One small cabinet step for Biden, one giant climate step for Humanity:
By: Billy Berek
Tags: Climate Action, Biden, Climate Crisis, John Kerry, Climate Change

A Note on the Paris Climate Agreement

Climate change is not strictly an American problem, although the United States has contributed more to the problem than any other country with its historical emissions. It’s a global problem, where emissions anywhere increase the greenhouse effect virtually everywhere. To solve the problem, it’s necessary for the whole world to get to net-zero carbon emissions. Toward that end, Biden’s commitment to rejoin the Paris Agreement on “day one” is important, and his decision to nominate former Secretary of State and former presidential candidate John Kerry as Climate Envoy (more later) are vital for solving this international problem. However, it must be noted that in it’s current form, the Paris Agreement is not enough to limit warming to 1.5°C, or even 2°C. The world’s nations’ current policies have us on track for ~3°C warming, current pledges for ~2.6°C, and optimistic target adjustments for ~2.1°C (where each of these estimates is near the middle of a range of possible temperatures for the predicted amount of emissions those policies and pledges entail). In short, the emission reduction commitments by the world’s nations thus far are insufficient to limit warming to the Paris Agreement goals of 1.5°C or even 2°C. That Biden has created an international “climate envoy” position is important and necessary, as emission reduction commitments from the Paris Agreement need to be strengthened to meet the temperature goals enshrined therein. It remains to be seen what the intention of this position is, and how Kerry will wield the power it offers him as a member of the National Security Council.

How much global warming ensues from: current policies, current emission reduction pledges and targets, and optimistic adjustments to emission reduction targets. Image credit: Climate Action Tracker

Lest we forget, a review of reasons cited to vote against Trump

Before dissecting Biden’s cabinet picks, it’s important to recall many of the reasons people argued it was imperative to vote Trump out of office. Some of the more frequent and morally resonant ones include: not following what science recommends, his staff’s history of physical abuse, plans to cut social programs like social security and Medicare, not doing what is required to stop climate change from getting worse, racist rhetoric and policies, lack of stimulus spending or other actions to counter the Covid-19 induced economic depression (which could be used towards a Green New Deal), staffing his administration with fossil fuel industry insiders and fossil fuel funded politicians, staffers profiting off of their government positions, among other things.

If, we are sincere in prioritizing the positive values that are opposite to the ones listed above, then we must hold Biden’s team to the same standards, and criticize them for the same flaws present in the Trump administration. Values are not mere battering rams to be used against politicians we dislike; they inform and guide what is the right thing to do. In this most critical of moments in time, wherein the habitability of much of the planet (for humans and the rest of Earth’s creatures) is on the line, now is not the time to abandon these values.

Prioritizing these values, principles, behaviors and policies must be maintained:

· Even if we are tired of fighting after Trump and would rather take it easy,

· Even if we are afraid of the Biden administration disappointing us,

· Even if we are worried that criticism of Biden may provoke reactionary opposition,

· Even if we would rather assume that Biden is doing everything he could to stop climate change

· Even if the Biden team and media generally chalk up the Biden administration’s climate shortcomings to Republican opposition

· Even if (in my case), we are unemployed and potentially seeking employment in some sort of climate role in national government,

We must not lose sight of our values or the importance of doing what is now a scientific necessity: cutting emissions by half in the next 10 years to give the planet a fighting chance to limit warming to 1.5°C, and if we pass that threshold, to keep planetary warming as low as possible. Per Part I, this is the only measure against which Biden should be judged, the absolute scientific necessity of cutting emissions and building up renewable energy, not the relative necessity of being ‘better than Trump’. There is not enough time and not enough of a carbon budget for anything less.

What Biden’s cabinet picks and appointed positions could mean for climate change

Mustafa Ali for White House Council on Environmental Quality

Mustafa Ali is reportedly being considered for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. If you didn’t know, the position “serves as a kind of mission control coordinating environmental policy decisions and reviews across the federal government”. Of all the picks and potential picks to be discussed, Ali is perhaps the most progressive name on the table. Mustafa Ali worked at the EPA for 24 years, and helped found an office focused on environmental justice. In 2017, Ali resigned from his position when the Trump administration zeroed out the positions’ funding. Since then, Ali has continued his work advocating for racial and environmental justice as the vice president of the National Wildlife Federation.

