It was announced this week that current President Joe Biden will sign an executive order to set the federal emissions target to net-zero by the year 2050. It is no secret that climate change and global warming is progressing at disturbingly quick rates. In fact, 2021 is expected to be ranked top 7 in the hottest year in history. In order for humans to survive and the Earth as we know it to stay the way it is, climate change and global warming cannot continue to progress. Moreover, in recent years, climate change has become a pressing issue in the political agenda and one President Biden is taking very seriously, which is why he is passing this executive order.
According to this news article by CNN, President Biden is planning on achieving his goal by buying clean energy, electric vehicles, and overall making all federal government buildings more energy efficient. Hitting net-zero emissions by 2050 is a very daunting task, but a necessary one. Even so, the executive order issues more provisional goals including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2030. In fact, on April 23, 2021, Biden gave a speech at a virtual climate summit that 40 other world leaders attended where he stated just this. His executive order is just confirming and officially sets his goals into motion. Because this is happening at the federal level, there is hope that states will follow the president’s lead by setting their own set of emission reduction plans. To be clear, President Biden is only issuing these regulations for the federal government. It is up to the states to proceed on making their own set of regulations if they choose.
In my opinion, I think President Biden’s goals are ambitious, but necessary. As stated before, climate change is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed and regulated immediately before further damage is done. Because climate change progresses so quickly, it is crucial that the President sets high standards for what the government can achieve. This being said, in order for more change to be done, the states should implement their own regulations in the near future.
Questions:
What do you think of President Biden’s executive order? Agree? Disagree? Too ambitious?
Do you think states should have their own set of regulations? If they did, how do you think the general public would react?
23 comments:
I agree with Biden’s executive order; this kind of action is definitely overdue considering how long we’ve known about climate change and its effects. In theory, I don’t think that states should have their own set of regulations because I’m sure that many Republican states will not implement regulations, which will make it much harder to dramatically reduce the US’s carbon emissions as a whole. However, I know that many people would be angered with the government setting regulations for the states because they prefer “small government.” Climate change is a divisive issue in the US, which is unfortunate because as something scientifically proven, it really shouldn’t be. However, many people are clean energy bills like this executive order as threatening the economy, even though its clear it’ll be worth it for future generations. The US economy simply cannot continue on its current path if we want the earth to survive for much longer.
—Ella Klein
I strongly agree with Biden's executive order to emphasize the need for climate solutions because it will likely be the most important issue in the near future. From a political perspective, I believe it is too ambitious, but being ambitious is the only option to instigate any change. Given that people are relatively resistant to change and primarily motivated by economic concerns, such demanding goals will undoubtedly be met with extreme opposition. Until we have cheaper and more viable solutions for renewable energy that can be implemented on a national scale, people will never advocate for a shift to these currently more expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the people in charge of these decisions are typically older and will personally not be as affected by climate change as the younger generation. Hopefully cheaper climate technologies will soon be developed and the next generation of legislators who have been raised in a society that has better emphasized our environment will be encouraged to push for greater change.
When it comes to the implementation of Biden's executive order, I believe that it would be more effective if done on a federal level but that will likely be politically unpopular. Much of our economy is still driven by fossil fuels and few people are truly willing to help alleviate climate change when it means that they have to spend money out of their own wallets. For example, if gas were to become more expensive, people would heavily criticize the president and the regulations causing those price increases. We have already seen this criticism in recent times as demand has increased more than anticipated as a result of the economic recovery from COVID-19. Ultimately, I hope that our government will not wait until it's too late to recognize that truly drastic change that will be necessary for the future of our planet and nation.
I strongly agree with Bidens executive order that Biden has put out. I feel that climate solutions are a pressing issue that people are not doing enough to address. Whatever reason people may have that puts them against climate change, even small actions such as composting or participating in small volunteer events all help. However, I do see that Biden's agenda is a little too ambitious. The issues he is facing are huge and there is only so much that an administration can do against a global pandemic. Clearly, covid has slowed progress towards his reforms but I believe that Biden's decisions are beneficial. With his lowering approval ratings enacting this order will be a challenge at a federal level however I believe that if he plays his cards right, that his agenda will leave positive change even after his term ends.
