The Daily - Can the U.S. Win Back Its Climate Credibility?

Episode Date: April 27, 2021

During a global climate summit, President Biden signaled America’s commitment to fighting climate change with an ambitious target: The U.S. will cut its economywide carbon emissions by 50 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.  What became clear is that the rest of the world has become cautious about following the United States’ lead after years of commitments shifting from one administration to the next. What happened at the summit and how can the U.S. regain its credibility in the struggle against climate change?Guest: Coral Davenport, who covers energy and environmental policy for The New York Times, with a focus on climate change.Sign up here to get The Daily in your inbox each morning. And for an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: At the virtual summit meeting he convened, Mr. Biden cast the fight against global warming as an economic opportunity for the world and committed the U.S. to cutting its carbon emissions by half. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. A few days ago, during a global summit, President Biden discovered just how difficult it will be to re-establish the United States as a leader on climate change. United States as a leader on climate change. Today, Astead Herndon spoke with our colleague Coral Davenport about what happened at the summit and what it would take for the U.S. to win back its credibility. It's Tuesday, April 27th. Coral, can you describe this climate summit for me? We know it was hosted by President Biden a couple days ago, but what was the idea here?

Well, so this was a promise that candidate Biden made on the campaign trail. It was sort of one of his signature climate change promises that within the first hundred days in office, he would host a global world leaders climate summit. Initially, of course, envisioned as 40 world leaders would come here to Washington and he would host them at the White House. Basically, as soon as President Biden was inaugurated, he's tried to make the case to the rest of the world that the U.S. is back on climate. But this was the big stage to do it. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. We are so grateful to have all of you with us today.

Of course, the way that it unfolded, it was not a normal summit at all because it was all on Zoom. Thank you, President Biden, for bringing us together to focus on the existential threat of climate change. These leaders kind of cycled through, like giving their speeches. I thank you very much for the invitation to take part in this summit, leaders. You know, with their little backdrops

on their screens from around the world. Your Excellency, President Biden. With a lot of technical glitches, I have to say as well. That the grave threat of climate change had not disappeared. Good morning to all our colleagues around the world, the world leaders for taking part in this summit. I thank you. So Biden, you know, gets this global Zoom conference forum. The United States isn't waiting. We are resolving to take action. And even though it's not what he probably expected on the campaign trail, he did use it to unveil

the big new U.S. climate target, which is very big, very ambitious. The United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half, in half by the end of this decade. It was a pledge that the U.S. will cut its economy-wide carbon emissions 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. These steps will set America on a path of net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. of net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. That is an incredibly ambitious pledge. And that is up from the Obama pledge of cutting 25 to 28 percent by 2025. All of us, all of us, and particularly those of us who represent the world's largest economies, we have to step up. So the U.S. made this big new pledge.

What did the other countries do? Well, we saw some other countries making new pledges. We didn't see anything as ambitious as what Biden put forward. In terms of the world's largest emitters, that's China, India and Russia. No new commitments, no major new numbers. And that was sort of something that Biden really had been hoping for and kind of crickets. So why didn't they pledge anything? I thought the purpose of this climate summit was to everyone to come and commit to these big plans.

Well, I think that was the purpose and the hope for President Biden. And I think that what we saw is that the rest of the world really does not feel compelled to follow that U.S. lead in this case. And I think a lot of that is because the rest of the world is exhausted of watching U.S. presidents come forward and say, we're the leader in this, we're going to take action, we're going to join a big treaty. And then doing a 180 and pulling out of this has already happened twice. President Clinton did this in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,

the first climate change treaty. President Bush pulled this in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first climate change treaty. President Bush pulled the U.S. out. President Obama came back and said, we're back, we're here, let's do Paris. 180 for the Trump administration. And so I think the rest of the world probably does believe that Biden wants to meet these targets. But I think what we really saw is that the U.S. just doesn't at this moment have the clout or the credibility to bring along similar commitments from other countries, at least when it publicly sort of puts out a call for them. So these other countries at this point do not trust the U.S. leadership that keeps swinging

from administration to administration. But how are they thinking about this in their own climate policy? Take China, the world's largest emitter, for example. What's their approach to climate right now? Honorable President Biden, honorable colleagues. So Chinese President Xi Jinping last year committed that China would reach net zero carbon emissions by 2060. That means eliminating essentially all CO2 pollution from its economy in the next 40 years.

