Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

Biden Rejoins Paris Climate Accord, Works To Overturn Trump's Climate Policies (washingtonpost.com) 345

During his first moments in the Oval Office on Wednesday, President Biden returned the United States to the Paris climate accord and directed federal agencies to begin unraveling Donald Trump's environmental policies. The Washington Post reports: Biden's executive order recommitting the United States to the international struggle to slow global warming fulfilled a campaign promise and represented a stark repudiation of the "America First" approach of Trump, who officially withdrew the nation from the Paris agreement Nov. 4 after years of disparaging it. Biden also ordered federal agencies to review scores of climate and environmental policies enacted during the Trump years and, if possible, to quickly reverse them. Nearly half of the regulations the new administration is targeting come from the Environmental Protection Agency, on issues as varied as drinking water, dangerous chemicals and gas-mileage standards.

Biden is expected to take even more sweeping action next Wednesday, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post. He plans to sign an executive order elevating climate in domestic and national security policy; direct "science and evidence based decision-making" in federal agencies; reestablish the Presidential Council of Advisers on Science and Technology and announce that U.S. data that will help underpin the Climate Leadership Summit that Biden will host in Washington in late April.
"While many of Biden's actions Wednesday will take effect over time -- the country will again formally become a party to the Paris agreement 30 days from now," the report adds. He's also planning to rescind the presidential permit Trump granted the Keystone XL pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada across the border into the United States, and is instructing the EPA and Transportation Department to strengthen fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, which Trump weakened.

Furthermore, the report says Biden "plans to impose a temporary moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to caribou, polar bears and Indigenous people."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biden Rejoins Paris Climate Accord, Works To Overturn Trump's Climate Policies

Comments Filter:
  • In a short-sighted move, he also cancelled the Keystone pipeline that was intended to bring Canadian oil into the United States.

    Now the oil that would otherwise have been imported through the pipeline with either arrive on oil trains (less safe and more prone to accidents than pipeline shipping) or be sent to other customers by Canada, leaving the US to make up any shortfall in their oil requirements by making purchases from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc., which will be imported by ocean-going oil tanker. E

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      Somebody has to buy all that oil from Iran!!!
    • by Truth_Quark ( 219407 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:38PM (#60971222) Journal

      Where's the win in that?

      In the increase in price of oil relative to renewable energy sources.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by quantaman ( 517394 )

        Where's the win in that?

        In the increase in price of oil relative to renewable energy sources.

        So allow the pipeline and use the political capital you get from that authorization to tax the carbon emitted by burning the oil.

        It's a more efficient solution and potentially results in lower emissions than just cancelling the pipeline.

    • Even more hilariously, Canada is on board with the Paris Climate Accord, and the Keystone Pipeline which helps its near-term energy plans. So now tens of thousands of U.S. and Canadian jobs went up in smoke, and the oil and jobs will go outside the NA continent.

    • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:40PM (#60971240)

      leaving the US to make up any shortfall in their oil requirements by making purchases from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc.

      Kindly make up your mind. Either the U.S. is oil sufficient or it's not. Every time oil is brought up we're told the U.S. is energy independent when it comes to oil. In fact, we have so much oil we're one of the top exporters in the world.

      So which is it?

      P.S. The U.S. no longer imports oil from Venezuela [eia.gov].

      • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:54PM (#60971298)

        Kindly make up your mind. Either the U.S. is oil sufficient or it's not. Every time oil is brought up we're told the U.S. is energy independent when it comes to oil. In fact, we have so much oil we're one of the top exporters in the world.

        The US is an oil exporter because the oil companies can make more money selling US oil overseas and importing / processing foreign oil for US consumption because their facilities are designed to process certain types of oil better than others and this import/export shuffle means they don't have to upgrade their facilities (again). From Why The U.S. Exports Oil [forbes.com]:

        I am often asked why we are exporting oil at all. It comes down to the quality of the oil that is being produced, versus the kind of oil U.S. refineries are built to process.

        Over the years, U.S. crude oil has gotten progressively heavier and sourer (meaning it contains larger hydrocarbon molecules as well as more sulfur.) Globally, heavy crude production increased in places like Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria. A wide price differential developed between heavy, sour crudes and light sweet crudes like WTI and Brent. Because crudes that are heavy and/or sour can produce about the same amount of finished products as lighter, sweeter crudes, refiners had a strong financial incentive to process the discounted crudes.

        So U.S. refiners spent billions of dollars installing fluid catalytic crackers (FCCs), cokers, and hydrotreaters that are needed to process heavy sour crudes. After investing all of that money into processing the heavy crudes, the economics of running Bakken or Eagle Ford crudes in a heavy oil refinery are far less appealing than running a heavy Canadian or Venezuelan crude.

        Heavy oil refiners would rather simply continue to import oil more suited to their needs, while the light, sweet crudes coming out of the U.S. shale plays are often a better fit for certain foreign refineries. Or, logistically it may simply be easier for Canada, for instance, to import U.S. crude for their East Coast refineries, while they export their heavy oil from Alberta to U.S. refineries that are equipped to process it.

