Skip to content

Can Joe Biden Really Cut Greenhouse Gases By 50%?

President Biden committed today to cutting US greenhouse gas emissions by 50% within ten years. However, that's using 2005 as a baseline. Here's what it really means:

Compared to 2020, we only need to reduce emissions by 37% to make Biden's goal. That's the good news, such as it is. The bad news is that the sharp decline in 2020 was solely due to the pandemic, and everyone expects emissions in 2021 to shoot back up. By the time 2022 rolls around, we'll almost certainly have nearly the entire 50% still left to cut, and only eight years to do it.

It's nice to have a president who is at least rhetorically committed to fighting climate change. That's genuinely meaningful. But I will be eagerly waiting for details about how Biden intends to cut emissions so sharply.

Most of the decline between 2008 and 2018 has been the result of two things: economic recession and the shutdown of inefficient coal-fired power plants. Essentially none of it has been the result of deliberate policy. If that's going to suddenly change, I'd like to hear just what that policy is going to be.

34 thoughts on “Can Joe Biden Really Cut Greenhouse Gases By 50%?

  1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

    Bernie would have reduced emissions by 50% (against 2005 levels) while keeping the coal plants going. & reopening already shuttered ones.

    1. ey81

      Well, Big Brother continually increased the chocolate ration; there's no reason to think Bernie couldn't do the equivalent, as long as the saboteurs and crimethinkers can be suppressed. I'm not sure Sleepy Joe has the balls to achieve the same results, but maybe the SV thoughtbots can get us there.

  2. akapneogy

    "By the time 2022 rolls around, we'll almost certainly have nearly the entire 50% still left to cut, and only eight years to do it."

    Assuming that anything like the pandemic doesn't recur soon. Taking a long view, that possible non-recurrence is not an umixed blessing.

  3. Altoid

    It's a tall order for sure, maybe insurmountable in such a short time, but it does seem that much of corporate America is already planning for pretty massive reductions and investing in them. That could be a mighty strong tailwind. Maybe a benefit of globalization too, in that these firms are interested in international markets where green is the price of entry.

    It goes without saying that the Koch interests will be fighting for every trench, but how many comrades in arms will they have? Some of the power companies, some other petroleum and petrochemicals, but certainly not all . . .

  4. dausuul

    I'll be gobsmacked if it actually happens, but setting an ambitious target is a good first step. If he follows up with policies that get us even halfway there, that is a huge win.

    1. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

      POLITIFACT is already mocking up the Lie of the Year 2030 & PANTS ON FIRE spreads for El Tio Pepe's Big Climate Lie.

      It's going to be more explosive than algore's mansion.

  5. D_Ohrk_E1

    Have you known Biden to overpromise and underdeliver?

    Usually, it's the front 50% that's easier to achieve than the tail end 10-15%.

    Would we need nuclear? Not sure how we could effectively add new reactors within that timeframe given how long it typically takes to design, permit and build, including the next gen molten salt reactors. But, I accept the argument that we should not take existing nuclear capacity offline.

    Remember though, that by 2030 most jurisdictions will have updated building codes at least twice, each with progressively more stringent requirements of energy efficiency, until we hit net zero by 2030, aka Zero Code 2030. Yes, it's a real thing.

    And, states are slowly adopting 2030 as the target for a ban on new ICE sales.

    1. Midgard

      2030 is unlikely especially from the power plant formation pov. There is no really set time. Eventually battery efficiency and recycling will outstrip ICE quality which will drive consumer demand.

    2. Clyde Schechter

      Sorry for my ignorance, but what does ICE stand for? Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn't seem to fit in this context, and I can't think of anything else.

  6. Midgard

    It isn't happening that fast and Biden knows it. Most future declines are related to removal of gasoline cars which requires enough material parts and power generation aka Biden is the natural gas fracking President.

