Tomorrow, assuming nothing untoward happens that cannot be rapidly overcome, the Trump presidency will end and the Biden presidency will begin. The hand-over will be a relief to many across the political spectrum, but the nation will still be deeply divided, and divided in a way that goes well beyond politics. We will still face multiple existential threats, grave challenges that some people frankly do not want to meet.
These challenges are, in no particular order:
- Converting to climate neutrality and environmental sustainability quickly
- Irrevocably dismantling white, male, cishet, “Christian” hegemony in favor of genuine pluralism (scare-quotes because I’m referring to something that has little to nothing to do with real Christian teachings)
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic and building protections against pandemics and disasters of the future.
President Biden will not be able to do all that alone. He will need Congress and may also need the courts. He will need a vast amount of skill, sensitivity, and grit, and he will need the support of the American people. It will be months or years before we find out if he can make meaningful, lasting progress on any part of his tall order.
But there are a few things he can do, by and of himself, with just a phone and a pen, that he plans to accomplish tomorrow or the next day. By the end of this week, we’ll know whether he’s serious.
Let’s look at the climate/environment part of his promises.
Mr. Biden’s Promises
Joe Biden made, like any other would-be president, campaign promises. Now, campaign promises are famous for being broken, even by elected officials operating entirely in good faith–the reality of office sometimes necessitates a change of plans. But Mr. Biden has also released more recent statements of his intentions for his first day and for his first hundred days, and for these he may expect to be held to account.
Three first-day climate-related executive orders have been promised recently:
- Rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement
- Cancel the permit necessary for the much-fought-over Keystone Pipeline
- Freeze implementation of any Trump-era environmental regulations that have not yet gone into effect. This will mean the older, stronger regulations will stay in force.
There is also vague mention of other climate-related executive orders to be signed in the period between four and ten days after inauguration–apparently he has released a detailed schedule for the first ten days, but I have not found any news site willing to simply publish that schedule rather than summarizing it.
Campaign promises for additional first-day actions include:
- Sign an executive order to create a plan whereby the US will be carbon-neutral by 2050
- Sign an executive order to “conserve 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030”
Climate-related campaign promises for the first hundred days include:
- Call a world summit in which to push world leaders to take stronger climate action, especially with respect to shipping and aviation
- Pressure China to stop subsidizing coal and “outsourcing pollution.” No, I’m not sure what sort of outsourcing that refers to.
There are also other steps he could take in his first hundred days, and may, but has not yet committed to.
So, What Does It Mean?
Most of Mr. Biden’s promises are either symbolic or preliminary–that does not make them unimportant, but it does shape the kind of importance they have. Let’s look at two of them.
Considering Paris
The Paris Climate Agreement is not actually climate action except in a vague and general sense. It never was. It is a statement of shared intention and mutual, ever-more ambitious goal-setting. It contains no legally-enforceable commitment to do anything, only a process whereby countries agree to be held politically accountable for the promises they make–perhaps something like how friends sometimes make mutual pacts to go to the gym regularly. Knowing your friends will be disappointed if you stay on the couch offers some motivation to exercise.
Though I don’t remember any international outcry of disappointment when President Trump pulled out of the agreement.
If all this sounds…rather weak, remember that it was the best we could do at the time. For the United States, ratification of a legally-binding treaty requires Senate approval, and at the time there was no way the Senate was going to approve of any climate action at all. And without the United States, the rest of the international community would not agree to be bound themselves. President Obama constructed the closest thing he could get to a climate agreement under the circumstances. It was meant to be a beginning, a foundation upon which more could be built.
So, what does rejoining Paris really mean? It does not specify any actions that reduce our emissions directly, it isn’t legally enforceable, and while it was designed to be “politically enforceable,” when Mr. Trump pulled out nobody enforced anything. So why rejoin?
Mr. Biden will rejoin for the same reason Mr. Trump left; to signal the direction of his loyalties.
Keystone
The Keystone XL Pipeline–remember that? I’ve written about it several times (here and here and here). The short version is that it is intended to transport Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast for international shipment, Republicans like it and Democrats and their allies do not, and because its route crosses an international border, the President of the United States has final authority on whether it can be built. President Obama said no. President Trump said yes. President Biden will say no again. This is not the sort of decision that’s meant to be re-made over and over again.
Keystone is a symbol, as I’ve discussed before–it’s not that the pipeline doesn’t matter, but it doesn’t matter as much to either side as the intensity of the rhetoric over the years suggests, in part because only a small part of the project, a short link, is really at issue. The rest of the pipeline system, for better or worse, has been operational for years. Mr. Obama knew that, and said no to the pipeline quite deliberately as a symbolic gesture in order to signal American leadership on climate. Mr. Trump began the process of reviving the project almost as soon as he took office, doubtless also for symbolic reasons.
Several years ago, I discussed what I see as the content of the symbol:
The Republican Party is trying to control the narrative, trying to be the one whose framing of events the public accepts. From that perspective, it is irrelevant whether Keystone XL helps the American economy and it is nearly irrelevant whether the pipeline even gets built. Votes in the House that go no place still count as strikes in the larger cultural war.
Why Keystone? Because liberals care about it.
Critics sometimes point out that for all the furor around the Keystone XL, other pipelines are being built across the country with little or no fuss. As a line in the sand, this one looks arbitrary to some. In point of fact, some of the other pipeline projects do receive a share of controversy, most people just never hear about it. Moreover, there is indeed a reason to focus on Keystone; out of all the pipeline projects, it is the one that President Obama has the power to say no to, because it crosses an international border. Mr. Obama constituency is the entire country and he is just one person. A national movement can speak to him in a way it couldn’t if final decisive power lay in the hands of dozens of state and local officials. And the President does actually pay attention to environmental issues. In order words, this one is winnable in a way that the fights over other pipelines may not be.
But all that being said, if KXL is defeated, a very large and multifaceted minority will celebrate a huge symbolic victory.
It seems likely that the Republican Party, which is very corporate-friendly, is trying to prevent that victory. They are also gunning for a national debate in which the economy represents the highest imaginable good, clean water and clean air are not considered relevant or important, and the homes, livelihoods, and families of farmers, ranchers, and indigenous peoples do not have meaningful standing.
If they achieve such a limitation of parameters, there are fights more important than one 36-inch pipeline that they can and will win.
Mr. Biden want to give “a very large and multifaceted minority” back its victory.
What’s in a Symbol?
There may be a temptation, in some quarters, to downplay Mr. Biden’s initial efforts as merely symbolic and therefore inadequate. Already I’ve seen posts on social media to the effect that Paris isn’t worth much anyway. But if Mr. Biden can’t enact symbols by executive order, there is little hope of his being able to do anything else. He is taking steps towards more substantive action–his nomination of John Kerry for the new position of Presidential Climate Envoy, part of the National Security Council–is a good indication. But that action is not going to come quickly or easily. We can assume it still faces real opposition.
The bottom line is we’re going to need to get involved. We need to provide the political support necessary to put climate action through both houses of Congress so it can’t be undone by executive order the next time the White House changes parties. And we need to do whatever it takes to make sure climate deniers do not take either house of Congress at the midterm.
Does that mean campaigning for Democrats? Maybe. But sooner or later we’re going to need a second party interested in climate action. We need something like the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt, a re-imagining and re-aligning of American Conservatism.
Frankly, I think now is a very good time for that.