That's a way, way, way far out goal. It's a tough goal. It's close to what the scientists say is needed, but it doesn't have a lot of sort of short-term stops along the way. China will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. And that requires extraordinarily hard efforts from China. China is the world's largest consumer of coal, which is the most polluting fuel there is, the biggest contributor to climate change. He said that we will strictly control coal-fired

power generation projects. China would commit to significantly reducing its use of coal over the next few years. We will strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th five-year plan period and phase it down in the 15th five-year plan period. No numbers on that. That's an interesting thing to say. It's clear that they do not feel compelled by the new position of the U.S. administration to step up and say, OK, we're going to go faster now. We will rise above the global climate and environment challenges and leave a clean and beautiful world to future generations.

Thank you. So China is saying that its goal is to reduce carbon emissions somewhere in the future, but does not have those specific steps kind of laid out. Do we trust them then that that goal will be followed? Well, so the interesting thing about China is generally on statements like this that get to their economic development, they usually don't commit to these big public statements unless they intend to follow through with it. And, you know, one of the big differences, obviously, with China is that the Chinese government can enact economic policy by fiat. It is not dependent on 180s and who's in the White House and whether or not you can, you know, get enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

Chinese leaders can push through policy. That is understood by the rest of the world in a way that a U.S. president has demonstrated that he can't necessarily. Let's go to the next country that you mentioned, India. What's their approach to climate change? I now call upon the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. I would like to thank President Biden for taking this initiative. I would like to thank President Biden for taking this initiative. So India is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide pollution in the world. When the Paris Agreement was forged, India committed to reducing the rate at which its carbon emissions were increasing.

So at the time, its carbon emissions were increasing such that they would have increased about sevenfold over the coming decades. India committed to reducing that level of increase to about threefold. And they made no new promises at the summit. And the approach from India and from other developing nations has kind of always been, look, the rest of the developed world had the 20th century to grow their economies, suck up all these fossil fuels, put all this CO2 in the atmosphere and create a developed middle class industrial economy. We in India, where we have so many people in poverty, have been denied that. Friends, as a climate responsible developing country, India welcomes partners to create affordable access to green finance and clean

technology. And that's sort of part of a position of India saying, look, there's an economic bargain to be made here as well. If you can help us grow our economy and have a booming economy without raising our carbon emissions. We welcome that approach from the rest of the world. That's an interesting kind of two-pronged argument. They're saying that they should be entitled to the type of economic growth that these other countries have already experienced. Frankly, that sounds like a pretty good and sensible argument. What's the response to that?

Well, President Obama had a very good relationship with Prime Minister Modi. And they actually succeeded in brokering a deal ahead of the Paris Agreement, whereby the U.S. did work to do a lot of financing for clean energy technology in India. And that was kind of part of what got India to the table in the first place in the Paris Agreement. Now, I think that Modi is coming back to the table and coming back to President Biden, who, you know, was part of helping craft that deal and saying, OK, to lower that curve a little more, the U.S. is going to have to pony up again. They're using as a bargaining chip for that type of economic development, particularly from the U.S. Absolutely. OK, so tell me about the next country that you mentioned. I think it was Russia. Mr. President, colleagues, ladies, gentlemen. Yeah, so Russia is the world's fourth largest greenhouse gas polluter. And I will give this

to President Putin. He's come a long way since the days where he used to say global warming would be great for Russia because it would mean that Russians would not have to spend as much money on fur coats. He said that? He did. Our discussion today demonstrates how deeply we all share the concern with regard to global climate change. So it's interesting to see him come to the table and he said... And how much we're all interested in redoubling the international effort to address this issue. We take these treaties very seriously. We take the Paris Agreement very seriously.

We take the UN climate negotiation process very seriously. But at the end of the day, Russia's current climate program would have its emissions rising about 20% in the next decades. He said that... Yesterday, I presented my annual address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Russia is committed to reducing its emissions by 2050. I listed the task of significantly reducing the net accumulated emissions in our country by 2050. I think that was about as specific as he got. That could mean anything. So, you know, no new plan, no new specifics, lots of rhetoric that sort of matches up with what you

hear from other world leaders who have kind of been, you know, in this climate space for a while, but nothing remotely meaningful on emissions reductions, which is really important. I mean, Russia is, can't do it without Russia. They're a major petro state and they don't have any kind of domestic policy to reduce emissions and don't really seem to have serious leadership in this space. So to summarize, all of these countries largely re-upped their previous commitments and we're testing out where this Biden administration in America is at the moment. So in some ways, was it disappointing for the Biden administration that there weren't new commitments made at the summit? I think it was. I think that they were really hoping for commitments from the major polluters.

I should say that some countries did make new commitments. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau increased Canada's emissions target. It had been to cut 30% of emissions by 2030. He upped that to 40%. That's significant. Japan and South Korea made some new commitments. But I think that Biden's hope for this

would have been that this sort of bold, ambitious new U.S. pledge would have led to other pledges from other countries. And on that count, it just did not happen. So what do we think the Biden administration took from this summit? It really hammered home. I think that the credibility of the U.S. in this space with the rest of the world is shot. And they will have to find some way to win it back.

