32 votes

Biden campaign adopts policy of carbon-free power for USA by 2035 in $2 trillion environment plan

20 comments

  1. [20]
    dubteedub
    Link
    I know there are many critics of Joe Biden on the left in this community and I am interested in your perspectives on this plan. It seems very ambitious to me and includes many of the...

    I know there are many critics of Joe Biden on the left in this community and I am interested in your perspectives on this plan. It seems very ambitious to me and includes many of the recommendations from one of the joint task forces created between the Biden and Sanders camps to expand Joe's policy platform.

    Here is the direct link to the plan - https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/.

    The key elements of the Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future include:

    • Build a Modern Infrastructure
    • Position the U.S. Auto Industry to Win the 21st Century with technology invented in America
    • Achieve a Carbon Pollution-Free Power Sector by 2035
    • Make Dramatic Investments in Energy Efficiency in Buildings, including Completing 4 Million Retrofits and Building 1.5 Million New Affordable Homes
    • Pursue a Historic Investment in Clean Energy Innovation
    • Advance Sustainable Agriculture and Conservation
    • Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economy Opportunity
    14 votes
    1. [5]
      SleepyGary
      Link Parent
      I think an ambitious project by one of the most powerful and currently anti-climate regimes is just what the rest of the world needs to stop messing around with half measures. I'm not a fan of...

      I think an ambitious project by one of the most powerful and currently anti-climate regimes is just what the rest of the world needs to stop messing around with half measures.

      I'm not a fan of Biden or the USA in particular right now but it would totally change my opinion and would make my next 4 years if they followed through with this plan, it truly would MAGA in my books. And if only to see my provincial government and other "well USA and China are doing nothing" climate deniers meltdown.

      18 votes
      1. [4]
        Loire
        Link Parent
        'Berta? Or are you one of the first Saskatchewanite's to get internet?

        And if only to see my provincial government and other "well USA and China are doing nothing" climate deniers meltdown.

        'Berta? Or are you one of the first Saskatchewanite's to get internet?

        2 votes
        1. [3]
          SleepyGary
          Link Parent
          'Berta :( Born and raised, never in my almost 40 years here have I thought of living anywhere else (save for getting a dream job that required moving) but this government is something else.

          'Berta :( Born and raised, never in my almost 40 years here have I thought of living anywhere else (save for getting a dream job that required moving) but this government is something else.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            Loire
            Link Parent
            I was the same way. Unfortunately the work was elsewhere. Kenney will pass... maybe, hopefully. It's not much better elsewhere except maybe in BC.

            I was the same way. Unfortunately the work was elsewhere.

            Kenney will pass... maybe, hopefully. It's not much better elsewhere except maybe in BC.

            2 votes
            1. SleepyGary
              Link Parent
              My kid will be starting school around the same time as the next election, if the UCP under Kenney get in again we're going to be taking a hard look at staying in this province. Having gone through...

              My kid will be starting school around the same time as the next election, if the UCP under Kenney get in again we're going to be taking a hard look at staying in this province. Having gone through the crowded underfunded school system under Klien I don't want my kid experiencing that. We'll not be limiting ourselves to Canada.

              2 votes
    2. [14]
      vord
      Link Parent
      Compared against Bernie's climate plan, Bidens is kind of a bland bare-minimum that would have been a decent start circa 1992. Which is roughly what I expect out of a Biden presidency. It's better...

      Compared against Bernie's climate plan, Bidens is kind of a bland bare-minimum that would have been a decent start circa 1992. Which is roughly what I expect out of a Biden presidency.

      It's better than the alternative, and there's some good stuff in there. But there's also a lot of weasel wording and half-measures, so I'm still skeptical.

      #BegrudginglyBiden2020

      12 votes
      1. [13]
        thundergolfer
        Link Parent
        Scanning briefly that page and this thread's page, it appears that the headline difference is this: and So 5 years earlier for Bernie, and his plan included transportation which in 2018 was 28% of...

        Scanning briefly that page and this thread's page, it appears that the headline difference is this:

        Bernie: Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest

        and

        Biden: will aim to make electricity generation carbon free by 2035

        So 5 years earlier for Bernie, and his plan included transportation which in 2018 was 28% of USA GHG emissions versus 27% for electricity grid.

        So yeah, Biden's plan is not good enough but it's something. Need to focus on getting this old bastard in office and then push for a more radical plan because climate change is an emergency and just doing domestic electricity by 2035 ain't gonna cut it.

        10 votes
        1. [12]
          dubteedub
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Biden's plan actually does include a lot of transportation activities: Building half a million EV chargers across the country Goal of all buses in US be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2030...

