While the US president has won some climate victories abroad, domestic action has been hampered by the Senate, the courts, and rising fuel prices.
On 20 January 2021, Joe Biden took to a stage that had only recently been vacated by rioters, declared that the world faces “a climate in crisis” and asked: “Are we going to step up?”
So has he? We asked Climate Home News readers and politicians from around the world how they rated the US president’s performance. The reviews were mixed.
Readers were disappointed. Our 122 survey respondents gave an average score 4.8 out 10
Mozambique-based conservationist Allan Schwarz called him “just another wet fish flopping about at the whim of big business” while Alaskan fisherman David Beebe complained “Joe’s climate dawgs don’t hunt”.
Swiss professor Francisco Szekely gave Biden more credit, saying “his words and promises were followed by immediate actions”. Israel-based Phyllis Butler Posy said: “Considering the challenges and the Senate stonewalling his appointments, he has done WAY WAY better than could be humanly expected!”
While China’s foreign ministry rarely misses an opportunity to bash the US record, international politicians from allied countries are fairly sympathetic towards Biden. Perhaps because they know from experience the limits of executive power, want to stay in Biden’s good books or are simply relieved they don’t have to deal with Trump.
Climate Home News spoke to current and former environment ministers from Sweden, Pakistan and Canada and Nigeria’s foremost climate MP. Biden and John Kerry, his climate envoy, were not criticized by any of the participants.
At home, Biden’s flagship climate legislation has been blocked by his own senators and early attempts to cut oil and gas production have been abandoned under pressure from the courts and rising fuel prices.
Biden has doubled climate finance and doubled it again – but the US still gives less than its fair share, by many analyses. It’s used its influence to push other countries for more ambition and sign up over 100 nations to pursue cuts to methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Setting targets – A
Biden set a goal for the US to reduce its carbon emissions by 50-52% between 2005- 2030 in April 2021.
This was a tremendous increase in ambition, compared to his predecessors. The Barack Obama administration’s target was 26-28% between 2005 and 2025 and Donald Trump didn’t have a target.
It just about met campaigners’ demands. Paris Agreement architect Laurence Tubiana had called for at least 50% and “ideally more” while Climate Action Tracker asked for at least 52%.
It is more difficult to cut than other developed countries. Analysis from Carbon Brief shows that, from a 2018 baseline, it’s a 52% reduction. That’s more than the UK’s 46%, EU’s 41%, South Korea’s 40% and Japan’s 39% .
We’ve now had four big new climate goals announced
UK -68% lower than 1990
EU -55% below 1990
US -52% Below 2005
JP -46% Below 2013Who is the most ambitious?
Depends on the baseline…
1990 UK>EU>US>JP
2005 UK>US>EU>JP
2013 UK>US>EU>JP
2018 US>UK>EU>JP pic.twitter.com/0RGdIt5H3e— Simon Evans (@DrSimEvans) April 22, 2021
However, the US’s emissions are enormous after decades of inaction. Critics argue that 50% reductions in US emissions from 2018 could be sufficient for countries like the UK which has seen a rapid decline in its emissions up to 2018, but not the US.
Think tanker Tim Gore pointed outAfter a 50% reduction in emissions, the average citizen of the United States would still have more carbon footprint by 2030 than a citizen from the EU.
But Biden isn’t responsible for these historic failures. He has to work from the starting point he’s given and 50% is a pretty impressive target.
He’s also aiming for a carbon-free power sector by 2035, the same date as the UK, Germany and Canada. As less than 40% of the US’s electricity is carbon-free, that’s a steep climb.
Climate legislation – D
This is a real A for effort and F for accomplishment. Biden came to power promising a “clean energy revolution” and tried to make this happen with a huge infrastructure bill. Climate analysts said it matched the ambition of the US’ 2030 climate target.
With a Senate majority of only one, he needed the votes of every Democratic senator to pass his bill. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Silena were the only senators who refused to vote, and ambition was hampered in the ensuing negotiations.
Biden divided the bill into two parts. One, the bipartisan framework for infrastructure, was passed with some Republican support.
This $550bn bill provided funding for electric vehicles and rail, but also roads, bridges, airport expansion and roads. Analysis from Princeton University found this bill would cause only a “nominal [emissions] reduction below existing policy”.
To get close to reaching its climate targets, the analysis suggests, the US needs to pass the other part of Biden’s infrastructure package, known as Build Back Better (BBB).
