Update: A spokesperson for Joe Biden says that the Reuter’s article is ‘wrong’ and reiterates that Biden does consider climate change an existential threat. Biden just tweeted to state that we need “policies that reflect this urgency.” Please consider this update when reviewing this article.
While climate change was so off the radar in 2016 that it didn’t get a single question at a single debate, in 2020 it’s not only showing up at or near the top of voter’s concerns, but has featured prominently in the policies put out by candidates. Last Saturday, Daily Kos published the first in a series of looks at energy and environmental policies put forward by 2020 candidates by comparing the policies of Beto O’Rourke and Jay Inslee. While the information available on Joe Biden’s policy proposals aren’t yet detailed enough for a thorough review, the information reported by Reuters can only be called profoundly disappointing.
According to that report, Biden is seeking a “middle ground” on climate change policy. That middle ground appears to consist of restoring some things that were done under Barack Obama … and nothing more.
The “backbone” of the policy consists of seeing the U.S. rejoin the Paris Agreement. Which is a good and necessary step in demonstrating to the world community that the United States is once again considering climate change abatement important. But the Paris Agreement includes exactly no enforcement mechanism. On its own, it’s little more than a statement of principle. Biden is also expected to back regulations on vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions that were put in place under Obama, but which have been under continuous attack under Trump. Again, that seems like a valid step, but “let’s put back a requirement from four years ago” hardly seems like a forward-looking policy.
More disturbing still, Biden’s plan is expected to include “fossil fuel options like natural gas” and coal plants using “carbon capture technology.” This technology not only does not exist, it is not economically feasible. The only “clean coal” plant ever constructed in the United States, the Kemper County energy facility in Mississippi, switched to natural gas before it ever opened after its carbon capture facilities proved to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Even if that wasn’t the case, using coal to generate energy in the United States now costs more than using wind or solar.
If Biden’s plan falls along the lines reported, it seems to be nothing but a scheme to avoid “offending” Trump voters by acknowledging the scale of the threat. If so, it’s not only completely inadequate, it’s cowardly.
What’s especially confusing about the proposals as reported is that Biden has called climate change an “existential threat.” And, as his spokesperson pointed out, Biden was one of those directly involved in the negotiations that resulted in the Paris Agreement.
Reuters says that Biden’s position “sets him apart” from other Democratic candidates. It does. It makes him wrong. Not just wrong in his approach, but completely wrong-headed in his belief that this approach is in any way dealing with the issue responsibly.
Biden’s “measured approach” is a recipe for disaster. He may have said the term “existential threat,” but he’s treating it like … an inconvenient truth. It’s backward. It’s thoughtless. And it’s worse than useless.