Image: Joe Biden via Facebook
Given it looks like Trump has been fired from the USA’s top job, what does President-elect Joe Biden’s “build back better” approach hold in terms of renewable energy and addressing climate change?
The saying goes:
“When America sneezes, the whole world catches a cold”
While these days it may catch something else and the USA’s influence is arguably waning as China rises1; its actions will still profoundly affect politics, business, policy and culture around the world for the foreseeable future – including right here in the good old US of Australia.
Biden On Climate Change
Joe Biden believes in climate change, stating there is no greater challenge facing his country and the world. This acknowledgement is a very good start. Among the damage wreaked by Trump was his decision to exit the Paris Agreement, with the exit formally occurring on November 4. That day, Joe Biden tweeted:
“Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly 77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it.”
As to whether this will be achieved or how fast it will occur will depend on how the battle for the US Senate pans out.
The ultimate goal of Joe Biden’s climate plan is to ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. Within the first year of his presidency, he will demand Congress enacts legislation establishing an enforcement mechanism including milestone targets that will be established no later than the end of his first term in 2025.
There are some controversial aspects in his plan, including a desire to make carbon capture and storage (CCS), referred to as carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), a widely available, cost-effective, and rapidly scalable solution. Aside from CCS’s viability still being hotly debated, it’s akin to sweeping dirt under the rug and could unnecessarily extend the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Biden On Renewables
The “100% clean energy economy” Biden will strive for isn’t just renewables. Nuclear energy will continue to have a seat at the table, with one of the aims being developing small modular reactors at half the construction cost of today’s reactors.
On the renewable energy front, President-elect Biden specifically mentions renewables to produce hydrogen at the same cost as that from shale gas2 Biden has committed to investing $400 billion over ten years in clean energy and innovation, but the proportion to be earmarked for renewables such as solar power isn’t clear. However, Biden clearly has some affection for both wind and solar energy.
While there’s a lot of detail yet to be revealed, renewable energy industry bodies have generally welcomed Joe Biden’s apparent victory – and are keen to have a word with him. President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Abigail Ross Hopper said:
“President-elect Biden’s plan to combat climate change enables our industry to create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country.”
Ms. Hopper noted the SEIA will outline its 100-day plan with the new administration and with members of Congress in the coming weeks.
The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) also congratulated Mr. Biden.
“An accelerated transition to renewable power provides both climate protection and economic prosperity,” said ACORE President and CEO Gregory Wetstone. “With more than $60 billion in annual investment, and two of the nation’s fastest-growing job categories – wind turbine technician and solar power installer – renewable energy can help power America’s economic recovery, as it did in 2009.”
Biden On Fossil Fuels
Joe Biden’s campaign apparently refused to accept contributions from oil, gas and coal corporations or executives. He still did very well in raising cash, perhaps due in part to this stance.
The interest in the CCUS unicorn aside that may not end well, it would appear President-elect Biden believes coal power’s days are numbered as evidenced by his clean energy goal. He has also committed to investing in coal and power plant communities and other communities impacted by the transition.
The subject of fracking is a thorny topic. Trump said on a number of occasions that Biden was opposed to fracking and depending on which side of the fence you’re on, this could be a very good thing. But he isn’t opposed to fracking. He has committed to banning new gas and oil permits for activities including fracking on federal lands.
A Heads-Up For Scotty
On Sunday, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison thanked Trump and had a message for Mr. Biden.
“We also look forward to working with President-elect Biden and his Administration to continue to fight the COVID-19 global pandemic and recession, to develop a vaccine, drive a global economic recovery, and develop new technologies to reduce global emissions as we practically confront the challenge of climate change.”
With President-elect Biden setting his sights on a firm carbon-neutrality target and the Morrison Government yet to implement one, this will put more pressure on Australia to follow suit. In comments to Vox in October, President-elect Biden said he:
“will use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside the US.”
