The Biden climate win you may not have heard about
I hope you are enjoying reading the Washington Monthly newsletter as much as I enjoy writing it. A donation to the magazine will help me and our team continue to provide the independent journalism, policy coverage, and political analysis you can't find anywhere else. Click here to make a donation.
***
This week I re-read my past year of Washington Monthly columns, to see how well my analyses held up. (You can read my attempt at pundit accountability by clicking here.)
And I came across what I wrote in March about Biden's record on natural gas fracking.
I have an update about the piece to share. But first, here's the latest from the Washington Monthly website:
***
As 2023 Ends, Hold Your Political Pundits Accountable!: My look back at my own record of punditry, with three things I got right and one take that didn't quite hit the mark. Click here for the full story.
Will Trump’s Disqualification Turn on Whether an 1869 Case Was Wrongly Decided?: Former federal prosecutor James D. Zirin dissects the flawed 19th century opinion from Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which could be used to keep Donald Trump on the ballot. Click here for the full story.
***
In March I wrote, Joe Biden Broke His 2020 Pledge on Fracking. Good. The basic argument was that increased liquid natural gas exports are helping Europe lessen its dependence on Russian energy. And natural gas has helped America cut back on coal and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
But I also acknowledged that with natural gas comes the problem of methane leaks, which "doesn’t linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years like carbon dioxide, but, while present, traps far more heat. "And "we don't know" how much of a problem methane leaks are causing because of poor data collection.
Instead of rejecting fracking altogether, the Biden administration proposed getting better at detecting and plugging methane leaks. I wrote in March:
The Biden administration has a plan, proposed in November [2022], called the “super-emitter response program.” Under the proposal, government agencies alongside “approved third parties with expertise in remote methane detection technology” track down major leaks and force swift action. An estimated 4 percent of methane emitting sites account for half of all methane emissions. Once identified and notified, a super-emitter would have five days to do its own inspection and 10 days to fix any problems.
The proposal is not a done deal. The EPA will issue a final rule later this year. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry is trying to shape the rule, raising concerns about using third parties to detect leaks, as they fear “industry harassment” by activists.
Here's the update: Earlier this month, the EPA issued the final rule, which kept in the use of third-party monitors, snubbing pressure from fossil fuel interests.
The rule still faces legal challenges from Republican state governments as well as oil and gas companies. But the methane rule is just one more way the Biden administration is creatively tackling the climate crisis.
FIND THE MONTHLY ON SOCIAL
We're on Twitter @monthly
We're on Threads @WAMonthly
We're on Instagram @WAMonthly
We're on Facebook @WashingtonMonthly
Best wishes for a happy 2024,
Bill Scher, Washington Monthly Politics Editor