          Biden's plan actually does include a lot of transportation activities:

          • Building half a million EV chargers across the country
          • Goal of all buses in US be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2030
          • Massive investments in zero-emission public transit for every city over 100,000 people
          • Incentives for manufacturers to build or retool manufacturing facilities for ZEVs
          • Rebates for consumers to buy ZEVs
          • Investments in battery and charging R&D at DOE
          • Boosting our fuel economy standards to accelerate ZEV adoption

          If you only read the one headline it seems like there is nothing there on transportation, but this is all pretty significant and would lead to massive reductions in transportation GHG emissions.

          I will also add that even California, the most active state in promoting zero-emission transportation, just passed its own ZEV rule for heavy-duty trucking and even their standard doesn't call for 100% ZEV trucks until 2045.

          I think it's important to be ambitious, but also not over-promise on something that will be impossible to deliver on. I would caution against promising revolutionary change that is unattainable as that is just going to disillusion more voters.

          8 votes
          1. [10]
            vord
            Link Parent
            Worked out pretty well for first New Deal. If I'm remembering my history after that presidential term limits were introduced due to popularity. Yea, Biden's plan says a lot of the right things....

            I would caution against promising revolutionary change that is unattainable as that is just going to disillusion more voters.

            Worked out pretty well for first New Deal. If I'm remembering my history after that presidential term limits were introduced due to popularity.

            Yea, Biden's plan says a lot of the right things. But it barely scratches the surface of what needs done. The budget amounts are minisucule. Bernie's allocation for just grants to low-moderate housing renovations are more than what Biden proposed for his whole plan. We probably need closer to 50 million homes renovated, not 1-4.

            There is zero reason to not include $15 minimum wage and a jobs gareuntee to eliminate unemployment in this plan. If Republicans won't play ball, name and shame them in presidential addresses.

            'If your still unemployed after this bill passes, talk to X who tanked it.'

            Either way I agree it's better than nothing. But it feels an awful lot like the ACA that was pre-compromised then further gutted. Stop putting forth bland plans that get compromised to worthlessness. Start bold and work from there.

            If Democrats take Congress and President, Biden's plan should be immediately scrapped in favor of Green New Deal.

            6 votes
            1. [5]
              dubteedub
              Link Parent
              Biden does have a call for $15 minimum wage.... This is only his climate plan, not every policy in his platform. I think this is the page you are looking for. THE BIDEN PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING...

              There is zero reason to not include $15 minimum wage

              Biden does have a call for $15 minimum wage.... This is only his climate plan, not every policy in his platform. I think this is the page you are looking for.

              8 votes
              1. [4]
                vord
                Link Parent
                That's fair, but the weasel wording always gets me. A commitment is different from a mandate. Everything listed there should be a mandate. No federally mandated sick/vacation/parental leave is a...

                That's fair, but the weasel wording always gets me.

                Biden will require that companies receiving procurement contracts are using taxpayer dollars to support good American jobs, including a commitment to pay at least $15 per hour, provide paid leave, maintain fair overtime and scheduling practices, and guarantee a choice to join a union and bargain collectively.

                • A commitment is different from a mandate. Everything listed there should be a mandate. No federally mandated sick/vacation/parental leave is a disgrace. It's also worded as if it is operating on the assumption $15 fed minimum won't pass.
                • Choice to join a union also suggests allowing right-to-work to remain in place, so unions remain underfunded.

                Ensure federal dollars do not flow to employers who engage in union-busting activities, participate in wage theft, or violate labor law.

                How about we straight-up dismantle any employer found to be engaging in these activities? Nationalize their function if it's important, dissolve their assets to their (former?) employees if not.

                2 votes
                1. [3]
                  dubteedub
                  Link Parent
                  I mean, the language says that it will be required. That seems pretty strong to me. I don't think most people are going to support the federal government dismantling private companies and...

                  A commitment is different from a mandate.

                  I mean, the language says that it will be required. That seems pretty strong to me.

                  How about we straight-up dismantle any employer found to be engaging in these activities? Nationalize their function if it's important, dissolve their assets to their (former?) employees if not.

                  I don't think most people are going to support the federal government dismantling private companies and nationalizing their operations.

                  4 votes
                  1. [2]
                    vord
                    Link Parent
                    Probably not, but you wanted criticism from the left, and here we are. :) Honestly, it shouldn't be that hard a sell. Employer caught stealing your wages (see countless small businesses and...

                    I don't think most people are going to support the federal government dismantling private companies and nationalizing their operations.

                    Probably not, but you wanted criticism from the left, and here we are. :)

                    Honestly, it shouldn't be that hard a sell. Employer caught stealing your wages (see countless small businesses and megacorps alike)? Strip them of their assets and ownership, distribute to their victims. Anything less is basically giving the companies the opportunity to do math to say 'If we don't get caught for X years, and we settle Y to keep any loudmouth's quiet, we can make Z profits.'

