According to the Financial Times:
Joe Biden – armed with a commanding lead in the polls ahead of November's US presidential election – now promises a root-and-branch overhaul of the American energy system that will put climate change at its heart and which one worried industry adviser describes as “a Tet offensive” on the fossil fuels industry.
You don't have to call that a Green New Deal, of course, but it smells like one to me. The FT adds that there are risks:
The plan, which will be aired again at the Democratic party convention this week, earmarks $2tn in spending over the next four years to use climate policy to drag the economy out of its pandemic-era recession. But Mr Biden's plans for the energy sector would reach into everything from Middle East geopolitics to the global race with China over clean tech and is likely to prove unpopular among parts of the US electorate – dependent on oil and gas for jobs – in an election year.
And there is a political imperative to this:
It stems from an urgency about climate change that has animated much of his party – especially the younger supporters he will need to mobilise. And is made possible by a coming together of factors: drastic falls in clean-energy costs, rapid technological progress, and the devastation of the pandemic, which makes even a $2tn plan seem politically viable.
What the FT never really mentions is that there is no choice on this issue, not if we want to survive that is. The big picture is lost by their coverage, which is quite remarkable. Instead they sweat the small stuff, noting that:
Critics say [the plan] will destroy the country's world-beating oil and gas industry – a claim that has forced Biden supporters in shale heartlands to insist local economies will be secured. The plan, they say, will resurrect American manufacturing and the country's leadership – and, by including elements of the Green New Deal supported by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, satisfies the Democratic party's leftwing without scaring its middle.
Again, this ignores the fact that shale is destroying itself. Not only are renewables cheaper now, but shale delivery is over shorter time spans than forecast, fundamentally undermining is economics. It isn't taking Biden to undermine shale: it's simply not viable.
That, the rapidly falling cost of renewables and the possibility of funding the transition at net zero interest cost is what really makes this shift possible. As the FT notes:
“It's hard to overstate how far Joe Biden's Democratic party has shifted on fossil fuels, especially natural gas, in just four years,” says Bob McNally, a former adviser in the George W Bush White House and now head of Rapidan Energy Group. “A Biden victory would unleash a Tet offensive against the US oil and gas sector.”
That the change has happened is true. But there is no offensive, with or without the military overtones. There's just a will to survive, thank goodness.
This battle is not over yet.
I have no idea if Biden will really deliver.
But that this is on the agenda is good news. We need a Green New Deal around the world, and we need it now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think it is right to talk about/plan how local economies will be supported through the green transition. UK does not burn much coal anymore which is good but the old coal fields are still some of the most deprived regions of the UK which is not good. Without a plan, when you destroy the industry of a community you do not just destroy the lives of one generation but of many generations to come.
Agreed
The GND attempts to create jobs in every constituency for that very reason
A majority of former miners would be either retired by now, or very much nearing it.
What would the jobs be in every constituency?
The South Wales Valleys for example, what jobs, long term jobs, could be created in the likes of Merthyr Tydfil that doesn’t require a 52 minute average commute to Cardiff?
What are the statistics for migration elsewhere in the 18-25 demographic for for similar areas?
Putting solar in everywhere possible
And triple glazing where it is not
Etc
Nothing wrong with that.
But that will only last so long and there are too many vested interests.
What, for example is stopping all new house builds from having solar and GS or AS heat pumps?
If any councils are still responsible for housing stock, I take it they are unable to borrow to install the above on their houses.
There is also the problem of skills, many people are not suitable for those jobs, a national strategy is needed for them, along with so called commuter towns and historically deprived areas.
Not just with regards to employment, but health and education also.
All that is agreed
All have been addressed in GND documents
Reskilling is clearly key
Well, according to Fox News 😉 Trump is catching up on sleepy Joe. yes, tongue in cheek.
I think that many Americans feel like we felt in the last UK election – two unpalatable choices. But if Biden can put his butt in gear and really get behind a growth agenda – jobs, better jobs, better economy, forward looking, the Democrats could pull it off. Being America the need is to put the emphasis on growth rather than climate. Climate still wins, but is secondary for presentation purposes.
We live in hope.
Prentii
Growth in the “green” sector yes, but growth across the who economy????
Yes, I believe we need to transition to a green/sustainable economy and if Biden is going to create a GND, that’s great news.
(But we also need to see the whole fossil fuel industry contract massively and eventually disappear.)
I’m not sure that exponential growth is going to tackle climate change though?
What is your definition of “growth”?
I’ll offer mine
It is doing more for each other
It does not require making for for each other
Indeed, it may well require less of that
@Vinnie
The US has very poor infrastructure, housing, healthcare, education, dubious agricultural practices, bad utilities including energy and especially water. There are plenty of useful employment possibilities, many of which can be positive on climate. The American people can be persuaded that a simpler, healthier life is possible – as could we in the UK.
