Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has scuttled Democrats’ plans to approve a comprehensive climate policy before they might lose seats in the upcoming midterm elections.
We’re investigating what happened and its effects.
Manchin Abandons His Climate Legislation
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) claims that while he does not now support climate legislation, he may change his mind if inflation continues to rise.
Late on Thursday, a Democrat briefed on the exchange claimed that Manchin informed his party’s representatives that he would “unequivocally” oppose climate spending in a reconciliation package and that, at this time, he was only prepared to compromise on reducing the cost of prescription drugs.
Manchin called West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Friday and said that while he would soon be willing to reach an agreement on prescription costs, he wouldn’t be willing to pursue climate investment on that timetable.
Manchin claimed that it is “not sensible” to enact climate and tax measures at this time in the absence of new inflation statistics.
Manchin, however, seemed to suggest that he may be interested in climate legislation in the future, but not just now.
He stated of Majority Leader Charles Schumer, “I begged, ‘Chuck, can we just wait until the inflation data come out in July?'” (D-N.Y.). I want the weather. I desire an energy strategy.
President Biden demanded the passage of a health care bill in response to Manchin’s remarks and declared he would combat climate change through “bold executive action.”
Dems Want Biden To Go To “Beast Mode”
Following Manchin’s decision to halt talks on climate change and tax increases, Senate Democrats are urging President Biden to take a tough stance on climate legislation.
WHITEHOUSE: On Thursday night, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) tweeted, “With legislative climate choices officially closed, it’s now time for executive Beast Mode.”
Whitehouse outlined the policies he would want to see in a lengthy thread, including the need for technologies to trap greenhouse gases from all big emitters, strict auto emissions regulations, and a carbon border tax.
SCHATZ: “The legislative branch should continue to push for climate action, but the executive branch needs to move quickly and enthusiastically. Sen. Brian Schatz tweeted, “Existing legislation provides the executive with several options to act with the urgency, commitment, and purpose that is equal to this planetary emergency (D-Hawaii).
CARPER: Tom Carper, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a Democrat from Delaware, called for “strong climate action” from the executive branch and hinted that Democrats would still like to negotiate a legislative agreement.
As we try to provide more, he added, “We must fortify our determination and establish a route forward, including robust action today with the instruments we now have.”
A CHAIR IS A CARING
After learning of Manchin’s rejection, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) stated on Friday that he is wondering why Manchin is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“We currently have a chance to address the climate crisis. Heinrich expressed her annoyance with Senator Manchin’s inaction on Twitter. It makes me wonder why he’s the chairman of ENR, he continued.
Soon after Heinrich’s message was published, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted her support for it: “Courage. I appreciate you expressing that, Senator MartinHeinrich.
SCIENTISTS: A WARMER PLANET WOULD RESULT FROM NO DEAL
Researchers and environmentalists cautioned that continuing without enacting climate legislation runs the risk of bringing about a warmer future for the entire planet.
According to what has been reported so far, a climate agreement would have likely reduced emissions in 2030 by between 800 million and 1 billion metric tonnes, according to Princeton professor Jesse Jenkins, who has modeled the potential emissions reductions of the proposed legislation. Jenkins made this statement to The Hill.
That would be the same as removing between 172 million and 215 million vehicles from the road for an entire year.
He claimed that by 2030, “we’re losing between two-thirds and three-quarters of the progress we were intending to make.”
The incoming legislation, according to Robbie Orvis, senior director of energy policy design at the think tank Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology might have reduced emissions by as much as 1 billion tonnes.
In reference to President Biden‘s target of halving emissions by the end of the decade, Orvis remarked, “The probability of being able to reach the 2030 target is considerably lower now, therefore I think that suggests that there will be more emissions, obviously, and that translates to more warming.”
Without taking action, he continued, “we’re going to continue to worsen the impacts of climate change, and it’s going to contribute to worsening extreme weather events and…ultimately human suffering and death.” “Every amount that we continue to increase the global temperature brings more extreme storm events,” he said.
On Friday, some claimed that without the United States, the rest of the globe could be less likely to pursue risky measures.
“The United States plays a unique role since it is the largest historical emitter of all time. If we don’t, we can’t expect other nations to take real action, climate expert Michael Mann wrote in an email to The Hill.
- Conserving Wildlife Is Too Important
- The Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions By Year
- A Country Diary: Every Day, Collared Doves Patrol Our Wakeful Hours
Stay tuned to enviro360 for more infotainment news.