Democrats Divided: The Environmental Cost of Partisan Politics
Layout by Jackie Ng
President Joe Biden’s promise to make significant progress on the fight against climate change was central to his campaign. One might assume members of the Republican Party would be key agents in preventing this goal from coming to fruition. The truth complicates this assumption. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, two Democratic senators, are central players in the inhibition of the Biden Administration’s climate agenda (Zurcher).
In part, this is due to the fact that Republicans have no power over the outcome of this specific legislation (Cooke). Biden’s plan to reduce America’s 2005 greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 will be achieved through the process of budget reconciliation, a task which the majority (this being the Democratic party) in the Senate controls (Schaff). And yet, there is division among the Democrats as to where the budget should go, and how much money should be allocated to certain programs.
The Democratic party – composed of left-leaning progressives, right-leaning moderates, and everyone in the middle – is far from united. While Biden inherited a Congress with a Democratic majority, dissent within the party guarantees that “getting things done,” even with their slight majority, is a challenging feat. In disabling key environmental legislation, Senators Manchin of West Virginia and Sinema of Arizona are proving this point. Their moderate political position provides them with power to decide the fate of this bill as the President and fellow Democrats are forced to listen to their needs and compromise, or risk the complete loss of their support (Schaff).
And compromise they have. Biden’s Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) incentivizes energy companies to replace greenhouse gas-producing energy sources with renewable sources, such as wind and solar (The Daily). The plan allocates 150 billion dollars to this program and outlines a system of penalization in which companies are fined for their lack of compliance (The Daily). If this section of the bill was left unscathed, 80 percent of American electricity would be produced by renewable sources by 2030 (The Daily). The provision, however, has not escaped the two most moderate Democrats' dissent, as it has been dropped from the bill to meet their demands (The Daily).
In representing West Virginia, Senator Manchin’s reasons for stomping on this legislation are understandable. West Virginia’s economy revolves around coal and other unclean energy industries (Zurcher). Naturally, he wants what is best for the state’s economy, but are his reasons that straightforward? Manchin receives more political donations from energy companies than any other senator (Zurcher). He also holds stock in a coal brokerage company that he founded before his political career began (The Daily). Manchin’s supposed interest in protecting the West Virginian economy is further complicated by the fact that West Virginia, being extremely susceptible to intense flooding, will be one of the states that is hit hardest by climate change (The Daily). His opposition to this bill will ultimately hurt West Virginia while his endorsement of it would protect the state from environmental (and therefore economic) catastrophe.
Senator Sinema’s motives for blocking the bill are less clear. Sinema has exhibited quite the ideological transformation over the course of her political career; she went from being a former member of the Arizona Green Party to voting in agreement with President Trump’s policies over 50 percent of the time during his presidency (The Daily). It is possible that this change does not reflect the opinions she holds, but the opinions she articulates in order to get elected and to maintain power. In a recent vote on raising the minimum wage, Sinema expressed her disapproval by standing on the floor of the Senate and giving a thumbs down, a motion which is evocative of the late Senator John McCain’s thumbs down to Trump’s attempt to repeal Obama Care (Blake). In other words, Sinema’s objection to the proposed budget may be nothing more than a political performance.
The Democrats have held the Congressional majority for close to a year and have not passed a single piece of significant legislation. The Senate’s failure to pass this crucial bill is evidence of a larger, deeply rooted problem that American democracy faces. Joe Manchin and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez should not be in the same party; she proposed the Green New Deal while he shut down the Clean Electricity Performance Program. When a political party is so divided that it cannot agree on a major issue, such as climate change, then it is not a party, but a political entity manufactured by the two party system. This system prioritizes the moderate voice and suppresses the progressive agenda by forcing progressives into a party with which their policies do not align. Perhaps we would make more environmental progress as a nation if we had a party that actually prioritized the reversal of climate change. With their lack of substantial action, the Democratic Party (whatever that really means) cannot claim that they represent those interests.
References
Blake, Aaron. “Kyrsten Sinema’s Combustible Thumb.” Washington Post. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/06/sinema-thumbs-down/.
“How A Single Senator Derailed Biden’s Climate Plan.” The Daily, New York Times. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/podcasts/the-daily/joe-biden-climate-plan-joe-manchin.html.
Schaff, Erin. “Manchin Pushes for More Climate Cuts from the Budget Bill.” New York Times. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/us/politics/manchin-climate-budget.html.
Zurcher, Anthony. “Joe Manching and Kyrsten Sinema Blocking Biden’s Climate Agenda.” BBC. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59060739.