Side note: in the last month or so, Japan, China and South Korea have tabled carbon-neutrality targets. This not only applies pressure on Australia in terms of a commitment, but as previously mentioned these three countries were among the top 5 importers of Australian thermal coal in 2019; accounting for 52% of our exports between them.
President-elect Joe Biden may not be the messiah when it comes to emissions reduction and renewables; but hopefully the time ahead will offer a breath of fresh air; quite literally.
Footnotes
- And we really need to stop pissing those folks off ↩
- On a related note, check out Ronald’s post on cheap hydrogen – and why he believes hydrogen is the car fuel of the future. Just not our future. ↩
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Your post includes: “Joe Biden believes in climate change, stating there is no greater challenge facing his country and the world. This acknowledgement is a very good start.”
Indeed, recognising and acknowledging a great challenge is helpful, but to be really useful it also requires an understanding of what must to be done to mitigate (or defeat) that challenge and a determination to act effectively, come what may.
The post then reports: “The ultimate goal of Joe Biden’s climate plan is to ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.”
Compelling evidence I see indicates advocacy for “Net-zero GHG emissions by 2050” has NO BASIS in the latest climate science.
What now counts is what we/humanity do/does now and before 2030; not aspirations about 2050, or later.
2050 is TOO LATE.
Long-term only aspirations are tantamount to denial of climate science evidence of an urgent and existential climate emergency.
Exhibit #1: “Climate Reality Check 2020” referred in my comment at: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/guterres-fossil-fuels-mb1720/#comment-831792
Exhibit #2: A US CBS News video published on its Facebook page on Oct 31 at 09:43, titled “2020 is a make or break election for the climate”, that includes an interview with world leading climate scientist Michael E Mann (who happened to be in Australia during the 2019-20 bushfire season), and where from time interval 02:06, a graph is displayed showing GHG emissions need to be reduced by 50% by 2030 and near zero by 2040.
If global GHG emissions don’t peak until 2025, then GHG reductions would need to be more ambitious (15% year-on-year) to avoid catastrophic warming. See: https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/355485615876461/
Exhibit #3: A YouTube video titled “Will Steffen – Climate Change 2020 – Why we are facing an emergency – April 2020” published by Renew on Apr 23, duration 1:02:48. Professor Will Steffen is an Earth System scientist, and he is a Councillor on the publicly-funded Climate Council of Australia that delivers independent expert information about climate change.
From time interval 0:18:21 through to 0:24:26, Will Steffen talks about potential ‘tipping points’ that could drive the Earth climate to a “Hothouse” state beyond human adaptation and control.
From time interval 0:37:51, Will Steffen outlines:
A COVID-19 type Response to Climate Change: Flattening the Curve:
• From 2020: No new fossil fuel developments of any kind (coal, gas, and oil);
• By 2030: 50% reduction in GHG emissions; 100% renewable energy;
• By 2040: Reach net-zero GHG emissions – NET-ZERO BY 2050 is now TOO LATE to avoid catastrophic climate change.
In reply to Geoff Miell, I’d argue that its already too late, especially so perhaps in the USA.
Here;s an article I found on : https://www.michiganadvance.com/2020/10/22/rising-waters-threaten-great-lakes-communities/The Great Lakes area in Michigan.
which outlines the situation in that region. There are 4500 miles of coastline
involved, with numerous small communities dotted around the coastline.
There seem many parallels with the situation here in Australia, and I gained some useful perspectives on the specific kinds of problems that will arise along the coastlines here, along with some insights into what ‘works’ and what ‘doesn’t work’ in terms of mitigating their effects.
By and larger mitigation doesn’t work for very long. One problem is that councils and local governing bodies simply can’t afford the huge costs involved to do the job properly, and the only solution that works is to move everybody out of harms way completely.
The end result is that significant amounts gets spent on ;’fix-ups’ as the need arises. But because extreme weather events are occurring far more quickly than anyone expected, those ‘fix-ups’ turn out to have a short life-span.
