Climate Stakes U.S. 3

Issue #3: Trees, tariffs & trials 🌳 

The big picture

Four years ago, on Earth Day, former President Donald Trump officiated over a tree planting ceremony (“triple-A trees,” “beautiful straight trunk,” etc., etc.) and pledged to plant a trillion more, which scientists have since found would have minimal effect on global climate change. This year, Earth Week announcements from the Biden administration included a new website to sign up for the Climate Corps (.gov) jobs program, $7 billion (AP) for new solar projects, new power plant rules from the EPA, and continued calls from the administration to triple tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum — a tripling of tariffs that Trump, who has called himself a “tariff man,” originally imposed. 

The tariff move, addressed by multiple climate leaders in the administration — and during a state visit to China last week — has been described variously as a play for U.S. labor support, as a defense of Inflation Reduction Act incentives for locally made clean energy tech, and as a penalty for the higher carbon emissions of some Chinese commodities. And it actually enjoys some bipartisan support. Bloomberg pointed out that GOP Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana pitched a kind of carbon border tax aimed at China late last year: “Suspicion of China is one of the very few areas of bipartisan agreement left.” For more, the World Resources Institute reviews four U.S. Congress bipartisan carbon tax bills from late last year.

This embracing of protectionism from a Democratic White House warrants more media attention and begs the question of how it differs in approach and goals from Trump’s vows to punish China. White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi told Semafor that tariffs and tax bonuses for local materials and production do lead to deeper emissions cuts because they help bind the U.S. economy to clean tech, and thereby make climate policy more durable. Special Climate Envoy John Podesta has announced the formation of a White House Climate and Trade Task Force to design clean energy trade policy, emphasizing that it won’t penalize developing countries. 

Other new climate-forward policies announced in the last few weeks include: 

• New federal rangeland rules aimed at opening up clean energy projects (through restoration and mitigation leases) on one-tenth of U.S. lands (WaPo).

• The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new power plant rules compelling coal and new natural gas power plants to either cut or capture 90% of their climate pollution by 2032 (CNN). Trump has vowed to reverse regulations on coal and to green light “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” of new power plants (NYT). 

• The EPA’s Superfund law, designed for hazardous disaster cleanup, is set to make companies producing two specific PFAS — “forever chemicals” that are found in many plastics — monitor and pay for any release into the environment (NYT).

• Vehicle tailpipe standards updates are pushing a more rapid electric vehicle (EV) transition by 2032 (NPR), although the Biden administration has simultaneously slowed its EV transition forecasts, favoring “technology neutral” standards. New, more stringent fuel efficiency rules are coming this summer to supplement the tailpipe emissions rules. Trump has vowed to reverse these standards and falsely labels the rules an “EV mandate.”

• $20 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is being awarded for local and regional green bank financing (AP). 

And at least one other bipartisan solution emerged from Congress (The Hill): The bipartisan EXPLORE Act contains provisions that seek to open up more opportunities for spending time in national parks, forests and other public lands, including for people who are low income, disabled, or veterans.

But what’s really happening across the U.S. and how is climate change shaping this critical election? These are the questions this newsletter will ask, fortnightly, through the election in November and beyond. So please subscribe and forward this email along if you find it useful.

Back in the news with “Youth v Gov” now streaming on Netflix is the case of Juliana v. United States about 21 young Americans who sued the government — in 2015 — for violating their rights to life, liberty, and property, and failing to protect public trust resources because of federal policies that cause climate change. If this case is heard, it will certainly extend into the next presidential term, which makes it a great question for federal candidates — Biden’s Department of Justice has tried to quash the case, and some of the plaintiffs showed up at the White House on Earth Day to demand a trial. 

EE News covered competition among Democratic governors for Climate Pollution Reduction grants under the IRA, and for the mantle of most climate Democrat, in a race for national Democratic climate leadership:

• Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is pitching a plan to cut industrial pollution without relying on his Republican-controlled state Senate.

• Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, fresh off passing a package of climate laws, wants to smooth the way for a renewable energy boom.

• And Maryland Governor Wes Moore has big ideas about a new economy-wide climate standard. But the basic details — like what it would regulate or how to pay for it — are still being worked out.

• Meanwhile, five Republican governors opted out of the funds, including Florida, South Dakota and Iowa. 

Now available to use, the Clean Economy Tracker from Atlas Public Policy and Utah State University lists clean energy manufacturing investments in the U.S. going back to… 2016. The site has lots of downloadable data showing, for example, that 75% of investments are in GOP-led states. E2 has similar data also by congressional district, though only since the passage of the IRA. It shows 176 clean energy projects in GOP districts (58%) and 105 in Democratic districts (35%), with a handful of project locations still up in the air. The Republican-led state clean energy trend pre-dates the IRA, apparently. 

What does Japanese Trump whisperer Sunao Takao, a Harvard-educated interpreter who helped former prime minister Shinzo Abe bond with Trump over games of golf, actually do? Reuters on nations that are making overtures to the Trump team reveals: “Washington's lobbyist district is buzzing with South Koreans keen to understand Trump's views on trade and investment, including what would happen to Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a South Korean government official said.” Meanwhile, “Congo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.” 

The UK’s recent hike in defense spending (£75 billion increase over six years) was proposed also with an eye on a future Trump administration, according to Politico. 

RFK Jr. told Politico that he’s “trying to craft a climate policy that, ‘makes sense to skeptics and activists alike.’” But climate advocates are indeed skeptical: Big Green groups (and his own extended family) have disavowed the RFK Jr. campaign, calling out “false environmentalist claims.”

Information integrity (disinfo)

Check out this webinar on pre-bunking for journalists from Covering Climate Now, with Ketan Joshi, Phil Newell of Climate Nexus, Dharna Noor of the Guardian, and executive editor of Drilled Media, Amy Westervelt. Newell shares his quick and easy definition of disinformation: Is it wrong, on purpose, for money? 

Coming Wednesday, May 1: Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change, a hearing on the Senate Budget Committee (livestream available).

In the UK, Reuters and the FT pulled down ad content from Saudi Aramco following a complaint to UK regulators that they spread false information about “advanced fuels” and Aramco’s climate commitments.

Voters’ climate game (polling) 

Polls are shifting, with several major media surveys showing Biden gaining ground, and the fivethirtyeight average showing Trump leading by only 1 point. 

• Bloomberg/Morning Consult had Biden gaining on Trump in six of seven swing states: “Biden’s biggest gains were in Wisconsin, where he leads Trump by one point after trailing him by 4 points in February. And in Pennsylvania, where the two are tied after Trump being up by 6 points in February. They are also tied in Michigan.”

Pew published research on Republicans’ views of climate change and energy issues that shows they are less concerned and want to keep fossil fuels in the mix, but also that younger generations are more concerned. Yale asked, “What do Americans want to know about climate change?” and found that, overwhelmingly, Americans want to hear about climate solutions.

And according to the April AP-NORC poll, 67% of Americans say that oil and gas companies are doing too little to address climate change.

Question for you: As you watch American politics unfold this year, what is the climate issue that holds the highest stakes for you? Let us know! 

Why stakes?

We are calling this newsletter Climate Stakes U.S. because the stakes are, indeed, too high. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has urged reporters to consider the stakes of elections, and not just the odds of winning them, and we aim to do that for the climate. As the year develops, we will look for high stakes moments and show where they do — or where they should — overlap with American politics. 

GSCC is a global network of communications professionals in the field of climate and energy. The views expressed in quotes in this newsletter are those of the people making the comments and not necessarily those of GSCC, and they are presented as a service in the interest of informing the public. GSCC does not endorse candidates.

This edition was written by Nate.