will cap emissions as soon as possible. The United States is fully back on board for the first time since 2015 (technically the 2016 conference happened during the Obama Admin, but he was a lame duck and Trump was elected while the conference was happening).
As I’ve said before, this is probably the last best chance for the US to do something big (and positive) on climate. It’s very unlikely that the Dems will hold both houses of Congress next year, and even if we capture both houses and keep the White House in 2024, it may be too little too late.
What happens, then, if everything goes right? Assuming we pass both bills and we get a strong COP commitment, then what do we do? If Schumer’s office is right, then the US will be on pace to meet its agreements domestically. But here’s the thing about projections for very large, very complex economic transitions, they’re very hard to get right. Projections for climate-related trends are almost always incorrect (for instance, renewable energy has gotten cheaper faster than expected, and extreme weather has happened faster than expected). So we must remain vigilant. Ideally we would cap global emissions in the next couple of years, and begin our steep decreases as soon as possible.
That means we will need to monitor our progress. It also means the US and other rich countries will need to send resources to developing countries, something they have largely failed to do so far. Domestically, here in the US we will need to shift our work back to state and local-level action. There is a lot of room for improvement in states. In blue states, where leaders have made big commitments, we must ensure they keep their promises. In swing states or red states, we must find ways to lower emissions without talking too much about climate. People of all political stripes care about saving money, breathing clean air, getting independence from your utility, or growing your local economy.
Cities can play a huge role by updating their building codes. This is a longer-term strategy, but we have 30 years to get everything right, and if we start now we can make some serious improvements. Cities can also invest in things like pedestrian and bike infrastructure, transit, and green space. Cities can build flood barriers and flood plans, and they can decarbonize their own buildings and fleets. Cities can change zoning laws to encourage density and walkability. All of these are tangential to climate, but would have positive climate benefits.
For now, though, the focus must remain on getting these bills passed with as few cuts as possible. To put it bluntly, nothing will really matter if we can’t get this done. Failure to do so will be catastrophic.
The Mangrove 