We'll be right back. So, Coral, you mentioned how a lot of the U.S. credibility has been shot on climate change, partially because the presidential administrations go from one extreme to the other. So how do we fix that? I mean, that's the system that we have here. We elect presidents every four years. How do we change that credibility gap? So what the rest of the world has made clear that they need to see from the U.S. on climate change is passage of a law, the first ever U.S. climate law.

So the challenge for Biden is to pass something through Congress that will last long after his administration has come and gone. So the rest of the world is looking for a law from the U.S. Does Biden have that law? Does he have a proposal in mind? He does. The proposal is, perhaps you've heard of it, the infrastructure bill. This is part two of his COVID economic recovery package.

It's a $2.3 trillion spending proposal. Much of it is focused on regular old-fashioned building roads, building bridges, fixing things. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending on specifically climate-friendly renewable energy projects, such as building half a million electric vehicle charging stations, lots of R&D to get widespread cheap wind and solar energy. And that stuff, I think, still qualifies as plain old-fashioned infrastructure, even if it's green. But there's one provision that if they can jam it through this infrastructure bill, will totally change the fate of the U.S. energy economy and how the

rest of the world perceives the U.S. on climate change. What's that? It is. Tell me. It's called the Clean Electricity Standard. It would be a federal mandate that would call for 80 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from zero carbon electricity sources by 2030. So in a decade. That's a hard thing to push through, but that is the proposal right now. If they can get that language through as part of this gigantic infrastructure package, it would transform the U.S. energy economy. It would completely change what it means to turn the lights on in America. the U.S. energy economy. It would completely change what it means to turn the lights on in America. It would lead to the closure of pretty much every fossil fuel power plant as we know it.

And it would lead to the drastic reduction of U.S. emissions. And it would outlast the Biden administration. And that would be the thing that they could bring to the international negotiating table, like more than anything else. They could say, we did this, this is a law, this is transforming the U.S. energy economy for the 21st century in a way that cannot be undone. So tucked into this massive spending bill that includes spending on climate change is a proposal that doesn't sound like spending at all,

but a mandate. And you're saying that that is actually the piece that the rest of the world recognizes as the kind of make or break moment to show the United States commitment to fighting climate change. Yes. I mean, that's the law. That would be it. Yes. And the reason this is so unprecedented is because there's never been a regulation like this, a law like this before in the country, right? You're saying the importance here is that this is a mandate that will be crystallized in law. Yes.

So to your question, has there ever been anything like this? The answer is yes, at the state level. Actually, about half the states do have state level laws like this. There's a lot of Republican states that have a lot of wind and solar that have laws like this.

And so that is, I think, one reason politically that they're hoping that it has a chance. Iowa, of course, which has two Republican senators, has a law like this. So they are hoping that given its success at the state level, more than half the states, that it would have a shot. So there are some Republicans who have backed this on the state level. And so it seems as if there is some hope that in Congress and on the federal

level, some Republicans could support a clean electricity standard. But if that's true, why is it included in this giant, big infrastructure bill rather than passing it as its own law? Great question. And the reason is that even though they do think they might be able to pick off some Republican votes. Remember that in order to pass something through the Senate under regular order, Democrats would actually need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Right now they have 51 with the vice president casting that tie-breaking vote. So even if they were to pick up just a couple of Republicans, they don't think that they can get nine or 10. And so that's why they're saying, look, even if we can get just a couple of Republican votes, that might not be enough. So their strategy is to put this

clean electricity standard into this giant infrastructure spending bill. And the reason for doing that is there is a loophole, a special procedure in the Senate. It's called budget reconciliation. That under budget reconciliation, anything that qualifies as a loophole, a special procedure in the Senate. It's called budget reconciliation. That under budget reconciliation, anything that qualifies as a spending bill can be passed with a simple 51 vote majority. So the expectation is, the idea is like, jam in the clean electricity standard and the climate stuff and the infrastructure spending

and just get it through with these 51 votes under budget reconciliation. Right, so that's political strategy makes sense. But then my question is, how can the White House justify this clean electricity standard as spending, which is necessary for reconciliation, when on its face, it doesn't seem like spending at all? So what Senate Democrats are trying to do right now is to figure out a way to basically take what they want to do with clean electricity and make it into budget legislation. Well, how do you do that? One way they might do that would be to create some kind of tax incentive structure where electric utilities

that increase their renewable electricity would qualify for generous tax incentives. Electric utilities that did not do this would be taxed. That would be a way that you could design this where it's less a mandate and more of a carrot and stick with taxes, but designed to be in such a way that every company would choose the clean energy option because the tax structure would make it the obvious choice. That would be an example of how they might try to fancy footwork this. So even if Democrats succeed in justifying the suspending, they still need complete party unity on this because of their slim majorities in Congress. Are all Democratic senators on board with the idea of the clean