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Notably, those types that U.S. refineries are most suitable for do not include the crude from oil sand in Canada.

      • The US is a net importer of crude and net exporter of refined petroleum products. And from what I can tell, the two just about cancel each other out. So we buy the crude, refine it, and then ship out the final products. https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]).
    • It is truly stupid to cancel the pipeline.

      Let's say the climate apocalypse people achieve their wildest dreams and in 20 years there are zero hydrocarbon burning energy producing machines operating on the planet.

      That would not reduce the desirability of the pipeline.

      Crude oil is still a valuable feedstock for fertilizer, lubricants, solvents, and plastic production. I somehow doubt the need for any of those is going away.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      In a short-sighted move, he also cancelled the Keystone pipeline that was intended to bring Canadian oil into the United States.

      The U.S. is currently a net exporter of oil. https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      'ER' hello, is there any one at home there. The fossil fuel era is ending, pipelines are a really shitty investments at this time, except if they deliver fresh water to deserts. A glut of oil on the market and Canada's rubbish extreme polluting oil, well, it should be shut down.

      It makes sense to buy from the cheapest locations and the cheapest locations will be stuck with a lot of less than valuable oil in the end. Electric vehicles are taking over the market and ignore the lies about grids unable to cope,

    • And the young people of today wonder why they are worse off than the boomers?

    • by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @08:14PM (#60971392)

      Lots of wins:
      * No longer endanger the Ogallala aquifer.
      * No longer being in conflict with indigenous tribes.
      * Stop demand for Alberta tar sands, which has been an environmental disaster there.

      • sounds like non-white people's problems.
    • Canada can just ship it's oil elsewhere. Not our problem.
    • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @08:28PM (#60971456)

      As a Canadian, hopefully it means that there will be more pressure to leave that oil in the ground. The less profitable it is, the sooner the industry will be wound down.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The oil from Canada is more expensive because getting it out of oil sand is more expensive than pumping it from a well in the Gulf. There's no reason that any Canadian crude that's practical to buy shouldn't go to one of the many refineries in the North East.

      Would you feel the same about the pipeline if it was going to be in your back yard?

    • Biden is in office like 10 hours(while I'm typing this).
      And you already "know" he has canceled a pipeline project?
      How plausible is that?

    • which is why nobody really cared. It was a dangerous pipeline that was pretty much guaranteed to leak and damage the water table somewhere and all we got in exchange for it was a handful of short term jobs and some cheap oil for China. The only reason Trump supported it was for the optics of pushing fossil fuels over renewables.
    • by amorsen ( 7485 )

      The oil produced by Canada is barely economical as it is, and it is vastly more polluting than oil produced elsewhere. If the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, less of that oil will be produced. This is absolutely a win both for the environment and for the climate.

  • .... stuff needs to stop.

    Really, that's what the USA got with Trump, who spent so much time and energy undoing Obama era stuff.

    I'm not saying that what Trump did was right, but what country is going to be able to count on the USA to have any consistency when a country keeps flipping directions every time it has an election?

    • I agree the article is a bit disappointing in that it doesn't say anything about legislation that might be passed to back up these executive orders. The underlying problem is that Congress has been dysfunctional for a while now, forcing us to give the President a pass on just "getting stuff done" (by fiat).
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      That's why running a country via executive order is dumb. Executive orders are designed for accomplishing specified short term goals. If you want long term change, legislate it properly.

    • If the previous administration implemented a bad policy then that policy should be undone. The problem is that our government is rife with special interests all trying to feed from the trough by directing public policy in their favor.

    • I'm not saying that what Trump did was right,

      Either it was wrong and we should undo it, or it was right and we shouldn't. Doing the right thing is more important than giving other nations confidence that we won't change our minds. If we acted the way you suggest, the takeaway is that we won't admit that we can be wrong. I submit that this is the wrong message.

  • The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cirby ( 2599 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:33PM (#60971198)

    The UN says it's a treaty. Every other country that signed it says it's a treaty.

    When Obama "signed on" to the treaty, it had no legal force, since he didn't run it past the Senate. The theory was that it was an "agreement." Except it was agreeing to a long-term commitment, which makes it a treaty.

    So when Biden "signed off" on it, it has no actual legal force, just like Obama's signature.

    If Biden wants to be a part of the Paris Accords, he can run it past the Senate. Where it needs a two-thirds vote.

    Good luck with that.

    • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @08:48PM (#60971542)

      So when Biden "signed off" on it, it has no actual legal force, just like Obama's signature.

      The Paris Climate Agreement has no legal force even if it was ratified. It allows nations to set their own CO2 emissions goals and offers no real punishment for not attaining them.

