The study is another damning illustration of the inequalities caused by climate change on a global scale. “Regardless of the accounting, hot countries have warmed up and lost income because of it, while colder countries have warmed up but enjoyed economic gains,” Mankin concluded. “The responsibility for warming lies primarily with a handful of large emitters, and this warming has resulted in the enrichment of a few wealthy countries at the expense of the world’s poorest people.” However, the White House appears to be continuing down this failed path, even though the majority of voters want to see more climate leadership from Biden and the Democrats.. There is no better example of this than a recent Washington Post story about the Biden administration’s willingness to compromise its climate goals to woo Sen. Joe Manchin.
According to Washington Post, the Biden administration has been more willing to potentially approve projects like ConocoPhillips’ Willow oil extraction plan in Alaska or Manchin Mountain Valley’s preferred pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia, as staffers believe that they can somehow get Manchin on board with a blocked climate spending program because of him. University of California, Santa Cruz energy policy expert David Victor said these high-emission projects are worth it if it means getting a climate package through Congress. “It’s going to send a much clearer signal to low-carbon industries about where and how they can build,” Victor explained.
I know these are desperate times, but I just don’t see how they call for going back to see even a modicum of progress. If Manchin, considered one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, really cares about what hurts his constituents, shouldn’t he immediately turn to economic aid? Going backwards with additional emissions — and unnecessary loss of GDP from fossil fuels — is no way to lead with this country’s future in mind.