                    Nationalizing itself might be a hard sell, but maybe 'strip all owners and shareholders of any and all assets related to the company, fire all executives, and turn into worker co-op' could get broader support.

                    And yes, I wouldn't expect this level of policy coming out of US lawmakers any time in the next 3 decades. It's more a commentary on how soft we go on literally robbing workers.

                    4 votes
                    1. dubteedub
                      Link Parent
                      Lol, fair point.

                      Probably not, but you wanted criticism from the left, and here we are. :)

                      Lol, fair point.

                      4 votes
            2. [3]
              Omnicrola
              Link Parent
              This is what keeps causing me to slam my head into my desk. It's negotiation 101. You don't walk into the discussion with a proposal you've already self-compromised on. You lay out everything you...

              But it feels an awful lot like the ACA that was pre-compromised then further gutted. Stop putting forth bland plans that get compromised to worthlessness. Start bold and work from there.

              This is what keeps causing me to slam my head into my desk. It's negotiation 101. You don't walk into the discussion with a proposal you've already self-compromised on. You lay out everything you want, maybe even a little bit extra. You'll inevitably have to negotiate and compromise on something, why start a game of Tug of War with the middle marker already deliberately off center?

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                dubteedub
                Link Parent
                I think a good example of why you don't want to start with a completely untenable position for these kinds of things is because when you have to eventually walk that back to some compromise...

                I think a good example of why you don't want to start with a completely untenable position for these kinds of things is because when you have to eventually walk that back to some compromise position, you risk pissing off your most ardent supporters.

                I think the M4A debate was a great example of that. Bernie spent months on the campaign trail telling everyone that M4A was the only real option. I heard from many of his strongest supporters "if you don't support M4A then you are literally killing me." That is not an exaggeration, that is word for word what was being pushed. Elizabeth Warren in particular was attacked by many on her plan for M4A that would have taken three to four years to implement the program.

                So after months of hammering every other candidate that M4A is the only option, eventually Bernie had to walk back that position. So AOC was sent out to tell everyone that M4A will probably not happen and instead we are likely to have to compromise to a public option.

                This was met by complete disdain by progressives who had bought the line that anything less than M4A was going to be disastrous.

                So yes, it's important to push for things you want in negotiations and yes building in some breathing room for what you are willing to compromise on is important, but setting completely unrealistic expectations can have a very negative impact.

                5 votes
                1. Omnicrola
                  Link Parent
                  You make some really good points, and I think illustrate why politics is so frustrating to me. It's a blending of both negotiation (with other politicians) and salesmanship (selling the people on...

                  You make some really good points, and I think illustrate why politics is so frustrating to me. It's a blending of both negotiation (with other politicians) and salesmanship (selling the people on your idea and your ability to execute). Doing each requires different tactics, and sometimes they're at odds with one another.

                  So Bernie sold people on his idea, and his ability to execute it. Now he's trying to navigate through a negotiation and has had to depart from the hard-sold M4A message that he campaigned on. Rationally, I know that this is a fact of life and is just how the world works when you have to work with a diverse set of people. On the other hand, the end result isn't what I was sold on and isn't what I was excited about. So now I feel somewhat betrayed.

                  for the record, Bernie is great, but #YangGang

                  1 vote
            3. Kuromantis
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Can it be applied today though? According to Wikipedia, the Democrats had upwards of 58 senators to work with. That's what Obama managed at his very peak and that's not the kind of majority...

              Worked out pretty well for first New Deal. If I'm remembering my history after that presidency term limits were introduced due to popularity.

              Can it be applied today though? According to Wikipedia, the Democrats had upwards of 58 senators to work with. That's what Obama managed at his very peak and that's not the kind of majority we/Schumer'll be legislating with, right?

              1 vote
          2. thundergolfer
            Link Parent
            Thanks for adding the additional info. I did see it but omitted it to save time and for brevity. It's something, but clearly not as ambitious as Bernie's plan. It's far, far more important to...

            Thanks for adding the additional info. I did see it but omitted it to save time and for brevity. It's something, but clearly not as ambitious as Bernie's plan.

            I think it's important to be ambitious, but also not over-promise on something that will be impossible to deliver on. I would caution against promising revolutionary change that is unattainable as that is just going to disillusion more voters.

            It's far, far more important to bring a plan that will avert disaster. The science has been in for years. This shit is an emergency and nothing short of drastic action will avert disaster.

            It's abundantly clear that the people of the USA are totally incapable of addressing climate change adequately. They have utterly failed at a problem 1000x as small, the coronavirus pandemic. The Biden administration cannot meet the public where they're at, and it can't accept an impotent senate.

            Climate Change really is not a problem where "half-way there" solutions should be brought to public debate.

            2 votes