Postscript - Biden, Fracking and the Green New Deal

In May after the Democrat primaries were cancelled and the Sanders campaign was suspended, Joe Biden moved to shore up party support by setting up Unity Task Teams included an all-star climate team co-chaired by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and John Kerry. The goal was preventing a repeat of 2016 when embittered progressives boycotted the election facilitating a Trump victory.

As discussed in a previous JTZC article – Biden, Fracking and the Green New Deal – there was uncertainty about whether moderates and progressives on the climate team could find common ground and preserve party unity. Similarly, observers wondered if consensus would require a progressive backdown or moderates being forced to accept politically risky policies?

Now that the climate team has published its final report (1), Democrats should be happy with its pragmatic tone with more contentious issues being kicked down the road. Progressive leader Varshini Prakash announced that the climate team “made far more progress than I …… anticipated” and praised moderates on the team for their level of climate ambition. It seems Biden’s decision to bring potential climate critics inside the policy tent has worked.

There is a predictable call for the US to re-engage with the Paris agreement. The expectation of aggressive US carbon reduction targets is raised but not proscribed. This is a theme throughout the report – ambitious rhetoric defining key elements of the debate while providing Biden with the flexibility to establish his own targets, enforcement settings and funding levels. A clear win for pragmatism – coalesce around the rhetoric ahead of the election and fight about the details after it.

The report does have specific targets, notably that the electricity sector be “free of carbon pollution by 2035”. Despite growing wind and solar generation this is an ambitious target giving progressives something tangible to point to. Significantly, the language creates scope for both the existing nuclear fleet and potential future use of carbon capture and storage, both of which also get increased R&D expenditure. Technocrats worried about an over reliance on wind and solar should be happy with this as well as with support for a negative emissions “moon shot” program.

The other firm targets are for new electric school buses, increased EV charging stations, energy efficiency building retrofits and planting billions of native trees – these are initiatives that even climate sceptics would struggle to be offended by. Potentially more controversial is a target for new buildings to be net zero emissions by 2030 – an effective mandate for rooftop solar and battery storage opening up freedom of choice criticism. Collectively these recommendations set important benchmarks and broaden the debate beyond the electricity generation sector.

The most obvious omission from the report and an example of progressive compromise is an apparent silence on fracking. There are implied threats in a recommendation to “significantly reduce methane pollution through robust federal standards” and a call to end fossil fuel subsidies. Perhaps the importance of voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio has been recognised, with a fight over fracking temporarily deferred. Alternatively, progressives may have chosen to literally ignore fracking in return for repeatedly hammering home messages about climate justice, community engagement and empowerment, union jobs, use of locally produced materials and holding polluters accountable.

The climate team also wants to ensure its work is not forgotten after the election. It calls for new and elevated Climate Action, Climate Mobilisation and especially Environmental Justice councils with cabinet level authority, interagency responsibilities and lines of accountability to the President, the White House and within the Department of Justice. Climate progressives will want their share of these influential positions filled by Green New Deal supporters tasked with turning climate rhetoric into real action.