What the Senate deal could mean for the fight against climate change

Judy Woodruff:

Let's dive a little deeper now into that apparent agreement among Senate Democrats and what it could mean specifically for energy production and the fight against climate change.

William Brangham picks up that conversation.

William Brangham:

Judy, this deal has substantial new money to boost the expansion of renewable energy and provide more incentives for people to buy things like electric vehicles, but it also expands more fossil fuel development projects, which West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin wanted.

So, what might the real impact of all of this for dealing with climate change, if — and it's still an if — if it goes through?

For some perspective on that, we turn again to David Roberts. He writes and thinks about these matters for his Substack newsletter and podcast, which is called "Volts."

Mr. Roberts, great to have you back.

This still has not passed, but I do want to count some chickens before they have hatched. What do you make of the contours of this deal?

David Roberts, “Volts”:

It's a very, very big and overall good deal from the perspective of climate.

I mean, I know people have been tracking the Build Back Better negotiations for a year now, over a year now. And lots and lots of stuff has gotten cut or diminished or destroyed from the original version of that bill. But the energy and climate provisions have survived, not unscathed, but, for the most part, the bulk of the provisions that were in the original Build Back Better bill are still in there.

So it's still a — it's still by far the biggest climate legislation that the U.S. has ever passed, if it passes.

William Brangham:

I mean, it's hard not to note that, earlier in this broadcast, we're talking about floods and drought and heat waves afflicting this country.

And in this bill, there are billions of dollars in tax incentives to boost and ramp up renewables, geothermal, solar, wind, over the next decade.

Do those feel like meaningful enough steps that could substantially reduce America's emissions?

David Roberts:

Yes.

I think the best way to think about this bill is not so much as a climate bill as an industrial policy bill. So, the main thrust is to invest in U.S. production and U.S. manufacturing and U.S. markets in these clean energy technologies. In the process of doing that, it will substantially reduce U.S. emissions, yes.

According to Schumer's office, this will reduce U.S. electricity sector emissions 40 percent by 2030, which is roughly a little bit below what we promised in Paris, but not substantially below. So this gets us almost on course for what we promised in Paris.

William Brangham:

On electric vehicles, in particular, they are still a very tiny share of the market. And there's a lot of incentives in here to encourage people, especially lower-income — people at lower-income brackets to purchase them.

How important is that for the government to do? Wouldn't this naturally happen on its own, given the marketplace?

David Roberts:

Well, when it comes to climate, William, it's always about speed. It's always about speed.

Electric vehicles have begun their ascent now. And I think it's more or less inevitable, I think everyone more or less regarded it inevitable that they're going to take over completely on some time horizon. The idea is just, A, to accelerate that process, and, B, importantly, to move a lot of the manufacturing and production of those vehicles and the components of those vehicles to the U.S., so they create U.S. jobs and U.S. domestic manufacturing.

And, of course, industrial policy is the oldest role for government in the book, right? Like, governments do — have been doing that since there have been governments.

William Brangham:

I want to ask you about this — apparently, to get Manchin's buy-in, they had to agree to relaxing and expanding permitting for fossil fuel projects.

And this has caused some division in the environmental community. Is it your sense that that's just the cost of doing business? I mean, we talked with someone today at the — Kassie Siegel at the Center for Biological Diversity, and she argued that these tradeoffs are unacceptable, that they are — more emissions will be generated from new oil and gas projects and they will hurt the most vulnerable communities in this country.

Is it your sense that that's — is that just the cost of doing business today?

David Roberts:

Well, very specifically, it's the cost of getting Joe Manchin to sign your bill. And I have yet to hear any alternate strategy to get 50 votes for this bill.

And I would just say, I understand that environmentalists rightly view sort of fossil fuel leasing on public land as obnoxious and these provisions as somewhat obnoxious. But when it comes to the impact on greenhouse gases, I think the modeling is going to show the reductions this bill is going to create vastly, vastly outweigh whatever boost in greenhouse gas emissions might come from more leasing.

So, it's a poison pill and it's obnoxious, but the overall impact of the bill is still overwhelmingly positive on greenhouse gases.

William Brangham:

David Roberts, always good to see you. Thank you very much.

David Roberts:

Thanks, William.