Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

U.S. Uses COP26 to Signal Leadership on Climate, but More Action Needed

The reactions are pouring in following the closing of the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow. Generally, while some progress was made, the news across the board is that not enough was accomplished to keep the planet under the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold necessary to stave off climate catastrophe. There was, however, a  noticeable shift from years’ past: the U.S. presence.

President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement on his first day in office, fulfilling a campaign promise immediately and noting to the world, “The U.S. is back.” At the meetings in Glasgow, it was clear the Biden administration wanted to show this return to global leadership by sending an extensive contingency to represent the U.S. government. In addition to Biden’s Climate Envoy John Kerry, 12 cabinet members and senior administration officials were tapped, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and less public-facing office heads from the White House Office of Science and Technology and National Economic Council.

In addition to the cohort from the Biden administration, climate action advocates from the House of Representatives were present, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Green New Deal author Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and long-time environmental champion Earl Blumenauer.

The U.S. was concerted in its effort to send its top brass, but the symbolism didn’t necessarily court the favor of other countries. That’s because despite the U.S.’s pledge to cut emissions in half by 2030, there are few policies in place that would actually achieve this goal. 

For the U.S. to meet its climate commitments, it will need to administer unprecedented levels of coordination between the Biden administration, federal agencies, state and local entities, and the private sector. According to climate scientists, faster and more ambitious reductions in global GHG emissions, beyond what has been agreed to by countries, will be needed to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis. Still, meeting these modest commitments will test the strength and capacity of the whole-of-government and institutions. Greater accountability and improved capacity for accurate emissions tracking will also be needed to make sure the outcomes commitments and agreements between nations are meaningful. 

Also making its rounds in the news circuits is President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, which he signed into law after the close of the Glasgow meetings. This $1 trillion dollar investment in the country’s roads, bridges, water, and broadband infrastructure represents to the rest of the world America’s initial down payment on its climate commitments. However, neither this law, nor the larger spending package that is anticipated, commit the country strongly enough to reduce fossil fuel emissions or address climate change mitigation. 

Ultimately, whether the U.S. can make good its international commitments, as well as fulfill the Build Back Better agenda and deliver 40 percent of the benefits of all federal investments to disadvantaged communities, will depend on planning and implementation actions undertaken by state and local governments. While the U.S. did commit in Glasgow to address methane emissions and to double its climate financing support for adaptation in vulnerable nations, U.S. negotiators fell short of committing to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which are instead extended in both the infrastructure law and budget reconciliation. 

With no national legislation on climate, weak international commitments that lack provisional details, and federal regulatory changes that will take time to implement, states and local governments will need to continue to lead on climate action with innovative plans and implementation strategies. 

Bolder climate actions can be found in Biden’s Build Back Better plan, which may reach the House floor before Thanksgiving. If the current draft of proposal is approved, the plan would represent the largest investment in climate action to date, including historic investments in clean energy development ($320 billion), additions and upgrades to the electric grid to improve resiliency ($5.5 billion), tax credits and incentives for interstate transmission lines ($800 million), electric vehicle infrastructure ($7.5 billion), and development of new low-carbon ($30 billion), carbon capture ($4 billion), and hydrogen ($8 billion) technologies. 

Despite President Biden’s bold climate commitments, his administration and Congress have much more work to address climate change and to make climate justice a reality. One international delegate at the Glasgow meetings told NPR, “America is a bipolar actor with two forces. And each take turns driving, and they're going in different directions.” 

The divide between parties remains vast, but the bipartisan infrastructure bill shows that both Republicans and Democrats can cooperate to build back better and steer in a positive direction. We urge our elected officials to do so before it’s too late.

Showing 2,828 results

Catalina Gonzalez, Maggie Dewane | November 18, 2021

U.S. Uses COP26 to Signal Leadership on Climate, but More Action Needed

Despite President Biden’s bold climate commitments at home and COP26, his administration and Congress have much more work to address climate change and to make climate justice a reality.

