Divided we fall. The US’ lack of climate legislation is mortifying

It has been inspiring to watch how quickly the EU has restructured their energy supplies this spring. Within a few weeks of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the EU Council agreed to fully phase out Russian gas, oil, and coal as soon as possible. In the next couple of months, the EU reduced imports of Russian gas by over a 1/3 and firmed up plans to cut it out entirely. And just last week, they announced their framework to cut out Russian oil imports by 90% as well. Their strategy is summed up in a new report: REPowerEU, which includes plans to increase energy efficiency, reduce consumer demand, find new sources of fossil fuels, and speed up the transition to renewable energies. It is very uplifting to see that bureaucratic juggernauts can change their policies and their countries purchasing patterns so quickly and responsibly. But it has left me in despair about the state of US politics. How has Europe responded so quickly and effectively to this crisis while the US still doesn’t have any national climate-policy laws that might last beyond one administration?

Part of the difference between the fluidity of the EU energy policy, and the stagnation of the US’s policy, lies in the motivation for change. According to Harvard psychologist, Daniel Gilbert, there are four properties which get humans to respond to a threat: imminence, immediacy, immorality, and intention.

Climate change is not imminent. It’s not going to ruin our barbecue party this weekend. Climate change is also not instantaneous. It’s a slow boil, and like the frog in a slowly heated pot, we seem willing to stay put. Nor is climate change seen as immoral by most people either. Which is just - well - wrong. Climate change is a massively moral issue and not just on one front. Climate change invokes social injustices, inter-generational injustices, and cross-species injustices. The fourth motivation that spurs humans to respond to threats is the perception of intention. In other words, if we can put a face to a source of harm we’re more likely to respond to it. Climate change typically doesn’t have a face. So climate change is perceived as not imminent, nor instantaneous, and neither immoral nor intentional. This can explain some of the US’ lack of action. On the other hand, these four “i” triggers were all present as the EU responded to the invasion of the Ukraine.

To start with, the invasion of the Ukraine is perceived by EU citizens as highly immoral: a full 85% of EU citizens favor an immediate and drastic reduction in importations of Russian fuels. Europeans don’t like that their purchases of Russian fossil fuels, totaling some 100 billion Euros a year, are inadvertently funding the Ukrainian invasion. On top of this, the EU has recognized just how perilous their reliance on Russian fuels is. The EU imports 87% of their natural gas and 97% of their oil, with 38% of that imported gas and 26% of that imported oil coming from Russia. What with the squaring off over the Ukraine, the EU faces a very imminent threat of having a large chunk of their fuel supply cut off by Russia. Of course, Putin provides a face for the invasion (intention) and the invasion has been relatively quick (immediate).

Combining all four of Gilbert’s triggers, the invasion of the Ukraine led to quick action on the part of the EU. Although, one issue nearly derailed the banning Russian oil imports, which is why it took a couple of months longer to ban Russian oil versus Russian gas. The problem was that several landlocked EU countries can not quickly replace Russian oil via ship deliveries. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia wanted to be excluded from the oil embargo. Other nations worried that this caveat gave an unfair advantage of cheaper Russian oil to a select few countries. However, the overall goal, removing financial support for an immoral invasion, was seen by all parties as more important than the financial inequities and the EU was able to come to a united decision. The willingness of different EU nations to compromise in the face of a grave immorality was critical in the rapid adoption of a new energy strategy. Hats off to them.

This rapid transition to a different energy mix wasn’t just reliant on the Ukrainian invasion. It also relied on a preexisting EU energy strategy. In order to meet their promised carbon reductions, which are in line with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the EU had already developed Fit-for-55. Fit-for-55 is a road map to achieving a 55% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2030 across the EU. If you don’t recall, recall now that it is critical that we halve carbon emissions by 2030 in order to keep warming below catastrophic levels. Fit-for-55 included plans to provide 40% of the EU’s energy mix with renewables by 2030, whereas the newer REPowerEU ratchets that goal up to 45%. Even though the EU is composed of 27 countries, made up of 447 million people, they had managed to hammer out legislation to avoid catastrophic climate change even without an invasion to spur them.

How, then, is it conceivable that one single nation, of 332 million people, has not managed to legislate a response to this global existential crisis? It’s not like the US is poor, it has about twice the GDP per capita as the EU does. And not only is the US wealth, it is also the most culpable. The US has emitted more carbon, summed over the years, than any other nation. In fact, the US has emitted about 25% of global carbon emissions thus far, with only 4% of the global population.

President Biden developed an national policy on climate change, Build Back Better, that he hoped would fill this legislative gap. The importance of having climate legislation can not be overstated. Without it, the next president can abandon all work on climate change. Lest we forget, Trump unashamedly banned the use of the words ‘climate change’ from government documents, as well as removing the US from the Paris Agreement, and gutting the Environmental Protection Agency. Not only does this sort of back and forth cost us valuable time in reducing emissions, but the lack of legislation on climate policy makes make it exceedingly difficult for industry and developers to plan without surity of funding and regulations.

For me, there are three stand out reasons why the Build Back Better legislation didn’t get passed by the Senate. 1. Not a single republican in the Senate was willing to vote for the bill. Politicians used to vote across party lines but the instances of cross-party voting has shrunk dramatically in the past couple of decades from 40% of votes in the 1970s to around 10% today. 2. The second reason Build Back Better failed is because one democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, pulled his support after months of negotiating. Manchin demanded cuts that were granted, repeatedly. The long delays mean the legislation is now dead in the water. In a situation that any sane government would make illegal, Manchin stands to gain personally by blocking legislation on emissions. He makes over 1/2 a million dollars a year from a dob coal plant which burns rejected coal and emits carbon at very high rates. 3. And the third reason that contributed to Build Back Better failing is that corporations in the US spend billions of dollars a year to influence policy, enabled by a change in lobbying laws a couple of decades ago. And it’s paying off. Policies are far more likely to be adopted if either business or economic-elites favor them. Disturbingly, what Americans want has very little influence on whether or not a policy is adopted. For instance, 67% of the US population thinks the government should do more to reduce the effects of climate change, but still no law.

Is it an exageration to state that the US now has characteristics of a corporatocracy and senators care more about reelection or lining their pockets than the future of life on Earth? It is certainly not unreasonable to conclude that something is desperately wrong with a governement which can not reach across party line to prevent a tsunami of destructive climate change. And this point of view is further crystalized when we compare it to the actions of the EU which has acted, repeatedly to avert this forthcoming disaster.

I’ve previously urged my readers, and myself, to act in the face of this climate-democracy-justice entangled crisis. I often recommend that we contact our representatives or work on elections. And I still think these are essential actions we can take. But I’m also convinced that it is critical that we fight this good fight everyday, by trying to find common ground with others. I’ve had a lurking, uncomfortable thought about finding common ground. Sometimes when I read a newstory, I engage in ranting. For example, I’m sure you can imagine how I respond to news stories about Joe Manchin. I’m wondering if it is counter productive to even have these rants amongst like minded friends? Does such behavior cement my biases? Rather, shouldn’t I concentrate on finding common ground with my fellow humans and hopefully move projects forward? Hmph. Giving up rants is a big ask but I know when we connect with others, we chip away at the powers of ultra liberal and ultra conservative personalities, media, and politicians - all who try to use our divisions for their own benefit. There are organizations which host conversations for those who want to reduce social divisions. Perhaps it’s time I put my time where my rant is and join one.

On a closing note, I’d love to hear about any environmental, gardening, or nature topics you, my dear readers, would be interested in reading about in the future.