After months of negotiations, pro coal senator Manchin went on Fox News December 2 to declare that he would not vote in support of BBB, regardless how watered down it was.
Until October, Catherine Mckenna was Canada’s infrastructure and communities minister. She told Climate Home News that the BBB was “very important. It’s the cornerstone”.
Asked if the US can meet its new climate targets without it, she said: “I think they need to get the BBB. But I think they know that and they’re working really hard to make it happen in some shape or form.”
Climate Home News was told by Lena Ek, former Swedish environment minister, that she sympathizes with Biden as she has been in the same position of having to rely only on one or two votes. “It’s not easy,” she said.
As one UK-based Climate Home News reader summarised: “He has failed to turn [good intentions] into concrete measures, thanks to the precarious nature of his majority, the self-interest of a couple of pivotal Democrats and the vagaries of the US political system.”
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground – D
A few months into Biden’s term of office, a bombshell International Energy Agency (IEA) report said that if the world’s energy system is to reach net zero by 2050 then there should be no new fossil fuel production.
Biden would have felt vindicated at that point for his efforts to curtail the growth of the oil industry. On his first day of office, he cancelled a permit from the government that would have allowed construction of Keystone XL. The pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from the tar sands of Alberta in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast.
Biden cancelled the February auction of oil and gas leases for the Gulf of Mexico. At the time, Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director with the Center for Biological Diversity said: “Biden understands the urgent need to keep this oil in the ground.”
In June, a Louisiana judge called Terry Doughty ordered the Biden administration to end a pause on oil licensing on public lands and waters because “millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake”.
The administration auctioned off a portion of the Gulf of Mexico that was the same size as Nigeria in September. The sales could eventually result in 1.1 Billion barrels of crude oil being sold and 4.4 Trillion cubic feet of gas being burned.
EgyptCop27 climate talks to be led by Sameh Shoukry (external minister)
A fierce debate has erupted since then about whether Biden was required to do as Doughty asked.
Administration legal advice emerged claiming the court order “enjoins” and “restrains ” the government from pausing oil and gas leases but does not “compel” them to auction them “let alone on the urgent timeline specified”.
Replying to our survey, attorney turned Mid-Western farmer Deborah Wendt said: “A big reason Biden is disappointing in his climate actions are the oil leases in the Gulf that he allowed to happen. He was not legally forced to do so, as he claimed. He could have delayed that process for years.”
Biden’s desire to restrain oil and gas production may have been tempered by rising fuel prices. The US has the highest number of vehicles per capita than any other country, and its voters are sensitive about high fuel prices.
Biden asked the OPEC group, which is made up of oil producers, to pump more oil shortly after Cop26. He then released some of the US’s own strategic oil reserves and persuaded other countries to do the same. All this was to lower the oil price – reducing the incentive to switch to cleaner alternatives.
In addition to the emissions from their products, the oil-and-gas industry also releases emissions from extracting their oil and natural gas.
In April, the US announced that they would be hosting a forum for oil and natural gas producers countries to reduce their carbon emissions without reducing their production. The Net Zero Producers Forum received skepticism at first and has not held a meeting since.
Climate finance – C
A key and accepted principle of international climate cooperation is that the countries who disproportionately caused the problem and have the money help those who didn’t and don’t.
In 2008, wealthy countries committed to climate finance by 2020. They pledged $100 billion per year. Collectively, they’ve failed to meet this goal and US stinginess is the main reason why.
The US gave $1.8 billion in 2017-2018. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) estimates the country’s fair share of $100bn is $43bn.
Biden has made some progress in rectifying this. In April, he doubled US climate financing from Obama-era levels up to $5.7bn.
He doubled the amount to $11.4 billion per year by 2024 after being called out by the president of European Commission in September. Biden claimed this would “make the US a leader in international climate finance”.
Biden is far from being a leader; he has made the US less of an laggard. The $11.4bn pledged by 2024 is significantly less than the $11.2bn Japan gave in 2017-2018. The majority of European countries give more in proportion to their size.
At Cop26, Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry used the doubling of finance to justify blocking developing countries‘ call for a share of revenue from voluntary and bilateral carbon trading be provided to the Adaptation Fund.
In Glasgow, the US opposed developing countries’ call for a funding facility to help vulnerable nations respond to the loss and damages inflicted by an overheating climate.
Nigerian MP Sam Onuigbo said: “Perhaps [Biden] has not done enough for Africa but he has raised hopes and there is a new impetus in climate change issues.”
