About Face

Moisés Naím / World Energy & Oil

Donald J. Trump wanted to make the United States an “energy superpower.” His vision was to lead the country not just towards energy self-sufficiency but also towards “global energy dominance.” This required the vigorous promotion of oil, natural gas and coal. Trump’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, said “An energy dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence.” The implementation of this vision led to the opening of federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling, including pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. President Trump never hid his conviction that carbon dioxide emissions were not a primary contributor to climate change.

President Joseph Biden has a very different view. His main goal is that America (and, hopefully, the rest of world) will actively decarbonize. Rather than investing in energy generated by burning hydrocarbons, Biden wants his nation to invest in energy produced by renewable sources like sun and wind. Moreover, the protection of the environment is a fundamental goal of the new president’s energy policy. The strong contrast between his plan and President Trump’s energy policies has led Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D- R.I.) to stop his nine years of weekly speeches in the senate about the need for action on climate change. His last speech on this topic, number 297, was given the same day President Biden unveiled his plan. Whitehouse said “The conditions are at last in place for a real solution. A new dawn is breaking, and there’s no need for my little candle against the darkness.”

FROM PLANS TO ACTION

During his initial weeks in office President Biden signed a number of Executive Actions to reverse his predecessor’s carbon-intensive and environmentally-risky energy policies. As he had promised in his electoral campaign, one of his first decisions as president was to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. Biden also announced that he would convene a meeting on this topic “to persuade the leaders of the major greenhouse gasemitting nations of the world to join the United States in making more ambitious national pledges, above and beyond the commitments they have already made.” At home, Biden took quick action and halted operations of the Keystone XL pipeline, imposed new limits on existing and future oil and gas production and prescribed that all federal agencies should include climate-friendly operating procedures.

THE MAIN THRUST OF BIDEN’S DOMESTIC ENERGY POLICY

Biden’s national energy plan has three main goals:

1. Achieving a net zero emission standard by 2050 and a Carbon Pollution-Free Electricity Sector by 2035. To achieve this goal, the plan calls for aggressively investing in the development of innovative and cleaner energy technologies. It seeks to make the US auto industry less polluting and will launch an ambitious program to modernize the nation’s federal infrastructure, from buildings to transit networks and water systems. Biden also intends to create a National Council on Workforce Development which, operating from the White House, will promote the large-scale creation of cleanenergy jobs. It also establishes a National Climate Task Force, made up of twenty-one senior officials of federal departments and agencies who will meet regularly to ensure maximum coordination in the efforts to combat climate change.

2. Advancing Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation. The administration will deploy a new cadre of “conservation workers” tasked with addressing climate change concerns on the ground, such as sustainable forest management and protection of water supplies and ecosystems

3. Securing Environmental Justice and Fostering Equitable Economic Opportunities. Every aspect of Biden’s plan will be undergirded by a comprehensive environmental justice plan involving special attention to disadvantaged communities, which would receive up to 40 percent of the benefits of the massive spending in clean energy and energy efficiency. The plan would enable federal agencies and the private sector to make investments in the rural, suburban, and urban communities that need them most.

Each of these main thrusts includes multiple objectives and targets requiring expenditures of up to $2 trillion, as well as the hoped-for creation of some 10 million new jobs.

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED

Unsurprisingly, President Biden’s energy plan follows the strategic directions set by President Obama’s, which had called for shortterm relief of Americans facing high energy costs, the creation of 5 million jobs and investments in clean energy of up to $150 billion during two presidential terms. The target was an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050.

What is new in Biden’s plan is its giant dimension. It aims to double Obama’s proposed number of new, environment-related jobs that will be created, and his investment plan is six times larger than Obama’s. The official goal is to get to zero netemissions by 2050. It also puts stronger emphasis on the redress of environmental damages due to past negligence, a goal that reflects the influence of the more progressive sector of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps the most prominent non-politician supporting the Biden plan is Bill Gates, who has characterized it as “super hard and very broad, but doable.” Some of Gates’ suggestions have been adopted by the administration, such as the strong emphasis on energy innovation, the creation of the National Climate Task Force and the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring that some of the costs of cleaning up past pollution are paid by the responsible parties. The plan also includes strong incentives for companies to generate non-polluting, carbon-free energy alternatives.

HOW FEASIBLE IS IT?

Running strongly against the long, historical trend of fossil fuels as the primary source of energy, the plan will inevitably receive technical and political opposition from these industries and the administration’s rivals. In fact, the pushback has already started. When unusually low temperatures in Texas, Oregon and other states led to major collapses of electricity services, adversaries of Biden’s plan were quick to blame the breakdown on renewable energy installations such as wind and solar. The fact is that both natural gas pipelines and wind turbines were affected by these events, although the freezing of gas lines accounted for most of the paralysis.

The debate on the transition to green energy proposed by Biden has intensified as a result of the briskness with which he has moved on this front. To defuse antagonism to the plan, Biden has reached out to oil, coal and gas workers: “They helped build this country. We’re never going to forget the men and women who dug the coal and built the nation. We're going to do right by them, make sure they have opportunities to keep building the nation in their own communities and getting paid well for it.”

The fact that the administration has a majority in both chambers of Congress surely facilitates the passing of the legal and fiscal elements of the plan. but this majority is fragile, and it cannot be taken for granted that the plan will enjoy an easy sail through Congress. Its immense cost, estimated at USD 2 trillion, will make lawmakers balk. Critics will point to the risks of upending such an important sector of the economy at such a dizzying speed. Gradualism rather than shock-therapy will be the mantra of those opposed to the Biden energy plan. In his favor, the president can count on his experience as a legislator and the ample and deep personal and bipartisan relationships he has developed over the years in Congress. His 36 years working there surely provide him a robust understanding of how the legislative process works, who are the main actors and which are the risks and challenges. Also, how to navigate those risky political shoals.

Yet, even if everything else goes well, the success of Biden’s energy plan could still experience major delays and other problems due to the faulty, untested technology required to reach its ambitious goals. The International Energy Agency maintains that to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as envisioned by the Biden plan, half the reduced emissions would have to come from technologies not yet commercially available. This reality has led most utility companies to target the year 2050 for zero net emission of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector, rather than 2035, as proposed in Biden’s plan.

PERSONNEL IS POLICY

Even if it succeeds in garnering the political support it needs to be adopted, like all large-scale plans the Biden’s plan depends on the efficiency of its execution. There is an old saying in Washington: “personnel is policy.” It captures the fact that the people the president appoints to carry out his plan are as important, if not more important, than policy pronouncements. So far, despite the inevitable criticisms resulting from the toxic, highly polarized political environment that now pervades the nation, Biden’s appointments in the most critical jobs in the energy and environment arena have been relatively well received. Biden appointed John Kerry as his international climate envoy, Gina McCarthy as the domestic climate czar, Jennifer Granholm as Energy Secretary and Michael Regan as head of the Environment Protection Agency. These are all widely respected and knowledgeable individuals who have spent much of their professional lives working at the highest levels of government.

A CALL TO ARMS

Joseph Biden’s energy plan and former President Trump’s plan are very similar in their radical nature and audacious scope, both aiming to create profound permanent change in the way Americans get and use energy. But there is where their similarity ends: While Trump’s plan was to massively expand the production of fossil fuels, Biden’s plan is designed to maximize and speed-up decarbonization. While Biden’s plan is essentially based on science, Trump’s plan was largely based on electoral, populist objectives.

Due to its very large scope Biden’s plan presents inevitable risks and uncertainties. Although it has been suggested that the plan should be approached in a gradual manner, so as to minimize opposition and pitfalls, the reality is that time to take action on climate change has essentially run out and gradualism can no longer be afforded, in spite of the risks involved in swift action.

On the positive side, Biden’s plan will probably provide a galvanizing force for strong and decisive international action to combat climate change, helping to eliminate hesitancies and doubts. In sounding the bugle, President Biden’s call is to prompt mobilization, a call to arms.