This is a good sign that Biden plans to follow-up on pledges to “re-establish a White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council”. If you’re wondering about ways in which climate change is exacerbated by institutional racism, one example was recently explained by Dianna Madson of Yale Climate Connection. She detailed how historically “redlined” minority neighborhoods are *already* 4.5°F hotter than non-redline (white) neighborhoods on account of lack of trees and more pavement. This inequality in extreme urban heat and the heat island effect will compound as the planet continues to warm. Biden selecting Mustafa Ali for this role is a welcome sign of commitment to lessening racial disparities in vulnerability to climate change.

Cedric Richmond for Office of Public Engagement

On the other end of the spectrum we have Biden’s selection for the office of public engagement, which is borderline unconscionable. As Varshini Prakash of the Sunrise Movement noted, the pick “feels like a betrayal” on account of Richmond historically taking “more donations from the fossil fuel industry during his Congressional career than nearly any other Democrat.” Richmond, a US representative for the predominantly African American district in Louisiana known as cancer alley (cancer alley’s predominantly black residents have some of the highest cancer rates in the country, linked to pollution from nearby oil refineries and plastic factories), has indeed received massive donations from the fossil fuel industry, “Richmond has taken in $340,750 for the oil and gas industry”. This is the sort of head-scratching nomination that leaves one wondering how serious Biden’s commitment to stopping climate change is, that is compounded by the nature of the position.

The Office of public engagement is reportedly intended to be a “liaison with the business community and climate change activists,” but Louisiana environmental activists have pointed out that he largely refused to meet with them over concerns about pollution. Were this a Trump appointee, he would be roundly denounced for his ties to the fossil fuel industry. We must hold Biden to a similar standard; this pick is not indicative of a serious commitment to reducing climate change and advocating environmental justice. Indeed, it suggests the Biden administration may seek to wall off some of the more progressive activist groups that helped get him elected on climate change grounds.

Michael McCabe for EPA transition team member

In the words of Erin Brockovich, of Hollywood fame for the eponymous film about her court case against Pacific Gas and Electric for Environmental pollution that was settled for hundreds of millions of dollars, “Dear Joe Biden, are you kidding me?”. Michael McCabe is a former EPA deputy administrator who later worked as a chemical company consultant on “communication strategy for DuPont during a time when the chemical company was looking to fight regulations of their star chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)”. In this time, McCabe advised Dupont on how to *avoid* environmental regulations. When McCabe was advising Dupont in 2003, at a time when, “DuPont faced a barrage of litigation after the company dumped 7,100 tons of PFOA-filled waste in West Virginia, which made its way into the drinking water of 100,000 people.”

Not exactly an encouraging prospect at a time when the Biden administration *must* regulate carbon emissions (and their associated aerosol pollution) more heavily to give us a fighting chance on climate. McCabe is another Biden administration member who, were he a Trump nominee, or were we to apply the same principled opposition on moral grounds we applied to Trump nominees, that would be opposed strongly. The conjunction of selections of Richmond and McCabe suggest Biden’s administration may have a cozier relationship with big oil and big chemical polluters. It also calls into question the seriousness of the commitment to environmental and racial justice that a pick like Mustafa Ali implies. It’s theoretically possible that McCabe and Richmond have had a change of heart, realize the magnitude of the climate crisis, and are prepared to regulate polluters more sternly. However, these picks suggest climate activists should be wary of scientifically insufficient policies to with regards to limiting the climate crisis.

Ernest Moniz for Secretary of Energy

Before dissecting this pick, dear reader, please recall that:

A) We have to reduce CO2 emissions by ~50% by 2030 for a chance to limit warming to 1.5°C

B) It is technically feasible to do so, per the Rewiring America report, critically based on Dept. of Energy data.

C) As a consequence of (A) and (B), being ‘better than Trump’s energy secretary’ is not good enough

D) We must use what is scientifically necessary as our guide to judge these picks.

Biden’s pick for Secretary of Energy is Ernest Moniz, who also served as President Obama’s Energy Secretary. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, there are troubling signs that Moniz may in fact try to maintain fossil fuel industry infrastructure. Per reporting from Emily Holden of the Guardian, Moniz is:

1) A board member of the Southern Company in Georgia, one of the largest greenhouse gas emitting power companies in America

2) The President and CEO of Energy Futures Initiative, a firm that conducted paid research for Southern California Gas, which has been accused of “using customer money to oppose climate progress”

3) His firm, EFI, worked with Stanford on a report considering how to increase carbon emission capture from fossil fuels (which was funded by the fossil fuel group, “ oil and gas climate initiative”)