Like Elysa said, I think that Biden’s actions are ambitious, but admirable and necessary. I think that it is time that we start to think about how big America’s carbon footprint is and how we individually are contributing to climate change. It is very exciting seeing those in power use it to create change for the better. However, like man others have already mentioned, because individual states can create their own regulations, it will be difficult to ensure each state is doing their part in reducing greenhouse gasses and being more sustainable. Alex also brings up a great point of expenses increasing. Not only would gas prices go up, but generally being more sustainable costs a lot more. While sustainability is an important practice, it isn’t always accessible, especially for those in poverty. Items that are deemed sustainable like a trendy jacket could be worth $150 dollars. While these items are normally considered an investment due to to their higher quality, it is unrealistic to expect those living off of minimum wage to spend so much on one item. The article linked below goes more into how we can make sustainbalility more accessible. Climate change also disproproitanely affects those in poverty as they are more at disaster risk, so it is important that we do what we can to slow the increasing temperatures, even if that is making sure we use the right waste bins (we can literally do this at school…please stop throwing plastic away in compost bins…). Overall, I agree with Biden’s decision and hope that states will at least put some implementation of reducing their carbon footprints.
https://studybreaks.com/thoughts/sustainability-accessible/
https://www.iisd.org/articles/merging-poverty-and-environment-agendas
I totally agree with Elysa in that this action is necessary due to how big of an issue climate change is right now. I feel like more than ever, I have experienced the effects of climate change in our unpredictable, weird weather, smoky skies, or the numerous natural disasters becoming more apparent in the media. The only way to avoid all these issues is to make change and to cut down emissions which Biden is doing with this order.
I do believe this executive order is very ambitious but it is necessary. The higher the goal the more likely we are to create more progress towards it. It’s always good to be ambitious, especially for climate change, an issue where a lot has to be done by everyone in order for it to be solved. Of course like Elysa mentioned, there needs to be more done then just Biden’s executive order. States will have to also make their own regulations and these regulations need to be enforced by the bureaucracy. Biden’s order is another step in the right direction but there is still a long way to go before climate change is completely solved.
I don’t really think states should have their own set of regulations because each state will have different regulations, some more ambitious than others. Other states might not have regulations at all. I believe it is best if we are unified because companies will start going to the states without any/many regulations so they are free to emit whenever needed. Thus, states may actually be incentivized to have zero regulations if that is possible in order to benefit their economy the most. The general public would probably not like this, having to follow certain regulations in some states and not following regulations in other states. It can be confusing to keep track of. Of course, climate change advocates would want all states to have ambitious regulations while conservatives would want the opposite. I personally think we should all have ambitious goals so that climate change can be solved earlier.
I agree with Biden's executive order: climate change is a highly pressing problem for our nation and we should act with haste to address it. However, it is also a very important decision to make through executive order and may be an overreach of the presidency. The presidency, at its core, is mean to execute what Congress tells it to. It may be interpreted that assigning national goals like reducing emissions is Congress' job, not the president's. However, I believe it is constitutional in this case because Biden is only setting this goal as net zero emissions for the federal government, which he has control over as chief executive. It is similar to the desegregation of the military by President Truman*, a very important decision with national impact done without the explicit approval of Congress through executive order. A downside of this bill will mean that federal expenses will increase as they will use more electric cars and clean energy. Will Congress be willing to increase the federal budget because of these new constraints Biden has set? The increased expenses will most likely drive up the national debt, a crisis of its own.
In my opinion, the best method of providing energy without greenhouse gas emissions is nuclear power because it does not cost as much as solar panels or wind turbines in terms of land, money or electricity storing (in order to power the nation when the sun is not out or the wind is not blowing) needs. It is very safe if well regulated and we have the technology to store the waste securely.
Since I consider climate change to be a pressing problem, I think that states should try their hand at working to lower their own emissions. Deep blue states will even have an easier time than Biden at passing reforms and will not have to rely on executive orders. Many are already starting (for example, California already has an aggressive climate policy that may inspire reforms in other states**), but maybe they can take inspiration from Biden to make more aggressive reforms. Ultimately, I would prefer there to be a single set of regulations for the entire country through a federal bill because that would be the best for the American people, as Bryan mentioned in his comment.
