20 Comments

Nice to see a true compromise that probably reflects where the “average” American is on these issues. Common sense suggest a transition period from fossil fuels to green energy and that seems to be what this bill provides.

As to whether it was a deliberate ploy to sucker the GOP or the result of the usual chaotic approach to certain legislation, I vote for the latter. While the temptation is always to find intentionality in certain actions, because that reassures us that someone is in control, most often life just works opportunistically and you jump on what suddenly materializes before you.

No one has yet explained the carried interest tax treatment for the compensation of equity managers who don’t share in the investment risk. It always seemed a giveaway.

As a final observation, it’s nice to see that the Black Lung Fund is permanently funded. Now how about doing that for our veterans who are casualties to the burn pits. Even the current proposal lasts but ten years.

Expand full comment

We will still need fossil fuels, just in much less quantity. No replacements are on the horizon for marine and air transportation, and it will be a long time before battery-electric freight locomotives can replace diesel-electrics. We will also need lubricants, and although today most steel is recycled we will still need some for the small amount of basic steelmaking.

We have had electric trolleybuses for almost a century; electric cars are here, practical, and affordable now, as are electric light trucks. Battery electric buses and heavy trucks are just a matter of time.

Expand full comment

all of europe has been electrified for ages as far as freight rail

I have always wondered why not to use the two tracks as a power line, powered only when the train is on top of it of course

Expand full comment

The Democratic Party is a deeply conservative organization when it comes to political economy, as against the political theatre of woke causes (and an abortion issue that it could have legislated on numerous times but decided not to), and functions to slowly smother any real left economic radicalism. The fact that this turned out as a "bribe business to cut emissions a little" process is therefore not surprising - lets remember that Obama was proud of helping the fracking industry. Manchin was just an excuse for the DNC to do what it always wanted to do, with a President who has been deeply corrupted to big business the whole of his political career.

The statistics in your article about US emissions are incorrect, as they grossly underestimate actual methane leaks (all official US GHG data does) which are twice the reported amounts given independent measurements - at which rate natural gas is a worse emitter than coal.

Expand full comment

"an abortion issue that it could have legislated on numerous times but decided not to"

This is kind of falsehood is coming from the nutty far left that is trying to sabotage Democrats. Jill Stein herself spouted this lie. In fact, in about a dozen states, Democratic state legislatures have repealed their states' abortion restrictions. It happened in Hawaiii pre-Roe v. Wade. This happened way back in 1975 in Virginia -- by a VERY conservative Virginia legislature. (Joe Manchin would have been considered a far left zealot in the Virginia legislature back in those days.) Interestingly it was Republican legislatures in New York (pre Roe) and New Hampshire that repealed those states' bans on abortion. In Alaska it was a legislature with split control that overrode a gubernatorial veto (also pre-Roe).

Expand full comment

At the federal level, the Democrats have had majorities in both houses a number of times (the last one being the first 2 years of Obama's first term) and did not legislate abortion rights, leaving it with the SCOTUS. Senior Democrats, including Biden with Clarence Thomas, have been instrumental in getting some of the judges on the SCOTUS that voted against abortion. Obama also mishandled the replacement of RBG, and the Dems allowed through Amy Coney Barrett.

The Dems use cultural issues to get their voters while practising neoliberal economics.

Expand full comment

I would be curious to hear what Adam and others think about this, but I think a lot of those commenting on this saga (including Adam himself, as he admits in the piece) were too pessimistic after the 2nd death of BBB. This pessimism seems puzzling to me, as I was certain after the second death of BBB that Manchin was just killing it again to increase his bargaining power (as shown by him coming around with the IRA). This is how legislative politics works: if you're the hinge vote (as Manchin is, given the razor-thin Dem majority in the Senate), you are incentivized to broadcast to everyone that you don't care about a bill as much as possible. That way, they all come running to you and you get to load as much of your pork into it as possible. Thus Adam notes that the new version of BBB, the Inflation Reduction Act, is "larded with concessions to fossil fuel interests." And if you're Manchin, you are incentivized to keep on killing BBB (one, even two times if need be) to maximize this leverage ad infinitum, until you lose your privileged Hinge Seat. Manchin likely loses the seat in just a few months, which explains why he's starting to cooperate now. After November midterm elections, it is likely that the Senate and/or the House will be GOP-held. Even on the off chance that the same Dem razor-thin majority holds -- and thus Manchin gets to hold his Hinge Seat -- the House may be lost to the GOP, and thus the Congress will be split (ie, cannot pass any climate bill). So Manchin's golden goose dies in November. The saga as it has unfolded was therefore predictable (and, similarly, the rise of Sinema to the "Hinge Seat" once Manchin begins cooperating with Dem leadership is also predictable). I could have just gotten lucky in guessing this, though, so I'm curious if anyone has anything else to add.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this - it's a fantastic piece of political economy writing and something I've not really seen elsewhere.

Expand full comment

The IFA may be one of the shrewdest pieces of legislation. The label is a redirection. The content is pragmatic and has real chance to accelerate the move toward green energies. There are many brilliant ideas, but if they don't work in practice they stop at the level of fierce debate that produces nothing. This post covers all sorts of angle, showing how difficult it is to reach a workable consensus.

Expand full comment

Read the book "A Convenient Lie - common sense talk about climate change". When your done you won't be so interested in supporting the inflationary spending spree on 1/4 degree of warmth.

Expand full comment

Maybe you should read some actual science books by actual climate scientists. The author of that book you recommended is an absolute science ignoramus and utter conspiracy nut.

Expand full comment

OMG, flogging your own book - now thats pathetic!

Expand full comment

I'd believe Democrats' climate change policies were about fighting climate change when Democrats close the borders to the southern invasion. Growing our population by a million a year is hardly a green policy.

Expand full comment

This comment doesn't really deserve attention, but here I go anyways...

Do you think those migrants cease to exist if they don't get into the US? Or do you just prefer to keep them in destitute poverty if they're not permitted to enter the country, so as not to raise their carbon footprint?

I personally, along with most democrats I know, would prefer we lower the carbon footprint of the average American with bills like this AND allow in a few more of those who want to immigrate here. Even if that means the total CO2 emissions of the country decline at a marginally lower rate. The whole point of reducing climate change is to improve the lives of humans globally, and therefore is entirely consistent with permitting more immigration.

Expand full comment

Your comment doesn't really deserve attention, so I won't bother responding.

Expand full comment

No, he is right. The people don't disappear unless you perpetrate a genocide. And there will be a lot more migration if we don't do something about climate change. Bangladesh will be underwater if we don't act; the rest of the world will need to accept a hundred million or so refugees who won't have any land to return to. (I wouldn't mind if the US takes all of them. I live in a county with a lot of Bangladeshi immigrants. They are incredibly friendly and hardworking -- and some of them run Indian grocery stores with great selections of lentils, rice, and spices!)

Expand full comment

I’m reading Katherine Benton-Cohen’s book “Inventing The Immigration Problem: the Dillingham Commission and its legacy”. Not surprisingly, how we think about and discuss the immigration issue today finds its roots at the turn of the 20th century.

Expand full comment

If the Amerindians had been able to stop the European invasions we would also probably be in a better way climate wise. Also, maybe the Mexicans are just trying to take back the half of their nation stolen by the US - perhaps they could say "go back to where you came from!"

Expand full comment

Wow, you don't say, these are some deep and perceptive observations. What about the "We're all Immigrants!!!" line? You forgot that one.

Expand full comment

In a sense the same is happening with Elon Mask's obsession on invading Mars, why is he allowed to invest huge resources contrary to everybody else interests?

Expand full comment