      Since France has in the past been producing 70% of their electricity with "zero carbon" nuclear fission power then they have every right to tell most of the world to go fuck themselves on any demands that France lower it's CO2 emissions. (I put "zero carbon" in scare quotes because nothing is truly zero carbon, just nuclear fission is as close to zero as we have so far.) If the nation's of the world are serious about lowering CO2 emissions then they will invest big on the energy sources that bring high energy return on energy invested, have low demands on land area and materials, are reliable, are abundant, and therefore have low CO2 emissions. That means onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission. France, Germany, and other nations that are closing nuclear fission power plants and building offshore windmills are going backwards. Even so the nations with a big head start, like France, deserve a little room on their CO2 goals. The worst offenders, like China and Russia, don't deserve such room. But because nations get to set their own goals, and nations like France want to do the right thing, then I expect France to fail to meet their goals while China and Russia get to claim that they met theirs.

      The USA being a member of the Paris Climate Agreement means nothing because the agreements mean nothing.

      I find it amusing how people make a big deal of the "symbolism" of the Paris Climate Agreement. I don't care about symbolism. I want to see results. The USA doesn't need to be in the Paris Climate Agreement to lower its CO2 emissions. What it needs to do is build things. Things like onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams (or upgrade the ones it has for pumped hydro energy storage), geothermal power, and most of all nuclear fission power.

      Biden said he'd see to it that the USA built more nuclear fission electrical generation capacity. I'm waiting for him to follow through on that.

      • "The Paris Climate Agreement has no legal force even if it was ratified. It allows nations to set their own CO2 emissions goals and offers no real punishment for not attaining them."

        Well that doesn't make sense, since the former President made a big deal about getting us out of that shitty, nonbinding agreemennn.. oh, wait[

        • Yes, he did make a big deal out of it. He should not have. Biden is also making the mistake of making a big deal out of it.

          What I want is a president that puts action over symbolism. Is that too much to ask? The Paris Climate Agreement was signed by Obama on his way out the door, he was under no obligation to uphold it's provisions and did nothing to get it ratified. That's what made it such a simple matter for Trump to negate it. If Biden wants this to mean anything then he will submit this for ratif

    • When Obama "signed on" to the treaty, it had no legal force, since he didn't run it past the Senate.

      Same thing happened with the Iran deal (JCPOA) Obama signed. It doesn't really matter though. The media will keep telling people it's a treaty and that the US is going back on it's word if it doesn't follow through. Once the lie has been repeated often enough everyone thinks it's true and keeping up the fight will be politically unpopular.

    • Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:48PM (#60971740) Homepage Journal

      That's because the US uses different terminology. The US makes a distinction between treaties and "executive agreements" that only makes sense within our peculiar constitutional system. That's because we have a very unusual Constitutional provision requiring a 2/3 supermajority to ratify a "treaty".

      This is nearly impossible to obtain in most kinds of multilateral international agreement, so 90% of the time Presidents don't even try. This makes the treaty non-binding in US law, but binding under international law. US governments can violate signed but non-ratified treaties with *domestic* impunity, but it would create a big stink internationally. Instead they trigger the withdrawal clause that always gets built in.

      An unintended side effect of the Treaty Clause is to create a new role for the president entering and exiting international accords that have no de jure legal force in the US but for practical reasons are still important. If you look at the Paris Agreement, there is no actual binding obligations or enforcement mechanisms, so pretty much it amounts to a MOU.

  • This isn't necessary. Technology and mass manufacture of "green" technologies has progressed to the point that it is both cost effective and en vogue to use solar power, electric cars, etc. Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world, and that is primarily due to Tesla, which exclusively makes electric cars.

    These announcements by Biden are simply to win brownie points with those concerned about environmental issues, even though they aren't necessary.

    • Tesla, which exclusively makes electric cars.

      Since Tesla absorbed SolarCity it is also a producer of solar PV panels and grid scale electrical storage, and appears to have at least attempted to enter the market of medical ventilation systems. Tesla doesn't just make electric cars.

      These announcements by Biden are simply to win brownie points with those concerned about environmental issues, even though they aren't necessary.

      "Brownie points" don't lower CO2 emissions. Building things does. Not building the Keystone XL pipeline is a step backwards. Restrictions on over the road shipment of LNG is going backwards. Those will get him "brownie points" but with people that are ignorant about what

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        Limits on pipelines and trucking of LNG only encourages coal burning.

        Nah. They'll just ship it by rail [patch.com]. Or tanker ship.

  • cuz, you know, clean air and all is rather important for life in general, and even just good health.

  • by cygnusvis ( 6168614 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:46PM (#60971736)
    Massive changes in policy every 4/8 years is just stupid and bad for business.
    • Massive changes in policy every 4/8 years is just stupid and bad for business.

      I agree. Trump's changes in policy were stupid and bad for business.

  • https://twitter.com/zenpundit/... [twitter.com]
    The Portland crowd has now gone to the local headquarters of the Democratic Party, smashing windows and writing "F*** Biden"
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ByM... [twitter.com]

  • for light trucks

    Beware the law of unintended consequences [tumblr.com].

    During the Obama administration, the local GMC dealer had a bunch of these on the lot. This is how we got SUVs. Gas guzzler tax on full size station wagons. And then when they moved the GVWR line up for 'light trucks', we got Excursions and Escalades. Truck builders have enough commercial chassis options that they can build the next model faster than Congress can move. And pretty soon, city folks won't be able to eat if working trucks are restricted.

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...