A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it

Between Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin being his usual venal self, it’s hard to see what’s left of the Biden administration’s climate aspirations. Last week, roughly three months after effectively sinking the administration’s Build Back Better legislative plan (and only a week after torpedoing Biden’s very climate-relevant nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Federal Reserve), Manchin unveiled his latest version of a bill he might or might not support. It’s an “all of the above” energy strategy that, according to The Washington Post, “includes billions of dollars’ worth of provisions to tackle climate change, cut prescription drug costs and update the tax code,” in exchange for “some concessions related to oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and natural gas exports.”

Manchin has claimed to be ready to compromise before, so who knows how serious he is about this proposal. But it’s worth examining what this kind of deal would mean for U.S. energy and climate policy.

“All of the above” is a phrase that’s shorthand for investing in wind and solar while also increasing gas or other fossil fuel production. It was the Obama administration’s official energy strategy. From a climate perspective, it was a complete disaster—resulting, among other things, in a surge in oil exports and a fracked-gas boom that has been credibly linked to a huge spike in atmospheric methane (a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term). Methane emissions remain wildly underreported in the energy industry.

Advertising

The Biden administration, whose actions have never quite matched its stated ambitions with regard to climate change, has been edging noticeably closer to officially and openly championing this “all of the above” strategy in recent weeks. Climate special envoy John Kerry even told a group of fossil fuel executives in early March that “the Biden administration is committed to an all of the above transition.” And in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States has indicated it will boost liquefied natural gas exports to Europe to help replace Russian gas.

TNR’s Kate Aronoff has previously explained why this is a dangerous moment, from the climate perspective. “That U.S. fossil fuels are and will continue being tapped to fill gaps in European energy supplies isn’t all that controversial,” she wrote. “What [U.S. fossil fuel] companies seem especially eager for, though, is the potential to ink long-term deals and greenlight infrastructure that could stay online for decades to come.” This would be particularly counterproductive, because the new infrastructure wouldn’t actually come online quickly enough to solve the current crisis but would lock in further fossil fuel emissions for a long time. (As Kate has also pointed out, we need to stop greenlighting all new fossil fuel infrastructure in order to meet Paris Agreement targets to cap warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.)

A more climate-friendly solution to the current price spikes and renewed interest in energy independence might be to invest in energy efficiency and policies that actually reduce the demand for fossil fuels. (Investing in renewables will also help, but like fossil fuel infrastructure, renewables infrastructure cannot be installed and start producing energy overnight.) A lot of the policies needed to do this are simple and cheap and could be implemented very quickly. And, as Kate writes, life with less oil and gas could be a lot better. Between heat pumps delivering lower heating bills, less traffic, and easier commutes, it’s not as austere as you might think!

It might be a little less lucrative for Joe Manchin, though.

—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor