There is no "moderate" position on climate change

Perhaps the most politically difficult aspect of climate change
is that, after decades of denial and delay, there is no longer
any coherent “moderate” position to be had.


To allow temperatures to rise past 1.5° or 2°C this century is to
accept unthinkable disruption to agriculture, trade, immigration,
public health, and basic social cohesion. To hold temperature
rise to less than 1.5° or 2°C this century will require enormous,
heroic decarbonization efforts on the part of every wealthy
country.


Either of those outcomes is, in its own way, radical. There is no
non-radical future available for the US in decades to come. Our
only choice is the proportions of the mix: action vs. impacts.
The less action we and other countries take to address the
threat, the more impacts we will all suffer.


Politicians who hamper the effort to decarbonize and increase
resilience are not moderates. They are effectively choosing a mix
of low action and high impacts — ever-worsening heat waves,
droughts, floods, and hurricanes. There is nothing moderate about
that, certainly nothing conservative.


For years, climate scientists, advocates, and activists have been
trying to get politicians to understand this about climate
change: that indifference and inaction are not neutral. Every day
that goes by, more damages are baked in and getting the problem
under control is more difficult. The cost of preventing future
impacts is tiny relative to the cost, in lives and money, of
adapting to them.


The only way to conserve what Americans love in this country is
to act aggressively to limit carbon emissions, commercialize
clean-energy technologies, and wind down fossil fuel production —
and help other countries to do the same. To do less means to
conserve less, to accept more loss.


Has the Democratic Party taken this message to heart? We’re going
to find out in coming weeks.


I’m going to describe some political forces that threaten to
limit or constrain Democrats’ climate ambitions in favor of
“moderation” and then take a closer look at the political drama
going on in DC these days around infrastructure. We’re about to
get an unusually clear test case of Democrats’ commitment to
climate policy.


The right is creating a new “other side” in the climate debate


Pretty much every demographic outside of hard-core conservatives
is concerned about climate change and wants to address it — most
notably young people, who aren’t exactly flocking to the GOP
these days. A few people on the right are belatedly and
begrudgingly recognizing this fact and its electoral
implications.


Lisa Friedman of The New York Times brings news of
a budding Republican climate caucus. The story is hilarious
and sad and worth reading, but here is the nut of it:


“There is a recognition within the G.O.P. that if the party is
going to be competitive in national elections, in purple states
and purple districts, there needs to be some type of credible
position on climate change,” said George David Banks, a former
adviser to President Trump …


So, at least some Republicans think science denialism is no
longer working and the party needs “some type of credible
position on climate change.” The question is, what is the minimum
viable position? What’s the least they can do while appearing to
do something?


Here is the party’s opening gambit:


A package of bills [House Minority Leader Kevin] McCarthy [R-CA]
introduced on Earth Day championed carbon capture, a nascent and
expensive technology that catches carbon emissions generated by
power plants or factories and stores them before they escape into
the atmosphere. It also promoted tree planting and expansion of
nuclear energy, a carbon-free power source that many Republicans
prefer over wind or solar energy.


Friedman rightly notes that these policies would do very little
to reduce emissions. But she also calls them “limited government,
free-market policies,” which is a bit of right-wing spin we ought
to reject. Carbon capture is entirely dependent on government
subsidies and regulatory support. So is nuclear power. So is
large-scale reforestation. These are all the very opposite of
limited government.


What unites these proposals is that they can plausibly be said to
address climate change in some way or another, but they do
nothing to limit or otherwise inconvenience GOP donors,
especially fossil fuel companies. In fact, carbon capture can be
viewed — and likely is viewed by Republicans — explicitly as a
bid to protect fossil fuels from climate policy.


Remember, the problem for which Republicans are solving is not
climate change but the need to be seen as having “some type of
credible position” on climate change, enough for suburban voters
to reassure themselves that the GOP is not unreasonable on the
issue — that there are once again two legitimate sides. 


Science denial looks ugly and extreme. But rhetoric about
“small-government solutions” that are more sensible than the “tax
and spend” Democratic alternatives? Well, that’s as soothing and
familiar as warm milk. 


It might be possible for Democrats, if they were united in their
message, to properly expose this Republican climate PR as the
fraud it is … but they are not united in their message. 


Manchin is helping position fossil-friendly policy as “the
center”


The majority of the Democratic Party, both voters and
legislators, is on board with an ambitious (if still
insufficient) climate plan. But on this issue, as on all others,
Democrats need total unanimity — it’s all 50 senators voting
together, or nothing passes.


So attention tends to focus on the most conservative Dems, the
swing votes, and their words carry added weight. 


Republicans want to pretend that climate change is just another
pollution problem and the solution is for fossil fuels to clean
up a little bit. They want to pretend that “innovation” can keep
fossil fuels going forever.


Democrats need to expose that as nonsense, but they can’t,
because Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is out there saying, “You
cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment. You can
innovate your way.”


Republicans want to pretend that coal can be saved, that it
can somehow find a way to compete in a decarbonizing world. 


Democrats need to expose that as nonsense, but they’ve got
Manchin out there whining that his fellow Democrats are “unfairly
targeting” coal.


Republicans want to pretend that decarbonizing the electricity
sector by 2035 (Biden’s timeline) is impossible.


Democrats need to expose that as nonsense, but they’ve got
Manchin out there “concerned” about Biden’s “aggressive”
timeline. 


Republicans want to pretend that climate isn’t a threat to the
financial system.


Democrats need to expose that as nonsense, but they’ve got
Manchin out there scolding big banks for adopting
zero-carbon goals. 


Democratic leadership has to tiptoe around all this stuff,
because everyone needs to keep Prince Manchin happy.


