Get Energy Smart! NOW!

According to Reuters, Joe Biden is seeking a ‘middle ground’ climate policy — a return to Obama Administration policies for gradual (an inadequate) incrementalism to reduce emissions while seeking to satisfy those (excessively) profiting off fossil fool(ish) extraction.

The backbone of the policy will likely include re-joining the United States with the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo ….

… the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.

This trial balloon piece, quoting by name Biden advisors like Heather Zichal, drew swift and strong reaction from scientists, climate activists (such as Sunrise, Greenpeace, Naomi Klein, 350action,), other Presidential candidates (Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders), and others.

“There may have been a chance for modest, ‘all of the above,’ ‘middle ground’ climate strategies twenty years ago but we’ve passed that point now,” said Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and co-founder of California’s Pacific Institute. He added that “many politicians still fail to understand or accept the severity of the climate crisis or the speed with which we now have to act.”

This trial balloon piece, quoting by name Biden advisors like Heather Zichal, drew swift and strong reaction from scientists, climate activists (such as Sunrise, Greenpeace, Naomi Klein, 350action,), other Presidential candidates (Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders), and others.

As a quick reminder, action to address climate chaos is polling high with Democratic Party voters — increasingly right at the top of priorities of action (such as this CNN poll which had 96% of Democratic voters viewing “aggressive action on climate change” as very or somewhat important). Activists like Sunrise, scientific voices about climate risks, and increasing clarity about mounting climate chaos disasters (California fires, Midwest floods, Hurricanes, …) are key factors in driving the political discussion (at least within the Democratic Party) toward addressing the reality of climate chaos and the need for serious, aggressive action. Political reality (again, at least in the Democratic Party) seems to be striving to catch up with science and physical realities.

The Biden ‘trial balloon’ is at odds with the increased importance for (D) voters of strong climate policy as a core focus for the next President of the United States. Two named people (Zichal and Moniz) seem to emphasize that ‘reality’ requires compromising with fossil fuel interests (from which both, such as Zichal as a Cheniere board member, are receiving significant funds) rather than focusing on what is required to protect the nation from climate chaos and what is possible in terms of creating a prosperous, clean-energy future. It also seems to buy into a (at best partially true) view that ‘blue collar’ and voters in key states support fossil fuel extraction and opposed efforts to address climate change. As to that:

• MI voters love solar/wind,
• 55% of PA voters say fracking’s environmental risks outweigh potential economic benefits 
  
• Majorities in Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania back 100% clean energy by 2030 goal 
• …

It seems that the Biden camp might have quickly recognized the tone-deaf nature of this climate balloon.

TJ Ducklo, a spokesman for Biden’s campaign, said in an email statement that the former vice president “knows how high the stakes are” and noted his record on addressing climate change. 

“As president, Biden would enact a bold policy to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way, and will be discussing the specifics of that plan in the near future,” he said. “Any assertions otherwise are not accurate.”

As the (informed, substantive, passionate, angered) responses started to mount, Heather Zichal weighed in to accuse the Reuters’ team of getting it wrong:

Simply put, if Joe Biden truly recognizes climate chaos as an ‘existential threat’ (which it is), a “middle of the ground’ policy approach wouldn’t have made it to the trial balloon stage. An “existential threat” recognizing policy wouldn’t emphasize 2016 ‘Business as Usual” as the objective for action. Let’s hope that Heather Renee Zichal is correct and that Joe Biden will some come out with a robust, thoughtful, implementable, and aggressive climate policy like Jay Inslee has started to lay out.

================

As to “Biden’s informal advisor on climate change policy,” “cool, cool, no conflict of interest there“: