by Congress is battling over trillions of dollars which could finally do something meaningful to combat the effects of climate change. While we fight for our future and a habitable planet, it’s clear that a framework of eco-capitalism won’t be enough.
By Alex Moni-Sauri
In response to the escalating climate catastrophe’s effect on the capitalist economy, as well as to pressure from below, the Biden administration has taken a noticeable shift on climate policy. Moving away from the flagrant climate denial of the Trump administration, Biden plans to respond to the climate crisis within the framework of capitalist and imperialist power relations, a vision of eco-capitalism in which the energy industry and broad market forces are left squarely in charge of our transition away from fossil fuels.
This shift is consistent with broader policy changes the Biden administration has made in its first year that mark a move away from austerity and neoliberalism in the immediate period, and a willingness to spend more on infrastructure and a social safety net, making concessions both to the desire of corporate America to stimulate the economy while also responding to popular demands.
Biden´s Plan
Shortly after taking office, Biden held a virtual climate summit in which he pledged that the US will adhere to carbon emission goals laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will require major cuts to emissions (as much as 52 percent below 2005 levels) by 2030, with net zero emissions by 2050. He rejoined the Paris Agreement, the international treaty adopted by nearly 200 countries with its stated goal to “limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.” He paused oil and gas leases on public land, stopped the continuation of the Keystone XL pipeline, and rejected drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Perhaps most significant among these policy changes is the proposed $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation infrastructure plan, one of two such budget proposals which promise to invest money into both fortifying “hard” infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, and public transportation, but also “soft” infrastructure, such as childcare, free community college, and other programs that would greatly benefit working people and the planet.
All of this clearly indicates some recognition on the part of the ruling class and the world’s billionaires that climate denialism or inaction around climate change is no longer politically viable. The global population has experienced unprecedented natural disasters, deadly weather events, mass extinctions, massive crop die-offs, and a raging pandemic. In 2018, the IPCC published a report detailing the likely consequences of a 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, at a time when temperatures had already risen between 0.8 to 1.2 degrees Celsius. The findings of this report were starkly alarming, and warned of exponential (rather than linear) tolls to human life and the habitability of the planet with each degree of warming.
The US is pledging less toward IPCC goals than any other developed country.
The report sparked new momentum on the left to address climate change with the Green New Deal, publicized and popularized by figures like Greta Thunberg and AOC, as well as the emergence of youth movements like Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement.
The left has already succeeded in pushing the conversation around climate change away from moralistic conclusions that place responsibility on individuals and their consumption choices, and towards the policy changes that are needed. This is reflected in the Biden administration’s climate policy and proposed infrastructure plans. Of course, increasingly large sections of the ruling class also recognize the existential threat that the climate disaster poses to profit and to capitalism itself — which requires a human population and a life-supporting planet to survive.
While it’s correct to see these shifts as positive in relation to the climate denialism of the Trump administration, we must also recognize how inadequate they are in meeting the needs of the planet and of our collective survival. The US, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is pledging less toward IPCC goals than any other developed country. The IPCC targets themselves are estimates, representing a wide range of possible scenarios with little or no accounting for feedback loops, in which warming is accelerated by climate events like the eventual release of billions of tons of methane and organic carbon locked in the now melting permafrost beneath the Arctic Ocean. We’re already experiencing record-setting temperatures that were previously forecast to come years in the future. The most recent IPCC report, which was published on August 8th between back-to-back heat waves which killed 112 people in Washington state, confirms that “we are locked into 30 years of worsening climate impacts no matter what the world does,” as the New York Times recently stated.
Biden’s commitment to reduce emissions from greenhouse gasses by 52 percent by 2030 is an improvement from previous policy goals, but what we need is zero percent by 2030. This commitment is also non-binding, and offers no concrete plan to reach its stated goal. And while the Biden administration has paused oil and gas leases on public lands and halted development of the Keystone XL pipeline, it has also continued to approve drilling permits at a clip comparable to that of the Trump administration. A Jacobin article from June reports:
According to statistics from the Bureau of Land Management, from the start of February to the end of April, the administration approved 1,179 drilling permits on federal lands, not far from the four-year high of nearly 1,400 approved over a similar three-month period at the end of Trump’s term.
Meanwhile, according to numbers from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement numbers, that same February-to-April period saw 207 offshore drilling permits approved. This is compared to the 249 offshore permits approved over the three months to Trump’s final day in office.
Bipartisan Package with New Fossil Fuel Subsidies
The $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package, which passed the Senate 69 to 30, has been all but stripped of meaningful measures to address climate change. The most robust climate proposal included in the bipartisan plan would allocate funds to “build a national network of electric vehicle charging stations, purchase thousands of electric buses and upgrade the electrical grid,” (Seattle Times, July 6, 2021), continuing a market-based approach centered firmly in the hands of big business. The plan would offer companies tax credits as incentives to cut emissions, leaving industry executives to decide how and where they make those cuts, an approach which could result in widespread opposition to much-needed climate policies if the brunt of those policies fall on working people.
Worse still, as outlined in an article from the Intercept on August 3, it includes at least $25 billion in new subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Significant portions of those billions will be used for technologies the Intercept describes as “dream fixes”:
Such technologies include carbon capture and decarbonized hydrogen fuel. Both purported solutions in practice help fossil fuel companies mask the continued release of climate-warming gases. Neither of the technologies are currently commercially viable at a large scale, so the energy industry requires government help to carry out what critics see as a public relations scheme.
The Fight for the Budget Reconciliation Package
For socialists and others trying to preserve life on this planet, the most promising area of struggle around US climate policy is the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation infrastructure package. While the details of this package are still in negotiation, it represents a much more expansive vision of how to address climate change, linked to bolstering social services, job creation, and taxing the rich.
The current proposals include elements of the Green New Deal, most notably the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, possibly creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people while turning our energy system away from fossil fuels. It also includes measures to remediate the environmental, social, and economic costs associated with climate change. In a recent opinion piece in the Guardian, Bernie Sanders highlights some of these crucial measures:
◼ Massive investments in retrofitting homes and buildings to save energy
◼ Massive investment in the production of wind, solar and other forms of sustainable energy
◼ Major investments in greener agriculture
◼ Major investments in climate resiliency and ecosystem recovery projects
◼ Major investments in water and environmental justice
◼ Major investments in research and development for sustainable energy and battery storage
◼ Billions to address the warming and acidification of oceans and the needs of coastal communities
Right wing Democrats are putting up a fight to water down these proposals, while a majority of the progressive caucus, including AOC and the Squad, are fighting to link the reconciliation package to the passage of the bipartisan package. Linking these proposals may be a great parliamentarian maneuver, but it won’t be enough to win what’s needed.
57 percent of voters say they would support if their member of Congress co-sponsored the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal as proposed by AOC and others includes a just transition within ten years, job guarantees for all, food security, affordable housing, free healthcare for all, and a focus on the needs of marginalized groups. This is the minimum of what’s needed for our collective future on a livable planet. But such policy is not compatible with the capitalist profit system. It would demand massive, democratic intervention in the functioning of the economy. It would cut into the profits of fossil fuel companies, clash with car producers, the petrochemical industry, big pharma, housing developers, real estate brokers, and last but not least, the financial industry behind them all. In short, it represents a fight to break the power of the capitalist class.
Biden has stated, in a debate with Donald Trump during the presidential election, “The Green New Deal is not my plan.”
Part of Biden’s excuse for rejecting the Green New Deal is that it’s too big a political lift for moderate Democrats to overcome GOP opposition. But his attempts at bipartisanship, and willingness to limit proposals to what Senator Joe Manchin will support, actually undermine his popular support. Recent polls by Data for Progress show that Green New Deal policy is overwhelmingly popular, “enjoying a 31-percentage-point margin of voter support,” and that “a majority of voters (57 percent) say they would support if their member of Congress co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution when it is reintroduced in Congress.”
If Democratic leadership championed the Green New Deal, they could mobilize mass popular support as a battering ram against Manchin and big business opposition; but the strategy of appealing to big business to take initiative — the refusal to break with the logic of capitalism — prevents them from taking this course.
BlackRock will not Save the Climate
Are large investment companies finally pushing corporations to save the planet? Despite media reports that give that impression, unfortunately not. Taking the fossil fuel industry (and other means of destruction) into democratic public ownership is necessary to carry out a just transition to environmental sustainability.
On May 26, ExxonMobile shareholders voted to replace two members of its board of directors with more climate-friendly managers. As Bloomberg reports, “BlackRock, the second-largest holder of Exxon, with a 6.6 percent stake, voted for three of the new directors,” who were nominated by a much smaller, more activist-driven hedge fund called Engine No.1 to promote action against climate change. “But,” Bloomberg continues, “the investment giant [BlackRock] also backed Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods, who opposed investor demands for a change to the company’s approach on climate change — a move that rankled environmental groups.” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that the target of Engine No. 1 is “carbon neutrality, effectively bringing its emissions to zero — both from the company and its products — by 2050.” WSJ goes on:
“Since January, Engine No. 1’s bid for four seats on Exxon’s board has turned into one of the most expensive proxy fights ever. Exxon has spent at least $35 million, and Engine No. 1 has spent $30 million, regulatory filings show, in an increasingly pitched battle to persuade shareholders.”
BlackRock, holding 6.8 percent of BP shares, also backed a shareholder resolution that the company will “accelerate efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions.” Yet BlackRock also voted for Total’s “energy strategy,” which aims to reach carbon neutrality no sooner than 2050. Total — one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions in human history — has plans for another 30 years of oil extraction. Chairman and Chief Executive Patrick Pouyanne said “he wanted the company to become a ‘green energy major,’ but said a more radical shift would not be appropriate as the company needs to fund its transition from revenues derived from fossil fuels” (Reuters, May 28).
On a Closer Look: No Plan
The closer you look, the worse it is. A May 18th report from stock market analysis company Seeking Alpha states that
“Shell announced its climate plan in February, aiming to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 by lowering oil and gas production, growing its renewables and low-carbon business, and offsetting emissions through measures such as carbon capturing technologies.”
Those carbon capturing technologies do not exist today, and it remains an open question whether they’ll be developed in the time frame needed to keep world temperatures below a two degree Celsius increase. When Exxon’s Chief Executive Darren Woods rejected the demand from Engine No. 1 for a plan of carbon neutrality by 2050, he argued that other oil companies making such pledges had no real plans to achieve them. He actually has a point.
On May 29th the New York Times added that Shell “had already promised to reduce the carbon intensity of its operations, which means that it could still continue to expand oil and production, but with lower emissions for every barrel it produced.” BlackRock backed that plan from Shell as well.
Doubling Down On Oil
The fact that even capitalist investors are feeling pressure to act on climate change is welcome news. Every reform that wins us time to combat the worst effects of climate change is valuable. However, these concessions are not enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. Summarizing the strategy of US American oil giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil, the New York Times writes:
They are doubling down on oil and natural gas and investing what amounts to pocket change in innovative climate-oriented efforts like small nuclear power plants and devices that suck carbon out of the air. […] American oil executives say it would be folly for them to switch to renewables, arguing that it is a low-profit business that utilities and alternative energy companies can pursue more effectively.
Daniel Droog, Chevron’s vice president for energy transition, quoted in the New York Times, claims:
“Our strategy is to decarbonize our existing assets in the most cost-effective way and consistently bring in new technology and new forms of energy. But we’re not asking our investors to sacrifice return or go forward with three decades of uncertainty on dividends.”
Such are the cold-blooded calculations of fossil fuel companies.
Alex Moni-Sauri
Alex Moni-Sauri is a poet and artist, and is a member of Seattle DSA. She lives in Kingston, Washington.