4) EFI is chaired by a former Chief executive of British Petroleum

In trying to fight the climate crisis, it’s ridiculous to have an energy secretary who is on the board of a company that profits from burning fossil fuels, who is the president of a firm working for companies opposing climate action, whose firm is chaired by former oil executives, and whose firm is promoting opportunities to maintain fossil fuel infrastructure — and necessarily, carbon emissions — by promoting unproven technology that could lock in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades while also reducing the pool of investments available for renewable energy. Last year he promoted an $11 billion carbon removal research and development initiative in the hopes it would bring down the cost of carbon dioxide removal technologies. Indeed, he once said, “Carbon [capture and] sequestration is just as good as putting in place a zero carbon technology — renewables, nuclear, you name it.”

In an incisive new paper titled “Carbon Unicorns and fossil futures” released a week ago, Professor Wim Carton makes the case that believing we’ll be able to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with negative emissions technologies — such as the carbon capture and storage advocated by Ernest Moniz — is tantamount to believing in magical creatures. Professor Carton points out that not only do they not exist at “any meaningful scale” currently, but that there are “large uncertainties around their feasibility, their expected effects on land use change, food security and biodiversity, and [importantly] their scalabililty”. The thoroughly researched piece emphasizes that these negative emission technologies, or NETs, “could act as a break on emission reductions in the present”. This echoes the findings elsewhere and in the Rewiring America Report that we don’t have time to wait on Negative Emissions Technology and that they may never work out. Given we only have 10 years to cut global carbon emissions in half for a chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, we really don’t have time to postpone action crossing our fingers that NETs will work at a sufficient scale (global) to justify continuing to burn fossil fuels in the short-term (Biden’s presidency).

Moniz is almost certainly the wrong pick for energy secretary, given the scientific necessity of drastically reducing carbon emission in the next 10 years. His vested interests in fossil fuel companies, history of advising them, and his promotion of unfeasible technology are all at the sort of things we would decry from a Trump administration appointee, on the ground that they are at odds with what is scientifically necessary to fight climate change. His appointment should be protested, and if he is accepted, Moniz must be pushed to do what is necessary and feasible to limit climate change as much as possible.

An Aside to acknowledge US imperialism, Global Hegemony, and “National Security”

Allow me to humbly say that I do not truly feel qualified to write on this subject. I’m not well-read enough to write it well, and few truly are. Perhaps Naomi Klein, Andreas Malm, or Noam Chomsky, authors of several books on the intersections of US imperialism, oil wars, and climate change, would be better suited to analyze the role of oil (and other fossil fuels) in perpetuating US global hegemony, sole superpower status, and ‘energy security’. However, I have yet to see anyone else write on this aspect of fossil fuels/climate change, and quite frankly, something must be said.

As I noted in Part I, ‘solving’ climate change is a global problem that necessitates getting to net-zero carbon emissions. I would be remiss if I neglected to acknowledge the United States’ historical role as the largest emitter of CO2, but also in it’s efforts to control the global energy market via oil wars in Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and ~Libya; coups and coup attempts in oil rich nations such as Libya, Iran, and Venezuela; and crippling economic warfare in the form of unilateral sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands (and are still ongoing in some of the following) in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. It is this author’s opinion that any piece that seeks to address the potential of Biden and his cabinet to solve climate change by getting global emission to net-zero, must acknowledge and critique the United States (and the officers of the executive branch) in their role as the capitalist world’s “police” force.

Indeed, as Noam Chomsky often points out, “national security” is an Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ term. While one might assume that creating a “Climate Envoy” position and placing it on the national security council implies a concern for the security of the America’s citizens from record-breaking wildfires, record-breaking hurricanes, or the coming assault of sea level rise and drought, the historical usage of the term ‘national security’ suggests a priority for the security of the United States as the world’s primary superpower, the security of the global capitalist system, and the security of US corporations who benefit from oil-based international trade. This current international system of capitalist production allows US corporations to reap the benefits of slave labor and poverty wages in sweat shops in the third world (often tacitly backed by US ‘diplomacy’, ‘multi-lateralism’, economic warfare, coups, and outright wars), while using fossil fuels to transport various goods and commodities to ‘consumption zones’ in the first world.

It goes without saying that a global transition from a fossil fuel dominated capitalist system to some form of global renewable energy system necessarily entails the possibility of radical changes to social, economic, political, and global relations that may threaten the ‘national security’ of the US as a global superpower, and that may threaten US corporations who benefit from the current globalized system of capitalist production. In analyzing Biden’s administration, we *must* acknowledge the role of the US as the hegemonic global superpower that has dominated the global oil market for nearly a century, and is the only country capable of waging wars across the world (with impunity) to gain access to other countries oil reserves. For some of the following nominees, these points are of key import.