Fossil fuel finance – A
Biden also funded more clean energy in the world, while also limiting US funding of dirty energy, which could put at risk the gas-fired power stations in South Africa or Thailand.
In August, the US Treasury instructed its representatives at multilateral development banks to prioritise clean energy and “only consider fossil fuels if [cleaner options] are unfeasible”.
Maria Pastukhova, of think tank E3G, called this move “a game-changer in making public fossil finance phaseout a new global norm”.
At Cop26, the US joined a UK-led promise not to finance unabated oil and coal projects in other nations by the end 2022.
Diplomacy – A
All governments around the world sighed relief when Biden signed the Paris Agreement on his second day in office.
Pakistan’s climate minister Malik Amin told Climate Home News that Biden “pushed to quickly fill the climate leadership vacuum that had been created by the unceremonious exit from the Paris agreement by his predecessor”.
Biden organized an Earth Day climate summit in March. Canada and Japan both announced better climate targets. South Korea also pledged to stop coal finance from abroad.
Catherine McKenna, Canada’s infrastructure minister at the time, told Climate Home News: “That summit… was useful in getting countries to increase ambition and the US played a very important role.”
In terms of personnel, Biden got the band back together, hiring Obama’s secretary of state John Kerry as his climate envoy. While the 78-year-old’s appointment didn’t excite everybody in the youthful US climate movement, Kerry is well liked and well connected abroad.
Ek was pleased to see the officials she had worked alongside, like Sue Biniaz, a top lawyer, back in power. “A constructive negotiation team in place again,” she said.
Kerry even has relatively good relations with the US’s geopolitical adversary China, the world’s biggest polluter. To rekindle old ties, the Chinese government brought Xie Zhenhua, a veteran diplomat, out of retirement after Kerry’s appointment.
Both sides continued to have bilateral discussions, and at Cop26, a combined agreement to cooperate in climate action.
Perhaps the crowning achievement of Kerry’s year of diplomacy was the Cop26 methane pledge. Over 100 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% between 2020-2030, which is a polluting greenhouse gas.
All the promises made by the US are only as good and effective as the actions they take. But, targets are only the first step.
Migration – B
One test of solidarity with climate change’s victims is whether you let them rebuild their lives in your country. The US presidents have avoided this divisive and emotive topic in the past.
One month into his administration, Biden tasked his National Security Adviser with looking into “options for protection and resettlement of individuals displaced directly or indirectly from climate change”.
People from Central America are most affected by this, as they are more frequently being hit with severe hurricanes, droughts, and floods. While most migrate towards their countries’ big cities, some head north to the USA.
At the time, Refugees International’s climate displacement manager Kayly Ober said this order was “extraordinary”.
Now though, she’s disappointed. “When the report was released more than two months late, the Biden administration failed to articulate a clear, full-throated policy vision,” she said.
“The main recommendation of the report was to establish an interagency working group that would continue to grapple with this issue,” she added. “To date, we haven’t gotten an update on the scope and direction of that working group.”
When vice-president Kamala Harris visited Guatemala in June, she told would-be irregular migrants: “Do not come”. The “root causes strategy” she fronted did mention climate change and extreme weather but did not include it as one of the strategy’s so-called five pillars.
Emissions – Unclassified
One simple way to judge Biden is by how much greenhouse gas has gone into the atmosphere while he’s been in charge.
Analysis from the Rhodium Group suggests that 2021’s US greenhouse gas emissions were 6% higher than 2020.
China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin seized on these figures to undermine the US’s criticisms of China’s rising emissions.
In a press conference, he said: “The US should not get too preoccupied with what’s happening in the neighboring farm to neglect its own crops.
He added: “It should stop playing the old trick of saying a lot but doing a little or merely paying lip service and instead join the doers with concrete action”.
Climate Home News readers noticed it too. Giving Biden a one out of ten, Stan Ferguson from Australia said: “Emissions have increased and will continue to increase.”
The 2021 figure is still 5% lower than 2019’s pre-pandemic levels. This 2019 figure was labelled the “lowest carbon ever” by a boastful Donald Trump.
These emissions figures are a reflection of the response to Covid more than climate policies. Biden can’t take credit for the fall from 2019 and he shouldn’t be blamed for the rise from 2020.
Emissions from power and transportation fell in 2020, but rebounded only partially by 2021. Rising gas prices led us to switch to more carbon-intensive coal.
Without a pandemic-free year under his belt, it’s too early to say if Biden is delivering the structural change needed to decarbonise America.
Source: Climate Change News