*https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/index.html?dod-date=726
**https://www.americanprogress.org/article/learning-californias-ambitious-climate-policy/
I completely agree with and support Biden's idea. Global warming has been increasing at an extremely alarming rate and despite efforts to control or halt the rapid increase, there has been no success. Right now scientists are nowhere near smart enough to develop ways for us to live on another planet, so we must take care of and preserve the Earth as best we can or we won't have anywhere to live. I do believe that president Biden's goal is quite ambitious, and I have zero hope in the U.S. citizens, so I doubt that this will be easy to follow through with.
I like the idea of each state having their own regulations and restrictions, and I think they should be based on the population size and greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the smartest and most fair way to put regulations into place. This way, it will also be easier to put the blame on one specific area or group of states that are not following along with their regulations and restrictions.
I think that net zero by 2050 is a bit too long for it to be achievable. Further more I feel like an executive order is not enough to change American stance towards global warming. Joe Biden should push for more legislation and increase funding to the EPA in order to combat global warming. However even with all that done, it is not set into stone that the next presidents till 2050 will also be concerned with the climate and work towards reducing green house gasses. So in order for this to work Joe Biden will have to be very careful to set into stone policy that will be politically impossible to change or the next presidents could change it. As for the States I feel like the more climate disasters that occur the more the states will begin to care about the climate. So I think the climate will have to get progressively worse for even more states to start investing into the issue. If states do have their own regulations I can see the general public having a general approval of it. I also don't see why there can be federal and state levels of green house gas regulation.
I think that Biden's executive order of net zero of emissions is a good step in the right direction. This can help to start actual change which I feel a lot of the times is just talk. This is one of the most alarming issues in today's world but since there is no true visible enemy it causes people to doubt it or not do anything against it. I also agree with Pascal that an executive order alone for the federal government is not enough. The entire government including states need to take action as well. But with this I think that the federal government should set the kinds of regulations for the states. If it were only up to the states many may just have minimal change or nothing at all and simply divide the states on more issues. I think the federal government should enforce legislation on the states but also puts into perspective of how much emissions each states produces compared to its population and economic output.
I think President Biden’s executive order is great. It is very ambitious, and perhaps not realistic. However, we sort of have to overshoot in regards to climate legislation because if we’re being honest, we all know we’re not going to reach any of these goals within their timeframes. Therefore, if we put into place very ambitious goals, I doubt we’re going to actually achieve those goals, but at least some progress will have been made.
That being said, I don’t know how effective this is going to be as an executive order only at the federal level. I don’t know how much jurisdiction the state governments have over the enforcement of climate legislation versus the federal government, but I would imagine that the cooperation of the state governments is necessary. Theoretically, I think states having their own sets of regulations suited to fit their specific environment and economy is a good idea, but in practice, I doubt most states, especially conservative states, would implement sufficient emission reduction plans — it’s very likely that states would prioritize their own economy above anything else, and unfortunately, what is economically beneficial often isn’t environmentally beneficial.
I think Biden’s executive order is a good idea and a great start for the federal government to start modeling what they want to see in the rest of the country. However, like many of my other peers have mentioned, the fight against climate change can’t just be on the federal level; it needs to travel down to states and individuals. I think the federal government could also put more effort and funding into climate research and developing and promoting technology that helps us fight climate change. Sure, we’re already taking advantage of solar power, electric cars, reusable packaging, and wind power, but we can do and make so much more. For example, Solidia Technologies, based in New Jersey, created green cement, but no one is talking about it or really using it. According to an article by PBS, cement accounts for 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. But, this new green cement can cut this percentage to less than 3%. I think it’s definitely important to be as environmentally friendly as we can with the things that exist so far. However, I think it’s also important to continue innovating and creating technology that will assist us in our fight against climate change even further. By encouraging the use of green technology and putting more funding into companies that are focused on creating green technology, I think we can make even more strides in creating a greener planet. This executive order is a good start, but we can do more.
Reference links:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/can-concrete-a-major-co2-emitter-be-made-greener#:~:text=But%20its%20popularity%20comes%20at,all%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions%20worldwide.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/climate-crisis-new-tech-1144643/green-cement-1144684/
I definitely agree! President Biden's executive order is ambitious (but not too ambitious); it is necessary. I support Ella's earlier point, although climate change is scientifically proven, many people don't believe in it because of the effects on the economy. And also I'd like to bring up, for those who do believe in it, many of us are occupied with current problems: the pandemic of course, situations in the Middle East, etc. So, I think it's great that President Biden is calling attention to the increasing effects of climate change before things get too severe.
