- Position‹2 of 3›
- Joe Biden will be better for the environment
Biden will reinstate federal protections, rolled back by the Trump Administration, that were designed to protect communities. He will make it a priority for all agencies to engage in community-driven approaches to develop solutions for environmental injustices affecting communities of color, low-income, and indigenous communities.
The argument
Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics reply that the passage restates campaign pledges — 'will take action,' 'will ensure' — rather than demonstrated outcomes, and that such promises are constrained by Congress, the courts and enforcement capacity. Stated intentions are not the same as delivery. They add that the opposing case argues deregulation advanced energy independence and lower consumer costs, so 'better for the environment' is contested rather than self-evident; and the 'neither does enough' position notes an administration can approve fossil-fuel projects and drilling leases even while promising accountability. On this view, pledges alone don't establish the comparative claim.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The passage restates campaign pledges ('will take action,' 'will ensure') rather than demonstrated outcomes, and such promises are constrained by Congress, the courts and enforcement capacity. [Rejecting P2] Critics on the other side argue deregulation advanced energy independence and lower consumer costs, so 'better for the environment' is contested rather than self-evident. [Rejecting P3] The 'neither does enough' position notes an administration can approve fossil-fuel projects even while promising accountability, so pledges alone don't establish the comparative claim.