The result, though, is that in the eyes of the media,
the majority Democratic Party consensus on climate
change (as reflected in Biden’s climate plan!) becomes “the left”
in a debate with Manchin in “the center.” 


Are Democrats going to allow that to happen? The dynamic is going
to come to a head around the infrastructure bill. Let’s take a
look at the maneuvering taking place right now.


The bipartisan infrastructure plan is not a climate strategy


For weeks, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been
open about the fact that Democrats are pursuing a two-track
strategy on infrastructure legislation. A bipartisan Senate “gang
of ten,” including Manchin, is working on a bipartisan bill;
whatever doesn’t make it into that bill will go into a bill meant
to pass through budget reconciliation (which only requires 50
votes).


This has always been a tenuous strategy, but it was apparently
unavoidable, because Manchin and his crew of centrists refused to
proceed straight to reconciliation. They were determined to do
the bipartisan dance that has eaten up the past few weeks.


Last week, the bipartisan group presented an outline of a plan.
It would involve $1.2 trillion total spending — about half of the
$2.25 trillion in Biden’s infrastructure plan — and just $579
billion in new spending. Democrats fought off Republican efforts
to impose a special fee on electric vehicles and raise the gas
tax to pay for the bill. Republicans fought off Democratic
efforts to pay for it by rolling back Trump tax cuts. They’re
still not sure how they’re going to pay for it.


As for climate, the plan has … some stuff. There’s $73 billion
for power system infrastructure (HVDC lines!), which is, the
White House claims, “the single largest investment in clean
energy transmission in American history.” There’s $49 billion for
public transit, $66 billion for rail, $7.5 billion for electric
vehicle chargers, and another $7.5 billion for electric buses.


It’s better than nothing, and more than a Republican Congress
would offer. It’s a small down payment on the investments in
clean energy infrastructure that will be needed in the future.


But it’s not a climate plan. Not even in the ballpark.


A real climate plan will include a reconciliation-friendly clean
energy standard (CES), clean energy tax credits, a civilian
climate corps, investments in frontline communities, and the rest
of the climate commitments in Biden’s jobs plan. That’s where the
reconciliation bill comes in.


Of course, climate isn’t the only issue competing for inclusion
in that bill. At this point, every Democratic interest group is
lining up to have its priorities included. Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) has put together a $6 trillion bill as an opening gambit.


Politico captures the conventional wisdom: “The dollar amount …
is likely to shrink as moderates weigh in. At the moment, it
appears impossible that all 50 Democrats would get on board with
such a large figure.”


Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are typically seen as the
ones with leverage, since their votes will be needed for any
reconciliation bill. And they are already making noise that the
Democratic plan is too big. Something blah blah deficit
something.


But there’s a twist.


Progressives throw their weight around


Progressives have been trying to exercise a little leverage of
their own. They are insisting that the bipartisan bill not be
passed on its own, without being linked to the reconciliation
bill. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “It has to be one deal
and not two deals.” Sanders said, “It's going to be either both
or nothing.”


They want an “ironclad” pledge from Schumer that both bills will
get a vote before they commit to the first. And so far, Schumer
has said he is committed to doing both. "One can't be done
without the other,” he said.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been similarly categorical:


No, really.


This message extended all the way to the top. Even as he
introduced the bipartisan package, Biden said:


I expect that in the coming months this summer, before the fiscal
year is over, that we will have voted on this bill, the
infrastructure bill, as well as voted on the budget resolution.
But if only one comes to me, [if] this is the only one that comes
to me, I’m not signing it. It’s in tandem.


Republicans immediately pretended to be surprised and outraged by
Biden’s commitment to pass both bills. Some of them threatened to
bail on the bipartisan package.


In response to the faux outrage, Biden clarified that he was not
threatening a veto or linking the bills.


It is entirely possible — some might even say thuddingly
predictable — that Republicans were never negotiating in good
faith and that the whole point of the exercise was to waste time
and foster division among Democrats.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to prevent a
reconciliation bill. The bipartisan process was a way to blunt
Democrats’ momentum and slow things down. I expect he will be
perfectly willing to blow up the deal if it no longer serves that
purpose.


The question is what Manchin and Sinema will do if their
bipartisan deal falls apart. At that point, both they and the
progressives on the other side of the coalition will face the
same stark choice: find a reconciliation bill that can get 50
votes … or get nothing, and be known forever as the people who
tanked Biden’s presidency and denied Democrats their only chance
for structural change in a decade.


The stakes are incredibly high. Schumer is promising a “unity
budget” that will bring Democrats together, but strains are
showing already.


Exactly what and how much climate policy will be in the
reconciliation bill will be hashed out in coming weeks.


A campaign (from the Sunrise Movement and Evergreen Action)
called “No Climate, No Deal” has been endorsed by a dozen
Democratic senators and 38 reps. But it’s not clear what minimum
threshold counts as enough climate to get their vote.


This is where the battle between climate “moderation” and climate
realism is going to be fought. Manchin will be angling to blunt
the parts of Biden’s climate plan that directly displace fossil
fuels. But those are the most important parts.


It will be up to progressives to walk a tightrope, rejecting
false moderation and insisting on an appropriately ambitious
climate plan without tanking the deal entirely. Finding unity and
holding it together against what is certain to be a full-on
right-wing assault is a fraught undertaking, to say the least.


The pressure in DC to do less, to compromise and scale back, is
insidious and inexorable. But this is the moment of truth for
climate change in US politics. If big stuff doesn’t happen now,
it’s not going to happen for a long, long time.


No climate, no deal.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other
subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
www.volts.wtf/subscribe