A Few Good Plans: Democratic Candidates and Climate Change

About two months ago I began to read through the climate policy plans of leading Democratic candidates. At the time, the candidates seemed to be speaking ambiguously about climate outside of it being bad and having an excellent plan for it. Not a great deal has changed in that time. 

Professionals in the industry know that the realities of mitigating climate change due to carbon footprints are intertwined with the most omnipresent aspects of our society. They’re also heavily tied to our economic history and growth. The number of jobs associated with energy in the US is estimated at 6.7 million people, roughly 5% of the economy. Those numbers sound large, but don’t do justice to the amount of economic activity intrinsically tied to fossil fuels. 

To alter the path we’ve been walking for decades, indeed over a century, requires stark alterations to the status quo. Yet when the politicians speak about the plans, many do so in a veiled format that leads one to question their understanding of the issues. Due to that it seemed like a good idea to dig into the plans for actionable ideas and impact. At the time of this assessment, I chose a few leaders for different reasons:

·        Joe Biden: Frontrunner and clearly going to later rounds of the fight, and old political chestnut who knows how the game is played and won more so than any other candidate

·        Elizabeth Warren: The planner’s planner, eloquent and passionate, clearly someone with a punchers chance

·        Jay Inslee: The most technically astute of all the candidates on energy, solid resume, and running platform with the central pillar to act on climate

·        Beto O’Rourke: Charismatic speaker from a critical energy infrastructure state who’s fought well as a Democrat in a Republican jurisdiction

Since that time some candidates have lost or gained steam at various time, but the race is still very much open. I purposefully chose runners with significant plans to assess the implications – no plan means no consideration. At the time I didn’t look at Harris or Sanders despite them being of interest politically. 

What do the plans say? Some more than others. Here’s a quick review:

There’s a great deal of strategic thought you can derive by reading through the plans. For instance, Warren’s approach calls back to war efforts historically and highlight both the gravity of the situation and the fact that we as a nation have done great things in the past and can do so now. Incorporating previous successes acknowledges her understanding of governance and endears to the boomers and beyond. A moniker of “Apollo” furthers this concept. What’s in a name? Quite a bit. Naming conventions in politics are critical, it’s why both sides work so hard to label one another with negative connotations.

Inslee takes a different route by highlighting his governance efforts in Washington state. He is the technocrat of the bunch, pulling on the actual sources of emissions and citing the science more thoroughly than others. While multiple candidates highlight the IPCC reporting, Inslee dives into emissions reductions for mobility, zero carbon pollution from new residential and commercial buildings (less mention of industry), and a 100% carbon neutral power plan by 2030, along with a zero emission grid by 2035. His texts are multiple large plans, as opposed to the other candidates’ one size fits all efforts. In that light there’s not much doubt he has the most time and effort on building a real plan – although many of his tactics are ultimately similar to other candidates’, his plan seems more credible.

Both Warren and Inslee seem the most likely to take punitive action against companies that pollute. These policies are likely to be embraced – per Inslee’s plan, 57% of the public supports making fossil fuel companies pay for damages that climate change causes. Citing and quantifying that damage would be an interesting exercise—and we are likely to see it in the next decade one way or another.

O’Rourke’s plan is perhaps the least compelling although still potentially impactful if enacted. He has large targets for deployment of investment capital and government programs. Yet they are somewhat ambiguous comparatively with others, using words like “strengthen,” “limit,” and “cut pollution day one” – all motherhood and apple pie but tough to quantify. He also calls out the Paris agreement, which at this point is not really worth talking about; should we rejoin? Sure. Will that be meaningful in the grand scheme of things? No, and we shouldn’t make a big deal of it. More aggressive action is necessary and all the candidates had better not bring their knives to the gun fight. If younger generations are the swing votes, that simply won’t cut it for getting elected, nor actually solve the problem.

This is where the nuance of reading multiple plans comes in. Particularly for the average citizen, all these plans seem momentous on the surface. The likelihood that they have teeth is only shown when comparing one to another. 

Biden’s plan came last of the group, likely as a response that they simply needed to have one. He is the favorite currently – he polls well, came from a successful organization and has an immense record of public service. There were some accusations of emulating others’ plans when it first published, and general derision in the far left around Joe wanting to go back to Obama era policy. His plan is more progressive and does cite the umbrella imperatives of the Green New Deal.  He also cites scientific organizations on the need for action now to reach net zero emissions by 2050, by enacting a target by the end of his first term in 2025. Frankly this seems like a slow timeline to map out the path forward. He also calls for investment in new technologies including modular nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration. At this point all options should be on the table, in my esteem, however the deployment of existing renewable technology and expansion of infrastructure are the paramount needs.

All in all, Joe seems like he has the right concept like O’Rourke, but it’s harder to buy into his plan for more contextual reasons. The lack of tactical detail, the rambling nature of the writing and criticism that he’s a middling candidate despite his excellent resume otherwise make it more difficult to imagine him prioritizing the issue. 

The big question is will any of these plans make a dent in emissions such that our climate pathways are lowered? That’s a reasonable, and difficult question to answer. Each of these plans would be significant alterations to the present course, however none would or could ultimately solve the issue entirely. The US represents a significant fraction of the emissions profile globally, but complete resolution means our country must transform while simultaneously influencing other nation states to do so as well. That’s the rub.  

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change builds pathways to understand the implications of many scenarios in all the major areas of emissions. Indeed, they break out the individual aspects of emissions by country and changes necessary to mitigate rising temperatures labelled by increases in actual temperature, e.g. Pathway 8.5 (bad) and Pathway 1.5 (not as bad). If you want to understand what’s necessary, that’s a great place to start. If you’d prefer to vote for a candidate with the best plan, Inslee is your huckleberry. Warren’s plan is probably the second best out of these four, however it’s pretty close at that point. There are other candidates in the field with real aspirations as well which aren’t detailed here.

I personally donated to Inslee despite not having decided a vote for party or candidate. I don't consider myself partial to either party by necessity--I think it'd be great to see Mike Bloomberg as a candidate. We need to propagate a real climate discussion and for that reason Inslee seems like someone who should be in the hunt, regardless of his likelihood to win. Climate change needs to be center stage regardless of who is running. If you want to see it front and center, I'd consider a small donation to a candidate with a real plan too.