Neera Tanden for Director of the Office of Management and Budget

The ongoing themes of doing what science says is necessary and holding Biden nominees to the same standards we held for Trump and his administration play a large role here. There are numerous reasons to oppose a Tanden nomination for Director of OMB outside of climate change, from punching one of her own employees after he asked why Hilary supported the Iraq War, has long advocated for cuts to social security and Medicare, presiding over the dismantling via mass layoff of Think Progress’s unionized journalists (when there was no shortage of funding), and publicly outed an employee “who had filed an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation against one of Tanden’s male allies.”. All of the above are behaviors, advocacy, and policy one might expect from a Trump or Republican appointee.

In 2011, Tanden suggested Libya should “pay us back” for the Obama/Biden/Clinton NATO backed bombing and coup that overthrew Gaddafi and inadvertently restarted the slave trade in Libya. In an email, Tanden points out, “We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil” in the email titled “should Libya pay us back?”. As Ben Norton of Salon pointed out four years ago, this suggestion of stealing oil is virtually identical to Trump’s calls to take Libya’s natural resources (and his later promotion and actually stealing Syria’s oil). At a time when, as I noted in Part I and rehashed here, we need to be investing money in renewable energy, an electric grid, and not investing in fossil fuel infrastructure, does it really make sense to have someone who advocated stealing another country’s oil after we illegally bombarded it in charge of the office of management and budget? Does it make sense to have Neera Tanden as Director of OMB at a time when we need massive public spending to build up renewable energy infrastructure when she’s spent years advocating for cuts to other publicly funded programs like social security and Medicare? As with all other positions, this one must be judged against what is scientifically necessary to stop climate change This pick is pretty egregious, it’s not entirely clear how this even meets the low and *incorrect* bar of being ‘better than Trump’. It should be opposed by climate activists and people actually trying to stop the climate crisis from getting worse.

Brian Deese for head of the National Economic Council

Brian Deese formerly worked in the Obama administration as an adviser. He also briefly advised the white house on climate, and worked as the deputy director and later acting director of the office of management and budget. Some big names in the climate movement have endorsed or indicated that Deese is a good pick for this role given his history of conservation, managing sustainable investments, and his role in getting the Paris Climate Agreement passed. His endorsements include climate policy experts, Green New Deal co-sponsor Senator Ed Markey, and 350.org founder and climate activism champion Bill McKibben. However, there is significant reason for concern, as voiced by climate activists in the sunrise movement and documented by Kate Aronoff of The new Republic:

1) Deese has spent most of the Trump presidency advising investment giant BlackRock, whose portfolio includes “one of the world’s largest managers of fossil fuel shares”

2) In his time at the white house, the Obama administration advocated an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy, funding fossil fuel drilling alongside slowly boosting renewable development.

3) He was a strong advocate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would’ve allowed international corporations to sue the US government for policies that infringe on their profits (say, an oil company to sue the US for climate legislation or funding for renewables as ‘picking favorites’)

4) As Obama’s climate advisor, Deese remarkably “defended Arctic drilling”

5) While director of the OMB, he “preached fiscal discipline”, a stance that is at odds with our need to boost spending on a renewable transition immediately.

6) As recently as February 2020, Deese defended BlackRock offering renewable and fossil fuel energy investments as offering “more choices and more options”

It’s not entirely clear why a President that’s serious about committing to combat climate change by getting to net-zero emissions would want someone to head the National Economic Council who advised a company with a portfolio that has such a large fossil fuel presence. Deese’s historical advocacy of international free trade agreements that allow corporations to sue nations over climate policy is at direct odds with what is scientifically necessary *and* technically feasible to do to combat climate change. These ISDS courts may be used to sabotage or prevent massive direct spending in renewable energy and the electric grid, regulating emissions, and standards on production of electric vehicles and bans on combustion vehicles.