But, where they are at the moment, there is (in my view) a need to utilise a growth message in order to get enough backing for GND type policies.
Prentii and Richard.
I agree that all that work needs doing but the economy can’t stop there. It needs to grow and grow and grow!!!
AND NEVER STOP GROWING!!!!!
Two thirds of UK GDP is through consumer spending. We need to cut back on that consumption, take less flights, use less fossil fuels to stop climate change but still find non consumptive growth through some other activity to keep the economy from meltdown.
And keep finding it. Ever more of it.
All this with a world population that is set to plateau in 2060. So no more growth through an expanding population.
Without that exponential growth, the economy faulters.
No growth means banks can no longer lend. (Where is the interest on a loan coming from?) There is no longer a need for an ever expanding money supply.
These are the problems of our times.
Climate change coming up against an economic model that at its core needs exponential growth.
Climate change will win!
A green transition means a jobs transition and Biden will have to give reassurance to those currently dependent on fossil fuel consumption jobs he will be mindful of their income needs.
Agreed
And so he really does have to do a GND with jobs in every county
This Biden energy plan could be called many things, but not green. It contains commitment to support the next generation of nuclear power plants. Nuckear is the exact opposite of green, is far from low carbon, and money/intellectual resources/ humans and technical skills, invested in nuclear does not get invested in energy efficiency or a mixed renewables Portfolio.
After this most embarrassing of Presidencies – I hope that the Democrats will take this as an opportunity to be braver and put some clear blue water between themselves and the Republicans.
However, the US electoral college system may yet have something to say about this – again.
1 person, 1 vote is sorely needed – the system needs simplifying in my view.
He won’t deliver. He is a corporate shill who will say anything to get elected. Nothing will happen, nothing will change. Yes he is better than Trump but that is still way off beam.
@Gordon – possibly, but it is all they have at this stage. And, if he has laid out his stall on GND, there can be progress. The US has some very good stuff happening despite Trump.
Give the guy a break! It is day one of his crowning Convention. If he becomes President, let us look whom he appoints Energy Secretary; science advisor; and head if the EPA. That will be a better indicator than his manifesto and Convention grandstanding. He should offer Michelle Obama a job immediately: what an asset she would be for any Democrat President
Gordon. Given his age Biden may well be a one term president since health issues may intervene. He may even have to cut short his term. This means that Kamala Harris will takeover for what’s left of his term. Indeed that may well be a secret agreement reached between Biden and Harris that he might go during his first term at a date which will give Harris sufficient time to establish her leadership credentials in time for the next presidential election. So policy wise it’s not clear cut and there’s a need to examine what Kamal Harris’s policy positions are as well as Biden’s.
As far as government having money of its own the Republican Party doesn’t have a leg to stand on that it doesn’t given Trump’s “Supply-Side” tax breaks for the rich and Congress’s economy bail-out on the coronavirus pandemic. So this ought not to be an issue with Kamala Harris. You can’t of course rely on many dim-witted voters understanding this and falling for the same old clap-trap just like British voters that government doesn’t have money of its own and vote Republican when they wheel out this rhetoric to win the presidential election. We’re still in age of serfdom mentality as far as many voters are concerned!
Gordon. Given his age Biden may well be a one term president since health issues may intervene. He may even have to cut short his term. This means that Kamala Harris will takeover for what’s left of his term. Indeed that may well be a secret agreement reached between Biden and Harris that he might go during his first term at a date which will give Harris sufficient time to establish her leadership credentials in time for the next presidential election. So policy wise it’s not clear cut and there’s a need to examine what Kamal Harris’s policy positions are as well as Biden’s.
As far as government having money of its own the Republican Party doesn’t have a leg to stand on given Trump’s “Supply-Side” tax breaks for the rich and Congress’s economy bail-out on the coronavirus pandemic. So this ought not to be an issue with Kamala Harris. You can’t of course rely on many dim-witted voters understanding this and falling for the same old clap-trap, just like British voters, that government doesn’t have money of its own and vote Republican when they wheel out this rhetoric to win the presidential election. We’re still in age of serfdom mentality as far as many voters are concerned!
Slightly off topic, but I see Trudeau has some intention to shift the economy towards renewables. In Alberta they extract oil from tar sands – they call them oil sands but tar is a better descriptor – it is an expensive process and environmentally disastrous. It created a boom some years ago and now is all but bust. I hope Trudeau can move the renewables forward in Canada.
My points, I guess, is that there is much more appetite and willingness to move into GND territory.
I noticed
And I hope so too
While the Canadian federal premier may be making some progressive noises on green energy, the key political actors, the provincial governors are ball signing up to a ludicrously optimistic fact free hubristic pact to collaborate on installing dozens of untested and untried so-called Small Modular Reactors. An absurdly planned collective disaster of mega economic proportions in the making
The Tar Sands looks like Mordor.