As for state regulations, I do think that they should have their own set of regulations, building on President Biden's executive order. I respectfully disagree with Bryan's thoughts that it is best if all states are unified by the lack of own state regulations. Some states are more in need of regulation than others. California, for example, being a much larger state and having a complex and large economy, needs (and has) more regulations. Hopefully we can be unified by all having state regulations, made soon, rather than too late.
^ meant to attach this source for specific California Climate regulations: https://focus.senate.ca.gov/climate
While it is a great step in the right direction, and definitely has good intent, I think that so many of these countries are setting these goals way in the future, without any actual intent in following it. Of course, Biden's goal of cutting emissions by 50 percent is set by 2030, two years after he could supposedly get out of office (if he runs and wins again). I know it is hard with such a divided government but setting these goals by executive order seems very pointless to me as it can easily just be reversed by the next administration. Even so, I think that this order is a great goal but is probably too ambitious saying that a section of the population doesn't believe in climate change. Personally, I think that until there is a bill that specifically attacks the elites' carbon emissions, nothing will change. The 1% of the world makes up 15% of all carbon emissions, which is double than half of the entire population of the world.
Source for last stat, more good info on this site:
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity
I agree with the other commenters in that I think that President Biden's executive order is something that has been desperately needed for a long time. However, this situation is much more complicated than just "let's all use electric vehicles and the worldwide ecosystem will be saved!" There are numerous problems that arise with the increased demand for electric vehicles:
One of these problems is about energy consumption and the power grid. There have already been problems with the power grid in the past, with the cold weather in Texas shutting down the state grid. Electric vehicles would add to the problem, which can be found at this article (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/biden-wants-millions-electric-vehicles-roads-can-power-grid-handle-n1271289). There would need to be a upgrades and updates to the power grid in order for so many electric vehicles to be supported in the nation, with so many people constantly charging their vehicles at night for the next day.
Another problem, which I just learned about last week, is the growing dangers that a growing electric vehicle industry presents for rainforests. Here is an article link (https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-cars-endangers-last-frontier-philippines/index.html) or a video link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIeDTzU7Ko) if you're the type of person to watch your news. Nickel is needed for electric car batteries, and this HUGE demand caused by the ever-increasing size of the industry is making companies like Tesla desperate to meet this demand for sales and profits; in order to do this, they mine for nickel in places that destroys the natural ecosystem like rainforests across the world. Yes, electric vehicles are good for the planet in terms of releasing a dependency on gasoline, but what about a growing dependency on battery resources like nickel?
Biden's executive order is far too ambitious, but it's necessary. Fossil fuels should end in about 70 years, but by then it's critical to have shifted off of them, which his order encourages. States will make their own regulations, and to some extent they should. For fossil fuel dependent economies (think mine-heavy, flyover states), without coal or natural gas, they'll struggle. However, some mechanism should be implemented to encourage a gradual shift to alternative energy in these areas, and those workers will shift to those jobs. One important thing to consider when discussing fossil fuels in this country is the American lifestyle. We love to drive and relish our big houses. In cities like LA or Houston (two of the most populous cities in the US), infrastructure has been built for cars, not people. Lack of protected bike lanes, high density housing, and a "sprawl" vs a high-rise culture means that its inhabitants are hooked on a "not-green" lifestyle. What I'm trying to say is that shifting away from fossil fuels and moving to a carbon-neutral state requires a lot more than just shifting our energy sources: we need grassroots infrastructure change so this sustainable future is livable for everyone.
Source: https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/
I believe that President Biden's executive order a step in the right direction. As you mentioned, it is up to the state legislature to begin to enforce the previsions in order to start lowering our carbon footprint. Although this executive order does seem very ambitious and is asking for quite a lot of change. Realistically, it will be hard to get rid of all emissions in 30 years, but if there is plan for it to happen, I am all for it. If we are all going to achieve net zero emissions, there will probably have to be mandates issued by the federal government so that all the states follow the same guidelines. There will have to be construction of power plants and a major switch to sustainable energy. We have already seen some major automobile manufacturers start to make electric and hydrogen cell cars, which will probably be what most, if not all, will be driving in the future. I feel like the public will not want much change to start with, but will accept it once the major changes are made.
