A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it |
|
|
|
|
Sarah Bloom Raskin at a Senate confirmation hearing in February Ken Cedeno/Pool/Getty |
|
|
|
|
|
If you follow climate news—and, given that you subscribe to this newsletter, there’s a decent chance you do—you may have noticed that climate watchers are really upset about the failure of Sarah Bloom Raskin’s nomination to the Federal Reserve. Extremely upset. Like a level upset you might think is understandable for a failed Supreme Court nomination but strikes you as weird for a Fed nomination. So for this week’s newsletter, let’s unpack why this thwarted nomination is such a very bad sign for climate policy in the United States. When it comes to federal governmental bodies likely to have an effect on climate change, most people would probably think of the Environmental Protection Agency or even the Agriculture Department before the Fed. But as TNR’s Kate Aronoff has previously explained, the Fed can play an important role in fighting climate change, and Bloom Raskin was planning to introduce some climate caution into its policies. Specifically, she wanted to require climate-related financial disclosures and to introduce climate stress tests, changes she has openly advocated for in the past, arguing that the Fed is courting economic disaster by ignoring the fact that fossil fuels, in addition to driving the climate crisis, are simply a bad investment. These aren’t radical positions. Factoring climate risk into the Fed’s decisions makes sense. Or as Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman put it: Working climate change risk analysis into Fed policy “should be the minimum indication of reasonableness in a world where climate change is already having dramatic economic impacts.” As Kate pointed out back in February, climate stress tests have been “endorsed by both Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the European Central Bank.” Fossil fuels are a bad investment. And climate change–driven disasters cost spectacular amounts of money. But fossil fuel companies, unsurprisingly, hate this idea. So when President Biden nominated Bloom Raskin to be the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, Republican senators lined up against her very quickly. And on Monday, Senator Joe Manchin—the West Virginia Democrat who in this current election cycle has received about five times as much fossil fuel money as any other sitting senator, Democrat or Republican—officially sank the nomination, coming out against Bloom Raskin publicly. The following day, Bloom Raskin withdrew as nominee. |
|
|
|
|
{{#if }} Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help. Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic. |
—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
|
{{/if}} Practically no one disputes that the fossil fuel industry torpedoed this nomination. Bloom Raskin was exceptionally well qualified for the position, having previously served as Fed governor and deputy treasury secretary. She sailed through confirmation votes for both of those positions. What this process has shown, therefore, is that the fossil fuel industry can tank a nominee all on its own, simply for favoring policies that make objective financial sense (like a more comprehensive analysis of risk). That’s extremely grim news for those concerned about the warming planet—as well as fans of functioning democracy. Last week, Kate attended an oil and gas industry conference, where she heard Senator Manchin explain his views on fossil fuels and politics to a room full of oil executives. Manchin did this only three days before coming out publicly against Bloom Raskin. In addition to a real grab bag of odd pronouncements—referring to fossil fuel execs as “we,” calling 45-year-old EPA chief Michael Regan a “great young man,” and suggesting oil execs “throw ’em the hell out of the room” (he seemed to be referring to members of Congress)—Manchin listed what he might want from the White House in exchange for his vote on the climate policy sections of Build Back Better. The list shouldn’t leave anyone optimistic about the prospects for passing climate policy. Read Kate’s account of Manchin’s whole phantasmagorical performance here. —Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
Two pieces of good news this week: First, a bat believed to be extinct is still alive! Also, the Securities and Exchange Commission may soon require publicly traded companies to disclose their emissions and any risks their business faces due to climate change, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is thinking about maybe not letting utility companies bill customers for their trade association dues. The Washington Post has a useful explainer on this wacky practice: “Check your utility bill. You might be paying for a trade group to fight climate policy.” |
|
|
California, once considered a model for state-level climate policy, has for the first time received a D on the California Environmental Voters scorecard. Mary Creasman, head of the group, pointed to lobbying as a possible culprit for the state’s slowness in reducing emissions and passing further climate initiatives: 63 percent of its legislators, she told Inside Climate News, “take oil money.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the dangerous climate change markers that we’re rapidly hurtling toward right now is a total loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic. A new study suggests we could reduce our chances of ice-free Arctic summers by a whopping 30 percent by aggressively cutting methane emissions. (If reading studies isn’t your jam, Axios has a write-up here.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in the Ecosystem |
For decades, gas stoves have been regarded as the gold standard for both restaurants and home cooks, boasting higher heat levels overall and quicker response to temperature adjustment than electric ranges. But in the past year, many have been reconsidering gas ranges: It turns out that a lot of the mystique around them, for example, actually came from aggressive marketing from natural gas companies. And in addition to the huge emissions footprint of gas production, research shows gas stoves also leak a number of harmful pollutants into the home, even when they’re not being used: Kids growing up in a home with a gas stove are over 40 percent more likely to experience asthma symptoms. Many serious cooks, however, are loath to go back to electric. And now The New York Times has published the perfect piece for those people nervous about ditching gas: It’s about the beauty of induction burners, which are more efficient than gas but get a lot of its upsides, as well as features gas doesn’t possess, like easy low-temperature cooking. Induction ranges remain rather expensive right now (although they’re comparable, at the low end, to high-end gas installations). Many are hoping they’ll become cheaper in coming years with production efficiencies and subsidies. Food writer Melissa Clark interviews high-end restaurant chefs and then tries out induction burners herself: |
|
“After two days, I was in love,” Mr. Ripert said. “It’s so much more precise than watching a flame. You can really focus on your cooking and pay attention to what’s inside the pan, not what’s underneath it.” He hasn’t yet converted his restaurant kitchens. “It would be a big expense to replace stoves that still work well, but, if the gas stove broke, I’d consider it,” he said, adding that he thought his cooks would adapt quickly. “After a few days, they’d all love it.” That is just what happened with the chef Justin Lee of Fat Choy in Manhattan, although he wasn’t expecting it. When he opened the Chinatown restaurant in September 2020, there was no gas hookup. “Most restaurants wouldn’t open without gas, but we couldn’t wait,” he said, “so we had to find our way with electric.” It was a lot easier than he had anticipated, and he’s come to prefer induction for its consistency at high and low temperatures. On the gentlest setting, he confits garlic and other ingredients for his XO sauce without having to watch it. “You can walk away, and it won’t ever burn,” he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Subscribers Are Reading |
Our failures of pandemic solidarity cost lives. Ukraine is testing our solidarity in another way. |
|
|
While American oil and gas companies eye new opportunities in Europe, German lawmakers want to accelerate the transition to wind and solar. It won’t be easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here.
Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is: The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA
Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
