[ad_1]
President Biden touted his bipartisan infrastructure deal this summer as a “historic” climate victory.
But the arrival of autumn puts Democrats in danger of historic failure.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill, which includes $ 550 billion in new spending, is in jeopardy. So does a larger $ 3.5 trillion reconciliation package that contains a much more ambitious approach to climate change.
For months, Progressives demanded that Congress pass the two bills together. But a handful of centrist Democrats are threatening that approach – a trend on the brink that has rekindled a latent fear among progressives: that Congress will pass only the smallest bill.
Passing the bipartisan bill without the broader reconciliation plan, they say, would leave US greenhouse gas emissions too close to “business as usual” – particularly over the next decade, the United States. last window to maintain a safe climate.
“No one ever wanted the bipartisan bill to be our contribution to the climate [action]Said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
The bipartisan bill includes $ 73 billion for the electricity grid, $ 39 billion for public transit and $ 7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations.
These policies would do little to reduce emissions by 2030, according to an analysis published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. While this may generate longer-term benefits for Biden’s 2050 benchmark, the analysis warned that relying solely on the bipartisan bill would be a “dereliction of duty.”
“There really isn’t much about short-term progress,” CSIS member and author of the analysis Stephen Naimoli said of the bipartisan bill.
The bipartisan proposal is “a good start,” said Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, but Congress must “do whatever we can by going out. of the gate, and lay the foundation for some more.
But minimal short-term impacts might be the preference of some centrist lawmakers.
Some, like Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.), questioned whether the reconciliation bill was even necessary, and Manchin specifically pushed back on the provisions of the climate law.
Another centrist, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), has said she will vote against the reconciliation plan unless Congress passes the bipartisan bill next week.
Sinema was one of the main negotiators of the bipartisan bill. When she announced the deal in June, she called it a “historic investment” in “green energy and climate, recognizing the changing nature of our country and our future.”
When asked this week whether the bipartisan bill on its own had enough climate funds without the reconciliation plan, Sinema ignored the question and walked away.
Progressives fear the reconciliation bill will not get centrist votes unless the bipartisan deal is seen as leverage. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has threatened to vote against the bipartisan bill unless Congress first approves reconciliation.
“Making critical climate / clean energy investments as part of the Build Back Better Act is the only way for me to justify voting ‘yes’ on a behind-the-scenes Senate ‘deal’ that underfunds key priorities and made major concessions to the fossil fuel industry ”, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) Said on Twitter.
They are not just progressives. Even lawmakers with moderate backgrounds fear Democrats will forgo climate action if only the bipartisan bill passes.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Whose 2020 presidential campaign underscored his opposition to the Green New Deal, said even the bipartisan bill and reconciliation legislation do not go far enough.
“I don’t think any of them is really enough to close the deal. But the effect is dramatically improved if you do both, ”he said.
The reconciliation bill would direct hundreds of billions of dollars to the electricity, transportation, manufacturing and construction sectors – the biggest emissions impacts from expanding tax credits for clean energy and the creation of an incentive system for utilities to decarbonize, known as the Clean Electricity Performance Program. .
There is no legislation for the Senate’s reconciliation proposal, making estimates of its impact on emissions a moving target. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.) said analysis from his office found reconciliation and bipartisan proposals together would reduce 45% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Other modelers said the effects could be larger than those of any other policy. which was passed by Congress, although the exact impact is uncertain (Daily E&E, September 17).
While the details are unclear, some lawmakers and groups don’t even want to consider the failure of the reconciliation package.
The World Resources Institute, which published in July a analysis climate measures left out in the bipartisan bill, believing it would be “impossible” to meet US climate goals without them – declined to comment on the impact of one without the other.
Other lawmakers have also refused to talk about it.
“I am not considering the hypothetical,” said Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
[ad_2]
Source link