      1. Clyde Schechter

        And why is everybody so enthusiastic on electrification of cars? By conservation of energy, unless fossil-fuel based power plants are replaced with non-emitting alternatives, all electrifying cars does is move the emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack. In fact, it makes matters worse because some of the energy created at the power plant is lost to heat during transmission to the point of use. So without a clear path to non-fossil-fuel based electricity generation it seems to me that electrification of cars is pointless or worse.

        1. aldoushickman

          Electricity generation is (a) not as carbon intensive as energy generation by burning gasoline in a car (because a lot of electricity comes from nukes, hydro, wind, and solar) and (b) way, way more efficient and better controlled than ICE engines. So, even with energy losses due to transmission, it's still on net a way better deal, emissions-wise.

          That's even before you consider that gasoline does not magically appear in people's gas tanks. You need a whole (gas-burning) infrastructure to get gasoline distributed to gas stations and then into cars.

          Further, EV charging can be staggered to even out daily swings in electricity demand and supply (soaking up cheap solar power during midday, for example), making the whole system more efficient.

  7. TWShattuck

    I agree that the retirement of coal plants is not a phenomena that the US can repeat, but there is room for optimism. It's true that US coal-fired power gen has declined over 60% since 2007 and their just is not much low-hanging fruit remaining (i.e., older, less efficient to retire). But it's worth mentioning that natural gas-fired generation, initially the main driver of coal retirements, has only replaced 2/3 of coal generation. The balance has been from renewables, whose generation doubled over the period. Considering 70% of new US capacity in 2020 came from renewables, the power sector decarbonization will likely continue, albeit at a slower pace than we saw from 2007-2020.

    The bigger sticking point will be transport. Considering the average age of a passenger car in the US is ~12 years, realistically the US fleet will remain primarily ICE-based for the foreseeable future.

    1. Midgard

      Power plants are irrelevant. If you don't get rid of ICE you are aren't getting numbers down. NG plants will be further needed to power electric cars in the furure. Carbon from NG is simply not large enough to matter.

        1. J. Frank Parnell

          Not to mention the fugitive methane emissions. Thanks to former guy the Obama program to crack down on methane emissions was eliminated, and most natural gas facilities let their product leak away into the atmosphere with abandon.

          Back to CO2 emissions, substituting natural gas for coal cuts carbon emmissions by about half or a little more. A significant reduction, but the remainder is still large enough to matter.

          1. TWShattuck

            The EPA estimates that ~25% of US emissions come from electricity and another ~23% from industry. Transport is 29%, but that includes hard to decarbonize sources like shipping and aviation. To the degree that industrial and power companies can switch from coal to natural gas, or even electrify and leverage some renewable power gen, you could see a real impact on total US emissions.

            I also recently saw a study that surprised me - Appalachia has more fugitive emissions than the Permian, but 42% of that comes from coal mines. There could be a knock-on effect where less coal burn leads to lower fugitive emissions as well, but I think more needs to be done to quantify the emissions intensity for different fuels and source locations.

          2. J. Frank Parnell

            Here in the Pacific NW a local shipping company is trying to convert its ships from diesel to LNG, and is being fought tooth and nail by the anti-fossil fuel crowd.

    2. bbleh

      Yeah, the primary tool likely will be CAFE standards. Eyeballing it looks like there's been an increase in overall fleet standards of about 1/3 in the last 10 years, which if continued would reduce US carbon emissions by almost 10% overall. That would be a good start, and it's just from letting current trends continue.

  8. azumbrunn

    "Essentially none of it has been the result of deliberate policy."

    Let's rephrase this a little bit: Under Obama deliberate policy (only executive actions unfortunately) at least accelerated what economic forces accomplished. Deliberate policy makes a difference. I Obama's successor had been a Democrat (even one as conservative as Hillary) progress would have been maintained rather than abandoned.

    What is absolutely certain that the goal is reachable technically.

  9. S1AMER

    Maybe we can do it by 2030; maybe not.

    At least Biden's trying. So instead of debating how close to the goal he might get despite all the Republican roadblocks, let's focus on getting Biden more Democrats to support his efforts in Congress.

Comments are closed.