The climate clock is ticking for Dems

Your guide to the political forces shaping the energy transformation

Jul 05, 2022 View in browser   By Arianna Skibell Climate-fueled wildfires burn in California. | David McNew/ Getty Images  Last week's Supreme Court defeat for the Biden administration has progressives pushing for Congress to take back the initiative on climate change — and pass laws that would stand the test of time. But prospects appear bleak for the razor-thin Democratic majority, which could be months from losing control of Congress. "Climate change needs congressional attention, not half-baked attempts at de facto regulation on the sly," said Paul Bledsoe, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute and former climate adviser to the Obama and Clinton administrations. "Nothing is as powerful as legislation in terms of its lasting effect on policy." Thursday's 6-3 SCOTUS decision showed the pitfalls of the regulatory path by rejecting an Environmental Protection Agency power plant rule that the Obama administration had enacted in 2015 — one that never even took effect before Donald Trump's EPA rescinded it. A climate law, like the cap-and-trade bill Congress failed to pass over a decade ago, would have had more staying power. But Democrats are running out of time in their latest attempt at a big climate bill in the face of GOP opposition. (Even the clean energy tax credits that Republicans supported in 2020 have failed to gain conservative support in this Congress.) Democrats are redoubling their efforts to pass their party-line climate and social spending bill before the August recess, which could be their last realistic chance. But after months of negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters last week that significant disagreements between him and swing-vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) remain. And the climate clock is ticking to slash planet-warming pollution from the power sector by 2035, a massive undertaking that scientists agree is necessary to stave off catastrophic warming. President Joe Biden set a goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 when he reentered the United States into the Paris Agreement. Detailed computer modeling shows that without significant legislation, the United States is not expected to meet those targets, derailing more ambitious efforts to decarbonize the entire economy by 2050. Still, Bledsoe said there could be added motivation for Democratic lawmakers as the midterm elections approach. "This bill has huge electoral potential for Democrats in the midterms," he said. Yet, climate activists are growing weary of the lack of action on Capitol Hill, shifting their focus to state capitals and local battles. That could translate to a lack of engagement with national candidates, spelling further trouble for the Democratic Party and its climate agenda.   It's Tuesday — thank you for tuning into POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind  E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@eenews.net. Fact check If CO2 emissions stopped today, the world would still face "committed warming," where higher temperatures are locked-in and inevitable.  This idea spread like wildfire in the news with the 2019 release of a U.N. environment report on the Arctic. It was picked up by dozens of publications and was for a time listed on a NASA climate FAQ page. But is it true or false? The verdict? False. In reality, the latest climate science suggests that the vast majority of future warming depends on future emissions. Temperatures should stop rising as soon as people cease emitting greenhouse gases. The source of the confusion stems from a conflation of two different scenarios, according to the climate science website Carbon Brief. The first imagines a world where CO2 levels remain steady and temperatures continue to rise (bad for the planet). The second looks at a world where emissions reach net-zero (good for the planet). Power Centers Carbon capture test unit. | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images SCOTUS fallout The Supreme Court ruling curbing EPA's ability to regulate carbon from power plants means carbon capture will likely form the backbone of any new agency regulation, writes Benjamin Storrow. But making carbon capture the industry standard would be expensive, potentially unreliable and likely prompt many plants to close altogether. Read more here. Another option for EPA would be tightening power plant standards for other toxic air pollutants, like mercury, which would slash carbon as a byproduct, write David Iaconangelo, Niina H. Farah, and Carlos Anchondo. But Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University's School of Law, said that is risky. "The challenge here is for EPA to make clear [to the courts] that it is pursuing these reductions on their own merits, and not as a workaround," he said. Here's the story. Biden and Big Oil go way back It started when Biden was a 28-year-old county councilman in Delaware and he successfully galvanized political opposition to a Shell refinery, writes Robin Bravender. Biden leaned on his reputation for battling Big Oil to win his 1972 Senate race, which catapulted a political career that ultimately landed in the White House. Now, the stakes are even higher. Here's the full story. Russian retaliation? The German government has proposed an emergency law to bail out ailing energy companies amid concerns that Russia might turn off the gas tap next week, writes Hans von der Burchard. Russia has already drastically reduced gas deliveries to Germany in recent weeks. And there is growing concern the Kremlin may use a maintenance check of a gas pipeline as a pretext to cut off supplies to Europe. Read more here. In Other News Space umbrellas: Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers are designing a giant, Brazil-sized shield of "space bubbles" to block out some inbound solar radiation thus curbing global warming with a giant umbrella. Today in the POLITICO Energy podcast: Zack Colman explains how environmentalists and many of their Democratic allies are returning to a Trump-era strategy of shifting their focus to state capitals as the places to press for action on climate change. Question Corner The science, policy and politics driving the energy transition can feel miles away. But we're all affected on an individual and communal level — from hotter days and higher gas prices to home insurance rates and food supply. Want to know more? Send me your questions with "Question Corner" in the subject line. We'll pick a handful to answer each week in the newsletter. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images The White House and Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos traded Twitter barbs over the weekend after Biden called on gasoline stations to adjust their prices. With the Biden administration's release of an indecisive draft of its offshore oil strategy, the White House is giving itself room to maneuver during a fraught time for energy politics. Senior EU officials are calling for Ukraine to be rebuilt in a climate-sustainable way after Russia's invasion. But the country is still fighting for its life. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.   Follow us on Twitter Arianna Skibell @ariannaskibell   Follow us

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://www.politico.com/_login?base=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings This email was sent to rouf@idiot.cloudns.cc by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA Please click here and follow the steps to unsubscribe.