President Biden's Environmental Policies, So Far

President Biden has unleashed a flurry of executive orders related to the environment in general and climate change in particular. The most prominent of these is the United States’ commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. Many of the initiatives were to reverse Trump’s policies, some of which, in turn, were to undo Obama-era rules. Why all the back and forth? What does it mean to most Americans?

An executive order is a method of issuing federal directives in the United States to manage operations of the federal government. This includes the determination of how legislation is to be enforced, and other actions relating to emergencies and other policy. Although they are constitutionally legal unless reversed by the judicial branch, executive orders can be revoked by future presidents or acts of congress. Laws passed by congress are held to a higher standard according to the constitution and are more difficult to reverse.

According to Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, “President Biden has called climate change the No. 1 issue facing humanity. He understands all too well that meeting this test requires nothing less than a full-scale mobilization of American government, business, and society.” The executive order to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement (which will enable the U.S. to hold polluters like China and India accountable) is only the first step. Biden’s other orders stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion (which would have encouraged yet more Canadian oil sands extraction) and halt new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. They would not (and could not) stop other fossil fuel drilling.

With the understanding that the climate crisis is an overriding concern, Biden’s policies are the best way to address it at this point. Legislation to affirm these initiatives as well as to position the United States to regain our lost leadership in economic development, especially relating to renewable energy, must follow. Loss of jobs in fossil fuel production will be small compared with the substantial gains afforded by the innovation and creativity of a future-facing economy based on clean energy. Naturally, the question is, how can we move forward on something this important.

First, we need to recognize that although the climate may be mankind’s greatest challenge, it’s not the most immediate one. The Biden Administration must get the Coronavirus Pandemic under control. It’s gratifying to know that they’ve begun to take steps and to ‘own’ the problem. Although some environmental progress isn’t dependent on whether or not the pandemic is under control (and we can do two things at once), the problem is mostly one of perception.

Second, we will need to convince members of the Republican party to support such legislation. This is the heavy-lift part. The planet itself is lending urgency. Last year was the hottest year on record, the years from 2010 through 2019 make up the hottest decade ever. The irreversible effects of climate change have wreaked havoc across the globe, from devastating wildfires in Australia and California to rising sea levels, stronger storms, and widespread droughts.

Still not convinced? BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute all issued statements of support for President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris Accord. So did the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. It seems that they welcome the regulation and the environmental stability that comes with good economic policy. Republicans should too.

The Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy

 

The generation of electrical power accounts for over 40 percent of the earth’s greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates a significant percentage of water and other air pollution. Therefore, the conversion to clean, renewable methods of power generation ought to be of utmost importance. In fact, due to revolutionary technical innovation and related economic factors, the changeover is happening now at an astounding speed. Coincidentally or not, this is also happening at a time when cities and countries around the world are pledging to move to net-zero emissions - to become 100% carbon-free within a few decades. As the United States rejoins to the Paris Climate Accord, we will likely see a more coordinated approach to clean energy commitments.

Is the effort worthwhile? In the vein of “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” we need to inquire about any possible ‘negative’ impact to the environment posed by renewable energy. Is it possible that we are only trading one type of pollution with another? There most certainly are at least some costs that need to be considered. What are they, how do they compare with the costs of using fossil fuels, and can they be mitigated?

Environmental Cost of Renewable Energy

Renewables include hydropower, geothermal, biomass, tidal power, as well as wind and solar power. Although hydroelectric energy makes up a huge percentage of the total renewable sources, the vast majority of the growth is from wind and solar sources. Since those two represent the future of energy production, we will concentrate on them.

Wind turbines pose a threat to birds and bats. There is some concern about some parts of the turbines – notably the blades – that are not recyclable once they have completed their life-cycle. In some cases, the large blades are taking up space in landfills.

Solar power can result in habitat loss as well as the use of some hazardous materials. Large solar arrays can displace native plant and animal habitats and use large amounts of water. Disposal of solar panels can be another source of pollution. Solar panels often contain cadmium, lead, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel.

Renewable Environmental Cost vs Fossil Fuel Environmental Cost

An article in ‘The Conversation’ evaluates whether green energy has hidden health and environmental costs. There are references to studies showing that although no energy source is without adverse environmental side effects, fossil fuels place the heaviest burden on the environment; most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related impacts on ecosystems and human health. Other studies have been published showing similar results. The conclusions are unmistakable.

Considering the overall environmental impact of wind and solar sources (even the waste) versus that of burning fossil fuels or nuclear power, the score isn’t even close. Yes, there is indeed environmental consequence from renewables; the costs are noted here and elsewhere. But wind and solar produce nearly zero greenhouse gases, and their overall environmental footprint is significantly lower than the burning of fossil fuels.

Nuclear power generation also generates no carbon dioxide but is not truly renewable. Furthermore, it causes pollution in terms of spent fuel, which, even after 60 years of use, is still not being properly and safely stored or disposed of.

Wind and solar win the environmental competition by a landslide.

How to Mitigate Renewable Environmental Pollution

Even though we’ve seen that renewable energy sources are clean relative to nuclear and the burning of fossil fuels, we’ve also acknowledged that they’re not without environmental consequence. Now that the impact has been identified, what can we do to reduce or eliminate it?

For wind power, siting is everything. To prevent as much loss as possible, wind farms should be kept away from major bird and bat migratory routes. This is being done with increasing success. Wind turbines should be constructed with the prospect of recycling in mind, and this too is in the works.

Photovoltaic and other solar energy components also need to be constructed and disposed of more sustainably. One solution is to include a fee on solar panel purchases to ensure that the cost of safely removing, recycling, or storing solar panel waste is incorporated into the price of solar panels. In addition, the federal or state government should enforce existing laws regarding the decommissioning of solar panels so that they do not end up in landfills. Finally, solar and all e-waste should be monitored at a global level. Strict regulation is key.

The entire life-cycle of any energy source should be considered when weighing economic and environmental factors. We need to be vigilant to ensure that we’re not creating new and additional ways to harm the environment. The good news is that renewables cause far less harm than alternatives and that they’re still improving.