Joe Biden has unveiled his game
plan to fight the climate emergency
we're experiencing, which is in
fact a climate emergency.
In fact, Gavin Newsom,
the governor of California has
just declared a state of emergency
as a result of the ongoing drought.
Two counties in California are hit
particularly hard by that.
But getting back to Biden,
Biden's target calls for cutting US
carbon dioxide output by 50% to 52%
compared with the 2005 levels.
And I think this part is important,
a far more aggressive goal than
the one former President Barack
Obama proposed half a decade ago.
Biden has called for
putting the US on a path to
eliminating net greenhouse gas
pollution by mid century.
Now I emphasize the comparison to
Obama's administration because it
does appear as though Biden loves
being compared to Obama as someone
who's willing to do more for
the American people.
So if that positive reinforcement
works, great,
let's definitely engage in that.
But how possible is it for him to
hit these lofty goals when Congress
continues to be divided and broken?
I think it's an important part of
this discussion.
Before we get to that, though,
let's take a quick look at what
Biden had to say during his virtual
conference with dozens of other
world leaders.
>> The steps will set America on
a path of net zero emissions
economy by no later than 2050.
But the truth is,
America represents less than 50% of
the world's emissions.
No nation
can solve this crisis on her own,
as I know you all fully understand.
All of us, all of us and
particularly those of us who
represent the world's
largest economies.
We have to step up.
>> So this is important,
especially considering the damage
that was done
during the Trump administration.
Trump famously pulled out of
the Paris Climate Accord.
He undid some of the environmental
regulations we have in
the United States.
And he had essentially said no,
we're not going to
follow through with any of these
carbon cutting plans.
And so when you're the top
polluting country in the world,
that makes everyone else think,
well then we're not going to do
anything.
Why are we going to innovate or
create new technology or
move to renewable energy?
When the United States,
the biggest polluter is refusing to
do anything.
Biden is trying to reverse that.
So that's an important part of
the story as well.
>> Yeah, before I get to Biden's
plans and how ambitious they are,
and they really are,
they're surprisingly ambitious,
if you ask me.
With the details
are really important,
we'll get to in a second.
Just to kind of side notes, first,
congratulations to China,
they've actually passed us.
Historically, America is by
far the biggest polluting country
in the history of the world.
But China is now number one in
terms of emissions.
So and they say they're going to
also take action.
They didn't add much today to what
they've said in the past, but
they claim that they're going to
basically they get off of coal by
2060, which would be a big
project for them.
2060 is a long time away.
So they've done better proposals
than us during the Trump era.
But now we're getting out ahead of
them, which is good news,
great news.
Second side note here, Anna told
you, Gavin Newsom, governor of
California declared a drought in
two counties in California.
And it's a disaster in California
for how bad the droughts are.
They were last year, they're
going to be this year, they're
going to be again next year.
And climate change is 100% real,
it's not coming later,
it's here now.
But I have to share a tweet with
you guys from Joe Sanberg.
He's the founder of Aspiration and
a wonderful and
really strong fighter for
progressives, right?
And he did this tweet about
Gavin Newsom's announcement that
kind of caught on fire online.
He said, please, just simple,
please stop approving fracking
permits.
>> Bingo, exactly.
>> Okay, yeah, so if you
think it's really horrible and
you're a Democrat and you're
the governor of California and
you were standing as Gavin Newsom
explaining that photo op.
He should be 40 feet under water,
but there's no water in that area.
So that's a devastating
turn of events.
Methane is one of the worst gases
there is.
In fact, Biden, a part of his
proposal is about that.
And fracking is horrible on release
of methane.
So Sanberg is definitely right
about that.
But more about Biden's proposals
and then I'll tell you why I think
they're so ambitious.
>> So there's so many different
angles to touch this story on.
But since you've mentioned China,
I do want to go back to that
real quick.
Because the good news with this
virtual conference that Biden is
leading really was a conference
that was organized and
put together by the United States.
The great thing is that two
countries that we absolutely must
collaborate and work with,
agree to attend.
So that's Russia and China.
And really, despite all of the
other issues that the United States
might have foreign
policy wise with these countries.
We need to work with them in
order to really defeat or deal
with climate change effectively.
We can't do it unilaterally.
Clearly we can't do that.
So Chinese Premier Xi Jinping,
pledged for the first time to begin
reducing coal consumption to Cenk's
point by the middle of the decade.
And he also said
we will strictly control coal fired
power generation projects.
We will strictly limit the increase
in coal consumption over the 14th,
Five-Year period and phase it down
in the 15th Five-Year period,
he said referring to the next
economic planning period that
begins in 2026.
So again, obviously,
we would like to see more, but
right now, understandably,
world leaders are hesitant and
skeptical of the United States.
Because really
the United States and
its policy in responding to climate
change depends on who's in office.
And so if it's going to change
every four or every eight years,
they're not going to follow through
on things knowing that
the United States could renege
on its promises as well.
That's why Donald Trump's actions
were so incredibly damaging both
when it came to climate issues, and
also when it came to foreign policy
issues like following through with
the Iran nuclear deal.