Emily Ranson, Marcha Chaudry | November 16, 2021

Maryland Matters Op-ed: Learning Lessons to Protect Workers through Pandemics

Although vaccination rates continue to rise and coverage on COVID-19 is fading away from prominent news dashboards, our rates are still higher than in summer 2020. While we still adapt to living and working with COVID-19, we must prepare for future public health emergencies so we do not lose another year figuring out our response.

Daniel Farber | November 15, 2021

Aggregating the Harms of Fossil Fuels

Our system of environmental regulation divides up regulation of a single substance based on each of its environmental impacts. Thus, the regulatory system sees the "trees," not the "forest." That muddies the waters when we are talking about regulatory priorities, strategies, and long-term goals. It can also lead to framing issues in ways that may weaken environmentalist arguments, since the various harms of a substance or activity get fragmented into different silos. Fossil fuels are a case in point.

Richard Pierce, Jr. | November 11, 2021

The Need to Change Jurisdiction Over the U.S. Electric Grid

Effective climate change mitigation depends critically on the ability to substitute electricity for gasoline as the primary transportation fuel and to substitute carbon-free fuels for fossil fuels as the country’s primary source of electricity. But the nation’s electricity transmission grid is woefully inadequate to accomplish these important tasks, and the U.S. regulatory system renders it impossible for regulators and clean energy advocates to implement the necessary expansion of grid capacity. Most sources of carbon-free electricity are located a long distance away from the places where most people live and work. Studies indicate that the United States can provide carbon-free electricity to major population centers only by adding transmission lines to the grid.

Daniel Farber | November 8, 2021

The Climate Bill Inside the Infrastructure Bill

Late Friday, the House passed President Biden's infrastructure bill, the Build Back Better law. As The Washington Post aptly observed, the bill is the biggest climate legislation to ever move through Congress. It also attracted key support from some Republicans, which was essential to passing it in both houses of Congress. Biden is pushing for an even bigger companion bill, but the infrastructure bill is a huge victory in its own right. One major area of spending is transportation. Some of that goes for roads and bridges. But as The Washington Post reports, there's a lot of money for rail and mass transit.

Daniel Farber | November 4, 2021

Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine

Unless you're deeply immersed in administrative law, you may not have heard of the major questions doctrine. It's a legal theory that conservative judges have used with increasing rigor to block important regulatory initiatives. The doctrine places special obstacles on agency regulation of issues of "major economic and political significance."

Minor Sinclair | October 28, 2021

A Turning Point on Climate — and for the Center for Progressive Reform

Our society has finally reached a turning point on climate. I’m not referring to the “point of irreversibility” about which the United Nations warns us: In nine short years, the cascading impacts of climate change will trigger more and greater impacts -- to the point of no return. Rather, we have reached the turning point of political will for climate action. There is no going back to climate passivity or denialism. Choosing to electrify and greenify is a progressive agenda, a mainstream agenda, and an industry agenda -- though all of these agendas differ.

Daniel Farber | October 25, 2021

Cost-Benefit Analysis: FAQs

Cost-benefit analysis is required for all major regulations. It's also highly controversial, as well as being a mysterious procedure unless you're an economist. These FAQs will tell you what you need to know about how cost-benefit analysis (CBA) fits into the regulatory process, how it works, and why it's controversial.

Amy Sinden | October 19, 2021

The Shaky Legal and Policy Foundations of Cost-Benefit Orthodoxy in Environmental Law

In the actual work of crafting the regulatory safeguards that protect our environment and health, cost-benefit analysis has been largely ineffectual and irrelevant. Indeed, its ineffectiveness has been so profound as to prompt even its most ardent practitioners and proponents to question whether it has any impact on agency decisions at all. Meanwhile, it plays at best a minor role in the legal standards that actually govern agency decision-making. Despite all this, a certain cost-benefit orthodoxy has become remarkably entrenched in environmental policy circles. Especially in an era when so many progressive ideas are in ascendance, why does the idea of regulatory review based on cost-benefit analysis have such staying power?