When we have a very small window of time to meaningfully reduce fossil fuel use and transition to renewables towards stopping climate change, we can’t afford to waver with ‘all of the above’ energy strategies. We can’t afford to stunt our chances of passing meaningful domestic policy by simultaneously advocating for international trade agreements that will allow corporations to prevent meaningful action just so they can protect their own ill-begotten profits. Perhaps Brian Deese has had a change of heart in the last 10 months since defending investments in fossil fuels. But if Biden is serious about doing what is scientifically necessary (as opposed to just being better than Trump), Deese is probably a bad pick for this role, suggesting that climate groups and activists will have to apply more pressure to yield policy sufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Anthony Blinken For Secretary of State

Tony Blinken (A. Blinken, anyone? Eh?) is the former deputy secretary of state under John Kerry for Obama’s second term. When Biden was a senator, Blinken was his top aide as Biden not only voted for the Iraq war but rallied support for it, all the way back to 1998. In case it has slipped your mind, the Iraq war is still ongoing (despite not being in any debates this year). Later on as deputy national security advisor, Blinken supported the 2011 military coup in Libya, which Neera Tanden disgustingly argued the US should use as pretense to take Libya’s oil so they could properly ‘thank’ us for devastating their country.

At this point, it’s no secret that one of the primary motivations for the Iraq war was oil. What is likely less known, is that “Blinken helped Biden develop a proposal to partition Iraq into three separate regions based on ethnic and sectarian identity”. In September 2007, the US senate voted to endorse this proposal, although it was never accepted by the Iraqi people. Indeed, a proposal by the Brookings Institution, in which Biden and Blinken were the 1st and 3rd acknowledgements of “a special intellectual debt” to partition Iraq so “Kurds and Shi’i Arabs would have far more incentive to cede on the fundamental issue of oil production and revenue sharing”. The Brookings Report in question mentions oil no less than 48 times.

While the Brookings Report has a level of plausible deniability regarding what was meant by “the fundamental issue of oil production and revenue sharing”, the end results of the Iraq war for “oil and revenue sharing” speak for themselves. In the book “Pipe dreams: The Plundering of Iraq’s Oil Wealth” by Erin Banco, details how another proponent of the three-state solution, Peter Galbraith, had a conflicting interest in the form of shares of Norwegian oil corporation DNO, “just as he was brokering a production and exploration deal between the Kurdish government and DNO”. Elsewhere in the book, Banco details how oil companies were quick to agree to deals for oil extraction that allowed them to take Iraq’s oil, “Baghdad was ready to put up its southern oil fields for bidding, and ExxonMobil and a partner quickly picked up the rights to the West Qurna-1 field near Basra”.

It’s examples like these that remind us of the importance of analyzing the United States role in global oil production, and why it’s inappropriate to limit analysis of Biden’s administration and policy to domestic affairs. As Naomi Klein pointed out in “The Shock Doctrine”, the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation argued that for the Middle East, the “region’s deficit in free-market democracy” was a source of terrorism. That Biden and Blinken were some of the primary advocates of partitioning Iraq to address “the fundamental issue of oil production and revenue sharing,” thereby enabling “free market democracy” to come in and allow for US and other Western oil corporations to profit off of Iraq’s oil resources is a pretty bad sign for the “return of multilateralism” to the white house with Biden and Blinken’s potential foreign policy. Once again, we have a Biden nominee who, while perhaps slightly better than Trump’s Secretaries of State in former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson and oil funded former representative Mike Pompeo, has historically endorsed international policies that are at odds with what is scientifically necessary to limit climate change.

It’s tragic and ironic, that what is needed to stave off the climate crisis, are rapid investments by the federal government in renewable energy, policies that go against ‘free-market’ strategies they both promoted during the Iraq War. If we’re gong to stop climate change from getting worse, we’re going to need Biden and Blinken to stop advocating for this sort of ‘multilateralism’ and ‘free-market’ policy and get serious about reducing the US and the world’s emission by 50% over the next 10 years. We cannot let them off the hook here, the consequences are too grave, whether it be for the victims of America’s imperialism, or for the victims of America’s dereliction of duty in stopping climate change. We must judge Blinken against what is scientifically necessary, not against the low bar set by having Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo as Trump’s Secretaries of State.

John Kerry for Climate Envoy, a position on the National Security Council

Last but not least, Biden has nominated John Kerry to be the Climate Envoy, a newly created national security council position. Some folks, including renowned climate scientist Michael Mann, think Kerry is eminently qualified. Kerry’s work in creating the group “World War Zero” aimed at getting global CO2 emissions to net-zero by 2050. John Kerry is a former presidential nominee, former Massachusetts senator, and former Obama Secretary of State. This history of high profile positions, engaging climate activists, and experience negotiating with world leaders could make Kerry a great fit to help solve a global problem like climate change, which requires that all countries get their carbon emissions down to net-zero.