>> Yeah, so
John Kerry, who was appointed by
Biden to lead this climate change
effort sounded so confident that I
was kind of stunned by it.
He's like, we'll hit
these goals easy.
Now, let me read you just four of
the goals in order
to get to the overall number that
Biden is trying to hit by 2030.
And again, that's only nine years
from now, right?
Oil and gas producers will slash
emissions of methane,
a potent heat trapping gas, by 60%,
60% reduction.
Now, it's a reduction, don't
get me wrong from now to 2030.
No, it's from the 2005 numbers when
they started this in the first
place, this long term project.
But still reducing by 60% is a big
number by 2030.
Okay, more surprising numbers,
virtually all of the 200 remaining
coal plants in the US will shut
down unless they too can
capture their emissions and
bury them underground, according to
the New York Times, okay?
Shutting down all 200 coal,
now Biden hasn't said he's going to
shut down all of those plants.
But these are the numbers that
would be required to hit the goal.
By 2030, half the country's
electricity would come from
renewable sources such as wind,
solar, or hydro power,
up from one feet today.
First of all, did you know that 20%
of our energy comes from renewable
energies like solar and wind?
So that's a big number already.
So we're actually making a lot more
progress than I think people
realize sometimes.
>> Damned >> But going to half,
wow.
That is very ambitious by 2030.
Great, wonderful, okay?
And last one, and there are many
others here but I'm just giving you
some of the highlights.
By 2030,
two thirds of the new cars and
SUVs sold would be battery powered
up from roughly only 2% today.
Now that's not all the cars on the
road, that's new cars sold by 2030.
But going from 2% to two thirds of
all cars, no wonder Tesla's stock
is through the roof.
So if they can hit those numbers,
and they seem weirdly confident
about it, that is a good start.
Look, we're super tough on
corporate Democrats, and
we give them no quarter at all.
But if you're going to do
a wonderful things, we we'd love to
give you credit, >> Yes, >> So,
I like this strong effort here.
Obviously, it's super important
that they follow through.
>> It's super important that they
follow through.
And there's also a massive caveat
that's worth discussing,
because while the proposals coming
from the Democratic Party
are oftentimes pretty good.
They have to actually fight on
behalf of those policies.
And what we're hearing from the
Biden administration is that maybe
we can do all this stuff without
having to go through Congress.
Maybe we could do without Congress.
No, you can't, you can't.
In fact, experts have weighed
in on this.
And I want to give you two quotes,
one is from the deputy director
of Breakthrough Institute, he says,
I think it would be basically
impossible to achieve the proposed
target with executive authority.
And I think he's right.
With executive authority alone,
both in terms of investment and
regulation.
I'm sure there are things
the administration can do on
the margins, but for the ambition
they're announcing, I can't see it
happening without legislation.
Unless, look, the executive branch
has a lot of power when it comes to
issues involving national security.
This is a national security issue.
So is Biden willing to flex
that muscle?
That's the big question.
But simply saying like, we don't
necessarily need Congress without
filling in the blanks of how you
intend on doing this without
Congress, I think is a problem.
And then Mark Dyson from RMI also
told Politico, the answer to the
question of whether the White House
can achieve such a goal alone is
almost certainly no.
It is very unlikely that this
goal could be achieved without
new federal legislation.
Currently, many of the key rules
and regulations are done at
the state level.
While some states have aggressive
policies, they are not uniform or
aggressive enough to meet the goal.
And I think Mark Dyson
is right about that as well.
>> Yeah, so my giant caveat is
they're about to introduce the
infrastructure bill at some point,
and that was supposed to be $2.2
trillion credit to people like AOC,
who said it should be larger and
it should.
And partly because of course, then
Biden is going to go to compromise
and cut the hell out of it.
And so now Chris Coons,
probably the top ally of Joe Biden
in the Senate,
is talking about $800 billion.
Why is Biden's top ally
instantly taking it down from 2.2
trillion to 800 billion, so
it's a giant deduction?
Well, one of the things that now
Susan Collins is asking for and
I'm really worried about is that
they're going to say they're
going to take out every part of
the infrastructure bill that has to
do with Green New Deal.
Well, then how the hell are you
going to hit these goals if you
take out the parts about
the environment from
the infrastructure bill?
So why is it related to
infrastructure?
You need green jobs,
if you want to switch from 20% to
50% of our energy coming from
solar, wind, etc.
Well, you have to have
infrastructure built to
support that.
How about all the cars?
If you're going to have two thirds
of the cars being sold being
electric cars,
you need charging stations.
It's like Eisenhower building
the highways, it is, and but
which by the way helped our economy
tremendously and
created a ton of jobs,
think you are on the right track.
But if you send Coons and
others to go butcher that bill,
before you even get started, well,
then you're not going to hit any
of these goals and it's empty talk.
So, look, jury's out.
I like the proposals.
Let's see if they follow through
and if they don't,
we'll be here to tell you that.
A lot of folks in the rest of
the media play pat-a-cake, we deal
in facts, and it doesn't matter
which side is claiming those facts.
We're going to follow through it
and find out what's actually true
and report it back to you guys.