electricity standard or should we expect some holdouts? Joe Manchin. Our pseudo king. Yes, he is. So just like infrastructure is about everything, Joe Manchin controls everything, including whether the rest of the world takes us seriously on climate change. So Joe Manchin, of course, is the Democratic senator from the coal state of West Virginia. A clean electricity standard is specifically designed to destroy the coal industry. I mean, it is meant to shut down coal plants. That is the point. Joe Manchin has not yet said no on an infrastructure package with a clean electricity standard. I think that Joe Manchin is open to lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of money to go straight to West

Virginia to maybe like retrain coal miners and retrain coal workers and help his state's economy. You know, money is a big part of bringing people on board in climate policy as well. And Joe Manchin is very good at negotiating for what he wants. So, you know, I can be prone to dramatics, but it seems as if what you're saying here is that the rest of the world who is waiting and looking to the United States to solve this huge issue, it's come down somewhat, it seems, at least in part, to a singular Democratic senator deciding whether there's going to be the type of legislation that the world says is necessary for the most pressing issue, meaning climate change. Not melodramatic. True. Yes. Has he said anything about the climate components of the bill, maybe even the other parts, the spending parts that are not the clean electricity standard? Yes. And I've talked with Senator Manchin about this. I mean, he absolutely

talks about the reality of climate change and the fact that burning coal contributes to it and the fact that this is something that we need a solution to. And the fact that if you're going to solve climate change, you have to figure out what to do for the coal workers who will be affected by this. I mean, he he is open about dealing with all of that. Again, I think he's using his leverage so that one big piece of the infrastructure bill that President Biden put in, I think very much with Joe Manchin in mind, is lots and lots and lots of this spending that would go to retraining and employing fossil fuel workers. What do you think will be the reaction from the rest of the world if this clean electricity standard does pass? I think that the U.S. really will go back to having leadership in this space. I think if President Biden had something like that under his belt,

we would see very, very different reactions from world leaders than we did in this climate conference last week. So what would it mean? What would the impact be for the U.S. to reassert itself as a world leader? Well, we would see the impact of that this year. The reason why is under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement, this year, every country is legally obligated to show up at a U.N. climate conference. It's in November in Glasgow, Scotland, and give new, more ambitious emissions reductions targets. in Glasgow, Scotland, and give new, more ambitious emissions reductions targets.

That's the deadline. They all have to do it. And so I think that as the rest of the world prepares their numbers and prepares what they're going to offer when they come to Glasgow, if the U.S. pulls this off, I think that we're likely to see a significant shift in sort of the global politics of climate change. So the Biden administration basically has six months before this conference in Glasgow that will determine whether the U.S. is arriving to this conference as the leader on climate change with real teeth behind that or as another instance of America is talking about it but not doing it. Exactly. Yes. So, Coral, if the White House fails to establish this clean electricity standard and its credibility is further eroded on the world stage,

how does that affect the global fight against climate change? Do you think someone else will step up and lead that same sort of charge? I think if the U.S. lacks credibility in this space, climate negotiations will continue. Countries will continue to enact domestic policies to reduce their emissions. But absent the sort of full-throated, aggressive, credible leadership of the world's largest economy and the power of the U.S. to use its economic force, its trade force, its diplomatic force to get much more rapid and aggressive

commitments from the rest of the world. If the U.S. doesn't have that, then I don't see how it is possible for the rest of the world to aggressively and rapidly make the cuts in emissions that are necessary to avert the climate crisis scenario. You know, we're on the edge of that right now. Absent U.S. leadership, I really don't see how it's possible to not get there. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. It was good to be with you instead.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Monday, the Biden administration said it plans to export up to 60 million doses of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine to foreign countries, including India, which is experiencing a major outbreak of infections. But the commitment may be difficult to quickly fulfill. American manufacturing of the vaccine is occurring at the Baltimore plant where production has been halted over fears of contamination. And U.S. regulators have yet to even authorize use of AstraZeneca's vaccine. Just to be clear, right now we have zero doses available of AstraZeneca. During a briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki

cautioned that delivery of the vaccine to foreign countries would take time. Our team, our national security team, our COVID team, working with the State Department and others, we're going to assess a range of requests, a range of needs around the world. But that's the timeline, just to give you a sense. Today's episode was produced by Luke Vanderplug, Michael Simon-Johnson, Diana Nguyen, and Stella Tan. It was edited by Dave Shaw, Mark George, and Paige Cowett, and engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bavaro. See you tomorrow.