I believe that Biden's executive order is necessary in order to fight against climate change. Although it may seem unrealistic, I think that the timeline allows it be obtainable. 2050 is about 30 years away, and meaning that in order to reach Biden's goal, we must start making changes to our lifestyle now. I think that having states set their own regulations is also crucial to achieving this goal. As we learned in class, the states are more closely connected with the people, and in order to attack something as large as climate change, we need all levels of government to get involved.
I agree with Biden’s executive order. While ambitious, it’s necessary. Because he decided to use his power of executive order, Biden is able to further establish that climate change is of the utmost importance to the political agenda. However, while I am optimistic that this executive order will result in a concerted effort to reduce emissions from states, I am also reluctant to believe that all states will take this executive order seriously. Since the implementation of his order is up to the states, I believe that states heavily dependent on the oil or coal industry like Texas, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, will be quite resistant to reducing emissions. After all, fossil fuels are one of the leading causes of Climate Change, and therefore, mitigating Climate Change would also mean mitigating fossil fuel usage. I think the solution to this resistance could be implementing more incentives to use green energy, from people and corporations.
This comment is written by Lauren Mok because she is unable to post comments due to technical difficulties:
I agree with Biden’s executive order. While ambitious, it’s necessary. Because he decided to use his power of executive order, Biden is able to further establish that climate change is of the utmost importance to the political agenda. However, while I am optimistic that this executive order will result in a concerted effort to reduce emissions from states, I am also reluctant to believe that all states will take this executive order seriously. Since the implementation of his order is up to the states, I believe that states heavily dependent on the oil or coal industry like Texas, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, will be quite resistant to reducing emissions. After all, fossil fuels are one of the leading causes of Climate Change, and therefore, mitigating Climate Change would also mean mitigating fossil fuel usage. I think the solution to this resistance could be implementing more incentives to use green energy, from people and corporations.
I believe that Biden has set the canvas for the bigger picture. Climate change is a battle that needs to be dealt with at the soonest to prevent any further damage to our home. These demands might seem radical but radical decisions have to be taken for a battle that could slowly cost us our lives. Step in the right direction, but it will be difficult to execute especially considering how divided people are about the topic. Many do not see climate change as a serious topic, and disregard the excessive amount of CO2 emissions that are released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Others might also point out that fossil fuels carry the means of production, and finding an alternative source for fuel will be lengthy and costly, hence why investments for battling climate change using alternatives is being envisioned for the many future years to come, not soon. The collectiveness of state regulations does seems like a plausible move in combating this issue, as each state can get the people involved to inch closer to the ultimate goal.
Like most of the comments here, I believe that Biden's executive order is a step in the right direction. While it is definitely ambitious, and perhaps overly so, I agree with Audrey's point that this type of "overshooting" is exactly what we need to make an impact on curbing the negative effects of climate change. Climate change has been an issue for many decades, and is clearly an existential threat. It is a shame that response to climate change has been so caught up in political interests, and that the science behind the dangers of our influence on Earth have been questioned.
Republican-leaning states will most likely not take this executive order seriously. Whether this is because of actual disagreements with the premises/consequences of climate change regulations, or whether it is a political f-u to the Democratic establishment is to be determined. However, while the current state of our politics is incredibly polarized, actual states may not try so hard to fall along party lines. It is more likely that states will not enact the measures necessary to meet Biden's climate goals because those measures would negatively impact certain industries and therefore the constituencies of many states. The negative economic influences of climate change regulation and the move away from energy sources such as fossil fuels are serious, and states would perhaps be more receptive if the federal government put more emphasis in supporting alternative sources, and directly helping those who would be impacted.
I think this is a much-needed and strong move after the recent climate summit in Glasgow. At this summit, many first-world countries were flamed by the likes of China and India for benefitting vastly in the economic sphere from fossil fuels. Now, China and especially India don't get to enjoy the same benefits and are left to face the economic repercussions of cutting down fossil fuels, particularly coal. I'm happy the federal government is taking drastic steps and I hope they continue this urgent attitude towards climate change by providing loans and donations to third world countries that are unable to face the economic consequences of eliminating fossil fuels in order to help the world's fight against climate change.
As others have mentioned, I definitely agree that republican states are far less likely to follow this executive order. Some state economies are entirely dependent on the likes of coal and oil and this could hurt them drastically. Furthermore, with the polarized state of our nation, it could simply be following party lines to go against the executive order and retain support of republican voters.
Post a Comment