What difference will Joe Biden make to the climate change agenda?

What will Joe Biden’s presidency, if it happens, entail for the global climate movement?

THE COUNTRY that is historically the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases has a president who denies climate change. US President Donald Trump even withdrew from the Paris Agreement that his predecessor had signed. Come November, things could change. In a remarkable turn of events, Trump faces former vice-president Joe Biden— who claimed to have played a key role in the signing of the Paris Agreement—as the Democratic candidate in the US presidential elections. How much will Biden’s term, if he gets elected, change things? Biden’s years as vicepresident were characterised by the bailing out of Wall Street to the tune of $4 trillion during the economic crisis and the shale oil revolution. His presidential campaign so far has been largely unconvincing, with the focal argument being the need to vote out Donald Trump, rather than providing a vision for the future. Biden started as a forerunner for the climate change cause. In his statement at the International Deforestation and Climate Change Hearing in 2008, the then Senator from Delaware recognised the core tenants of

climate equity and historical responsibility of the US as the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter. That was then. Now, a Biden presidency gives little hope to climate advocates.

Last June, Biden unveiled his climate plan during the campaign —a meagre $1.7 trillion of investments to achieve 100 per cent clean energy and net-zero emissions by 2050. It has commitments to maintain existing regulations on emissions and fuel efficiency, adopt former president Barack Obama’s “All-of-theAbove” energy policy (which promoted natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between fossil fuels and clean energy), rejoin the Paris Agreement and stop issuing permits for new oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters. Climate activists and Biden’s rivals criticised the plan for taking the “middle ground” approach aimed at appeasing both Democrats and Republicans. Greenpeace USA graded it “B+” and the Sunrise Movement, a prominent group of youth climate activists headquartered in the US, gave it an “F”.

In response to the backlash, Biden’s team invited ideas from activists and released an updated plan this July. The plan is marginally more aggressive and pledges to achieve 100 per cent clean electricity by 2035. It also commits to spending $2 trillion over four years to boost renewable energy, and creates incentives for more energy-efficient cars, homes and commercial buildings. But it falls well short of the $10 trillion climate plan proposed by Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate for vice-president, during her campaign to be the Democratic candidate for US presidency.

Biden also refused to endorse the Green New Deal, a bold proposal introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the recently re-elected Senator Ed Markey, that provides a roadmap to an equitable and decarbonised economy. His claim that two aspects of the Green New Deal—the urgency for a greater ambition to address climate change and the notion that “our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected”— were alluded to in his plan is laughable.

Though Biden has recently expressed that once elected he will rejoin the Paris Agreement, it is important to note that he is the same candidate who in a June 2019 fundraiser in New York City, said to wealthy donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he is elected. This is consistent with Biden’s profile as a neoliberal “establishment Democrat”, which, among other things, implies a leaning towards corporate (and frequently fossil fuel) interests over meaningful measures that will protect American workers and communities from the worst of the approaching impacts of the climate crisis.

A RETURN TO THE PRE-TRUMP ERA STATUS QUO IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE KIND OF URGENT CHANGES WE NEED. BUT GIVEN THE POWER OF THE FOSSIL FUEL LOBBIES AND WALL STREET, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE CLOSE TIES TO BIDEN, WE WOULD NOT HOLD OUR BREATH

BIDEN’S ANTECEDENTS

Biden’s past has several symbolic instances of support for climate action. In 1986, he introduced the Global Climate Protection Act, the first climate change Bill in the Senate, which the Republican-controlled upper house did not act on. He voted in favour of cap-and-trade as a means to level the playing field for clean energy in 2003, but this too did not get the required support.

During the Obama years, Biden was tasked with overseeing the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which invested $90 billion in low-carbon energy. The programme was successful on most counts. He, however, did overstate his involvement in the negotiations for the Paris Agreement. Biden claimed, during recent debates, to have convinced Chinese President Xi Jinping to join the agreement. But in media interactions, White House staffers said that he did not appear to have played an instrumental role in finalising the Paris Agreement. Biden’s symbolic support to Obamaera climate policies involved mostly speeches and interviews on proposals like the Clean Power

Plan and the US’ involvement in the Paris Agreement.

Biden’s one unenviable legacy is his deep involvement in the shale oil boom, with his support for natural gas as a bridge fuel towards renewables made clear on numerous occasions. Obama presided over the largest expansion of natural gas production in US history. During his second term, Biden travelled to Ukraine to promote American shale gas over Russian gas, and also led the creation of a $50 million aid package that included support for developing Ukraine’s shale gas infrastructure. Unlike his former Democratic counterparts in the presidential race—Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris—Biden stated as recently as this August that he would not ban fracking if elected president.

His presidential campaign signed the “No Fossil Fuel Money” pledge, but he has appointed Heather Zichal, a former top Obama aide, as a climate adviser. Zichal served on the board of Cheniere Energy, a natural gas company, and has in the past, opposed calls to ban fracking.

HARRIS FLIP-FLOPS

Unlike Biden, Harris was an early endorser of the Green New Deal. She has also recently supported a ban on fracking and pitched in a proposal to convene major emitters in 2021 to negotiate an international phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and a managed decline of production around the world. Her $10 trillion climate plan aims to achieve a netzero carbon economy by 2045 and has goals such as environmental justice and holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their carbon impact. However, she has often been inconsistent.

Harris claimed to have sued ExxonMobil for feigning ignorance about climate change, but records show that a lawsuit was never actually filed. She held out on opposing fracking through all the years that California—the state she is a Senator from—allowed its unrestrained expansion, and only recently made her support for a ban clear. Still, a Biden-Harris term will be preferable to Donald Trump’s, whose reelection would be catastrophic for the climate movement. Biden has acknowledged that “climate change is an existential threat” and wants to go further than just rejoin the Paris Agreement, including pushing countries to increase emissions-cut ambitions. Considering the urgency of the climate crisis, he will have to do a lot more and develop an ambitious US climate and energy plan. A return to the pre-Trump era status quo is the opposite of the kind of urgent changes we need to abate the impacts of the climate crisis. However, given the power wielded by the fossil fuel lobbies and Wall Street, both of which have close ties to Biden, we would not hold our breath.