- Position1 of 2›
- Joe Biden should be elected in the 2020 US election
Biden's proposed "Clean Energy Revolution" would be game changing. Its commitments include a totally clean energy economy by 2050. He has also vowed to incentivise the rest of the world to join this mission, which is critical for the fight against climate change.
The argument
One of the biggest reasons that action on climate change wasn't taken during the Obama administration was because of healthcare. Now, Joe Biden has an opportunity to enact sweeping climate policies that would put America—and the world—on a better track. Biden's plan involves a $2 trillion investment in clean energy and infrastructure over four years, creating millions of high-paying jobs with a choice to join a union. Not only does this help create jobs, in a time where the country has seen a massive spike in unemployment, but it also aids in combatting climate change. Through this plan, Biden plans to have a carbon-free power sector by 2035. Bidens plan also limits methane pollution by corporations, slowing the disastrous effects of climate change. Compared to the Trump administration's lack of a concrete climate change plan, Biden's is substantive, informed, and will create much needed reform. Joe Biden needs to be elected to combat climate change in order to save this country from further climate related tragedy.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics of this argument note that a campaign platform is a proposal, and that the specific commitments cited are the parts of a programme least within a president's unilateral control. A two-trillion-dollar investment requires appropriations from Congress, and a carbon-free power sector by 2035 requires legislation, regulatory rulemaking that survives litigation, and cooperation from states that own their grids. Presenting the plan's contents as though they were outcomes skips the step where they must be enacted. The argument also undercuts itself in its opening sentence. It concedes that climate action was not taken during the Obama administration, in which Biden served for eight years, because healthcare consumed the legislative agenda. That is an admission that this candidate's previous administration faced exactly the constraint being waved aside here, and it invites the reply that the same competition for floor time and political capital would recur. The framing of the plan as 'driven by data' is not supported by what follows either: the body offers spending totals and target dates, which are policy ambitions, not evidence that the targets are achievable on the stated timetable. Defenders reply that a substantive plan with stated targets is still a better basis for judgement than none — a fair point, but one that argues for a comparison of plans rather than for the conclusion drawn.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The investment figure and the 2035 target are proposals contingent on congressional appropriation, rulemaking that survives legal challenge and state cooperation; the plan's contents are not equivalent to delivery. [Rejecting P2] The comparison rests on which candidate published a plan, not on data about outcomes, and the argument itself concedes that the administration in which this candidate served did not act on climate.