However, there are also reasons for concern. Like Blinken and Biden, Kerry supported the Iraq War and indeed voted for it, was an advocate of bombing Libya (whose oil reserves have been noted), and was a big proponent of international trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership that he helped negotiate (which would allow corporations to sue countries for ‘infringements’ of free-market doctrine, such as subsidizing renewables or taxing fossil fuels). In a December 2019 interview with Emily Atkin for her newsletter Heated, Kerry noted that climate change was a “national security issue” (recall the doublespeak meaning of the term…). Kerry has also tweeted about climate change being a national security issue. Notably, this interview was nearly a year before his nomination to be Biden’s Climate Envoy, a position on the national Security Council. A day later, Atkin questioned one of the primary strategies of World War Zero: it’s commitment to ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘compromise’. Atkin notes she’s not inclined toward, “rusting powerful people and institutions who have consistently failed to use their power responsibly”. Similarly, she points out that not only have Republicans failed to use their power responsibly, they’ve also “sabotaged efforts to get [climate] legislation accomplished” (alongside decades of denying and downplaying climate change). Suffice it to say there are reasons to be wary of a strategy that hinges on cooperation from the only major political party in the world that denies that climate change is even happening.

Given Kerry’s historical role in US imperialism, I don’t think we can assume here Kerry’s use of “national security” is in the sense of climate change damage threat to US citizens, so much as a climate change threat to US hegemony on a world scale and control of world energy markets. These are, admittedly, my own surmising, but as noted earlier, not without historical precedent. Furthermore, Kerry’s historical roles in voting for and promoting US oil wars and sanctions on oil rich countries suggest concern for national security in it’s more Orwellian sense.

These aren’t the only concerns about Kerry’s record. Dharna Noor of Earther notes that while he did play a key role in negotiating the Paris Climate Agreement, it’s also possible that “Kerry could promote the expansion of dirty energy in the name of U.S. energy dominance”. Noor elaborates that Kerry was a key advocate of pushing the rapid increase in fracking for oil and gas in the U.S. that led to America becoming the world’s largest oil *and* natural gas producer. While it’s true that US emissions from fossil fuel use have declined slightly over the last 10 years, this has happened alongside the Obama/Biden administration’s repeal of the crude oil export ban in 2016. The repeal of this ban alongside Kerry (and Obama/Biden’s) promotion of fracking helped the US surpass Saudi Arabia in 2019 as the world’s top oil exporter.

Unfortunately, Noor notes domestic oil expansion aren’t the only lowlights in Kerry’s record as Secretary of State. Kerry backed a program to help Caribbean nations drill for more fossil fuels, incidentally called the Caribbean Energy *Security* Initiative, and also *run by then VP Biden*. Per Noor’s reporting, Kerry also led a project known as the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program, that helped Canada, Argentina, and China and more countries expand their fracking techniques and technologies, a program that explicitly *worsens* the climate crisis.

Are these the bonafides that one would hope for in a Climate Envoy with a National Security position? In this case, Kerry’s record is nowhere close to what is scientifically necessary, and is barely distinguishable from Trump’s record of promoting fossil fuel extraction and exploration around the world. Given the constraints of reducing global carbon emissions by 50% in 10 years, Kerry’s role in promoting fracking and US oil exports have made those goals more difficult. We don’t have time for Kerry to continue to promote ‘energy strategy’ of this sort. If continued for a few more years, we may well blow past the 1.5°C and 2.0°C targets that *Kerry himself* helped negotiate.

Final Thoughts

Biden’s Administrative picks with bearing on climate are not exactly a dream team thus far. And, it’s important to remember, that this outcome was more or less expected. For many progressive and leftist organizers, activists, and climate folks, the argument was that voting for Biden was a ‘lesser of two evils strategy’ (dozens if not hundreds of these think pieces), and that voting for Biden meant having someone in office who would could be “pushed towards an aggressive climate agenda”. As I noted earlier, the urgency of the climate crisis demands that we follow-up on our stated intention to push Biden into doing what is scientifically necessary to fight climate change. We must judge Biden and his administration against what is scientifically necessary and possible, not against Trump. Because climate change isn’t like other political issues, it can’t be dealt with later, it can’t be passed on to the next generation. We’ve only got one shot, and it has to be dealt with over the next ten years. Our work to push Biden’s team to do the right things to stop the climate crisis starts now.

Me, my Professors, and my Masters of Climate Change Science Classmates at a SchoolStrike4Climate march on New Zealand’s Capital in Wellington