Eventually you either run out of money and the problem is still ‘unsolved’, OR you end up spending many times more than would otherwise have been the case when you eventually attempt to implement the right solution.
The other problem President-elect Biden will have is that a significant proportion of the population in some Republican states are going to fight him tooth-and-nail over every step he takes, and that will slow down the rate at which any change in environmental policies and actions at local and state levels will occur.
Even in those states and regions which do agree with Biden on the need for urgent climate action, just like everyone else they’re affected by declining revenues due in part to Covid19 impacts
So, all in all I’m not as optimistic as you as to the full extent of beneficial flow-on’ effects that will arise in Australia. There will likely be some of course, but
Des Scahill,
Thanks for the link. If I understand the problem with water level rise in the North American Great Lakes system, it is a climate change influenced problem of increased rainfall in the catchment area compounded by variable evaporation. The YouTube video titled “Great Lakes high water levels impact communities across the basin”, published on Mar 25, IMO helps explain the issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6i5r5w3Ek
The Great Lakes system is well above sea level and is highly unlikely to be influenced by rising sea levels. Lake Superior surface level has the highest elevation at 183m above sea level. Lake Ontario surface level has the lowest elevation at 74m.
I’d suggest many sea coastal areas face a much greater challenge with significantly higher water level rises than the Great Lakes system later this century. Florida, and New York City are some examples.
You also state: “…I’d argue that its already too late, especially so perhaps in the USA.”
Have you given up, Des? Have you written off your family’s future (children/grandchildren – if you have any?)? Have you come to accept that? Something to ponder…
Adaptation will inevitably be an even more expensive business. Some estimates suggest a worst-case basis (RCP8.5) could be of the order of $486 trillion in total damages, and best-case basis (RCP2.6) of the order of $30 trillion.
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18797-8
I’m unable to see how you could put a cost estimate on human civilisation collapse, or human species extinction. Go figure?
The consequences need to be spelled out to people. That’s still generally not happening in mainstream media. Perhaps a social tipping point is coming?
On ABC Q&A on Monday night, former PM Malcolm Turnbull clashed with The Australian’s Editor-at-Large Paul Kelly over climate science, claiming NewsCorp has “turned this issue of physics into an issue of values or identity”.
See: https://twitter.com/QandA/status/1325955850863747072
Professor Schellnhuber said in an interview late last year (see the YouTube video below titled “Prof. Michael Sterner’s interview with Prof. John Schellnhuber”, from time interval 01:30):
“On the one hand, I also once said, it’s worth fighting for every tenth of a degree, ya… because even if we would overshoot the two degrees line, ya… then, er… still we could avoid even worse impacts if we would, er… actually try to stop global warming at two-point-three, instead of four, or five or six, or eight degrees…”
Des, do we give up, or do we fight for future generations (including those that are already alive with us)? I’d suggest that’s a question we all need to ask ourselves.
You know things are changing, when someone proposes spending 2 million, million dollars, on clean Disruption, 400 thousand million, on renewable energy research. When there’s a 1, in front of the interest rates, when the international energy agency says, solar energy is the cheapest energy, in history. When an electric vehicle company, is worth nearly 800 thousand million dollars, when the founder, is so wealthy, he can afford, to bankroll, a manned space program.
When we’re not talking about hundreds of megawatts, now we’re talking about hundreds of gigawatts, solar energy is 11% of the price per kWh, that it was a decade ago. With the party that’s in power in the United States presidency, House of Representatives, Senate, planning to spend 400 $BN on renewable energy research, the price will be dramatically less, for renewable energy.
Make no mistake, this is an industrial revolution, a roaring twenties, we’ve even had a pandemic, at the beginning, by coincidence, just like last time, then it was coal, oil and gas, electricity, cars, the second industrial revolution. Now it’s silicon, lithium and hydrogen, much cheaper electricity, cheaper to run electric vehicles, liquid hydrogen fuel for aircraft, ships and power storage, the third industrial revolution.