The bipartisan infrastructure bill that cleared the Senate today represents the largest
investment in green energy in US history, but it faces a tough road
ahead in the House of Representatives, where some progressive Democrats say it's not
enough to address the climate crisis.
We explore the Biden administration's plans to address climate change with Energy
Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
Secretary Granholm, great to have you on the NewsHour.
I want to ask you about this UN report that came out yesterday.
It stated unequivocally that humans are driving climate change
and that climate change is driving these catastrophic effects that will only get worse
if we don't act quickly. I just have to imagine that that report sets off
alarm bells within the administration. Is it?
Well, it certainly is not a surprise.
This was a it was a follow on to a previous report that was
similarly alarming. But this is just makes it so abundantly
clear, especially at a moment when we're seeing wildfires in the West
and we're seeing historic drought. We're seeing wildfires all over the world.
So it really is an exclamation point on the president's
agenda, on to address climate and to to make sure that we capitalize
as a nation as well, I would say, on making the products
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
So so capitalizing both on the urgency of the moment, but also the economic
opportunity of the moment.
As I mentioned, there are these there are two infrastructure bills being negotiated in
the House and the Senate right now. And those will be some of the major tools that
the administration would use to help fight climate change in those bills.
What do you see as the most crucial elements and do you think that they will survive
negotiation?
We're very optimistic. I mean, the fact that we got 19 Republicans
to join all of the Democrats in this bipartisan bill in the Senate suggests
that there will be bipartisan support in the House.
And then, of course, the second step is the reconciliation bill.
So what's most important? Number one, the investments in the grid
that were part of today's vote, that is very important.
The investments in the electric vehicle infrastructure that were part of today's vote,
again, very important, the investments in the battery technologies
that will allow for electric vehicles to be price competitive
with the gasoline powered vehicles in the next step.
The long pole in the tent really is the clean electricity standard.
And that CBS is going to require that we get one hundred percent of our
energy from clean sources by the year twenty, thirty five.
There's a version that has we get the fact that we get 80 percent of our energy from
clean sources by 20, 30.
Either one of those is a very strong statement about where we are headed as a nation
and utilities and fuels will respond.
And then when you couple that with the tax credits to incentivize
the private sector to be able to build out the wind, the solar, the hydropower,
the clean technologies and energy that we need, that is a game changer for us.
It means that we really will be able to respond to that.
That United Nations report
separately under the Department of Energy, which you oversee, are there other particular
elements, tools in your toolbox in particular that you think are useful in this fight
that need to be deployed?
Oh, for sure. I mean, we have 17 national labs in the Department of
Energy. We are the solutions department.
So when it comes to next generation technologies, whether it's for batteries,
for the electric vehicle or for batteries, for storing renewable power on the
electric grid, that's where we come in.
We have developed a series of what we call earth shots, which are big, audacious
goals to reduce the cost of technologies that will enable us to
have clean power, be even more cost competitive than fossil fuels
as they I mean, right now, wind is free, sun is free, but we've got to make sure that we
get it onto the grid and we reduce the costs associated with them.
The technologies associated with hydrogen, for example, which could be a game
changer in terms of being able to store and export renewable
energy. All of those that's that's comes right out of the Department of Energy.
So we want to do that, those advanced technologies.
We will and we want to deploy the technologies that we know are off the shelf and ready
to go.
I hear all the optimism that you're describing, but in the last eight years,
since the last U.N. report, global emissions have only grown in the last
five years. Since the Paris Accords were signed, emissions have only grown.
It seems that we are tiptoeing towards substantive action when
the science indicates that we need to be sprinting.
Yeah, we do need to be sprinting. And what the president's plan has put on the table is a
big sprint. And in fact, we can't be exhorting other.
When we're not doing you know, we're not taking care of our own business at home, so it's
really important that we get that we make as a nation a commitment to 100
percent clean and renewable energy because we're going to be exhorting other countries
to be doing the same thing. So when we go to the next version of Paris in
Glass, Glasgow in November, we want to make sure that we can lead
with authority as a nation and that we can exhort others.
And by the way, we've got all sorts of solutions, technologies, et cetera, that we can be
partners with other countries on. So, yeah, it is a hair on fire moment.
We should be acting with urgency.
But the Biden administration, that's exactly why they are putting forward these historic
investments in clean energy so that we can do what we need to do at home
and exhort the rest of the world to to do it as well.
I want to ask you about the argument that the Republicans and some Democrats in Congress,
in the Senate make, which is that the proposals that are being put forward by the
administration in the billions, tens and hundreds of billions of dollars are too
expensive. And that we will if we don't get China and India to
sign on, we're going to be bankrupting ourselves and putting ourselves at a competitive
disadvantage.
I think they are completely misreading this moment.
Number one, all of the countries of the world have signed on to reduce
CO2 emissions. All of the countries of the world are going to need the products that will
get them there. So who are we going to allow other countries to take advantage of this?
What will be a twenty three trillion dollar global market for the technologies
and the products that reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
We could stand by the side of the road and allow China to be able to do it, or we can get
in the game. And that's what this president is doing.
That's number one. Number two, if we don't do it, well, then what?
I mean, we are spending one hundred and ninety billion dollars a year addressing
these extreme weather events.
So we can and that's only escalating in the 90s.
In the 80s, we spent about 17 billion dollars a year.
Every year. It's gotten more and more expensive in responding as the climate has
continued to grow, has continued to increase.
So we need to address this with the urgency that it requires.
And that's why doing nothing is not an option.
Doing nothing is missing an opportunity in addition to
saving the planet.
US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, thank you very much for being here.
You bet, thanks for having me on.