On Politics: Why Biden isn’t cracking down on fossil fuels

Environmental activists had high hopes when he entered office, but have found his record mixed.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story May 28, 2021 By Giovanni Russonello Note: Lisa Lerer is off this weekend. On Politics will be back on Tuesday. Enjoy the holiday! Kucher Creek, which drains into the Colville River in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.Patrick Endres/Design Pics Inc., via Alamy Picture this predicament, described by our climate reporter Lisa Friedman in her latest article as "a paradox worthy of Kafka": In order to break through the earth and tap the oil in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, ConocoPhillips must install "chillers" into the thawing permafrost. And why is it thawing in the first place? Because of global warming, brought on by burning the very sort of fossil fuels that ConocoPhillips is extracting. With Joe Biden's election in November, environmental advocates had hoped that such drilling on U.S. soil might become a thing of the past. But as Lisa documents in her article, ConocoPhillips's work in Alaska is just one of several drilling and pipeline projects that Biden's administration has recently gotten behind. Rather than turn back the Trump administration's support for fossil fuels, Biden is in some cases defending it. The reasons are complicated — and have a lot to do with the tricky politics of governance while Democrats have only the narrowest control of Congress. To help us understand what's been going on, and what the consequences might be for the environment, I caught up with Lisa today. Here's what she told me. Hi, Lisa. On the campaign trail last year, Joe Biden criticized the Trump administration for continuing the country's dependence on fossil fuels. But this month, Biden's administration has taken a number of steps to endorse actions taken by Trump that would increase drilling on U.S. land and allow a major pipeline project to go forward. Catch us up on what's happening. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT When Joe Biden was campaigning for president, he said he wanted to see the United States "transition" away from oil and other fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy, and yes, he also criticized many of his predecessor's moves that locked in oil, gas and coal development in the United States. Since he's taken office, Biden has put climate change front and center. He's set an ambitious goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels by the end of this decade, and he's made a huge push on things like electric vehicle charging stations, offshore wind development and other clean energy production. Over the past month, though, his administration has also taken some steps that really worry environmental groups. In at least three cases, the Biden administration has offered support in court or declined to block oil and gas projects that could lock in decades more of the fossil fuel pollution that is heating the planet. The most recent is the administration's support for ConocoPhillips's multibillion-dollar oil drilling project in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve, known as the Willow project, which was approved by the Trump administration and is slated to produce more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day for about 30 years. Democrats control both houses of Congress — but in each case, their grip on power depends on moderate Democratic lawmakers who don't share progressives' flat-out opposition to new drilling. How much has this factored into the calculus for the White House? Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT It's huge. Democrats have razor-thin control, and if Biden is going to get big priorities like his American Jobs Plan through Congress, he will have to bring along moderate Republicans like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and Democrats from fossil fuel-heavy states like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. When the Biden administration backed the Willow project in Alaska this week, the hope that Murkowski might be a future ally on legislative issues was surely part of the calculations. On Day 1 of his presidency, Biden took a number of steps that sent a welcome signal to climate activists: He stopped granting new drilling leases on federal lands, pledged to rejoin the Paris climate accord and committed to nixing the Keystone XL pipeline. But how are environmental advocates reacting to his administration's pro-drilling turn of late? Well, the reaction has been muted, at least publicly. Environmental groups are in fact really pleased with a lot of the Biden administration's climate policies and efforts to pause new drilling leases, and not many are willing to directly criticize the president because of that. As Bill McKibben, a leading climate activist and a founder of 350.org, told me, "I think people who care about climate understand Biden has a narrow majority and a big agenda, so they've been granting him the benefit of the doubt." Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Behind the scenes, though, there's a huge amount of concern. Groups are worried that Biden is trying to have it both ways — enact aggressive climate policies while keeping the support of union leaders and lawmakers from fossil fuel states — by letting some projects move forward. The problem, they warn, is that the International Energy Agency just warned governments that if they really want to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and avoid the worst consequences of climate change, investment in new fossil fuel projects need to stop now. You mentioned the Willow project, a huge drilling proposal in northern Alaska. This is an instructive example of the complicated politics that Biden — and his secretary of the interior, Deb Haaland — is confronting. Can you tell us where things stand with that? The Willow project is where a lot of different political threads intersect. Haaland came into this position a fierce opponent of new fossil fuel projects — and in fact signed on to a letter when she served in the House opposing the Willow project and calling it "egregious." But Haaland also owes her job, in part, to Alaska lawmakers. Representative Don Young of Alaska introduced Haaland at her confirmation hearing and endorsed her, and Murkowski ultimately cast a surprise vote in favor of Haaland, even though she said she "struggled" with the decision. The Interior Department declined to say what exactly changed Haaland's opinion in favor of the Willow project. But there seems to be no doubt that the administration's decision was part of a recognition of the sway held by the Alaska delegation. The project itself has been on hold since February, when a federal judge temporarily suspended construction after environmental groups sued, claiming the Trump administration had ignored or improperly accounted for the threats to caribou, migratory birds and polar bears — as well as the effects on climate change. Supporters of the project said they were hopeful that with the Biden administration's support, they will ultimately prevail in that suit. Republicans block the creation of an independent inquiry into the Jan. 6 riot. By Nicholas Fandos Republicans on Friday blocked the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, using their filibuster power in the Senate for the first time this year to doom a full accounting for the deadliest attack on Congress in centuries. With the vast majority of Republicans determined to shield their party from potential political damage that could come from scrutiny of the storming of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, only six G.O.P. senators joined Democrats to support advancing the measure. The final vote, 54 to 35, fell short of the 60 senators needed to move forward. The vote was a stinging defeat for proponents of the commission, who had argued that it was the only way to assemble a truly comprehensive account of the riot for a polarized nation. Modeled after the inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the proposed panel of experts would have been responsible for producing a report on the assault and recommendations to secure Congress by the end of the year. The debate played out in the same chamber where a throng of supporters of former President Donald Trump, egged on by his lies of a stolen election and efforts by Republican lawmakers to invalidate President Biden's victory, sought to disrupt Congress's counting of electoral votes about five months ago. Top Republicans had entertained supporting the measure as recently as last week. But they ultimately reversed course, and the House approved it with only 35 Republican votes. Leaders concluded that open-ended scrutiny of the attack would hand Democrats powerful political ammunition before the 2022 midterm elections — and enrage a former president they are intent on appeasing. "I do not believe the additional extraneous commission that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader. "Frankly, I do not believe it is even designed to do that." Democrats denounced the vote as a cowardly cover-up. They warned Republicans that preventing an independent inquiry — led by five commissioners appointed by Democrats and five by Republicans — would not shield them from confronting the implications of Trump's attacks on the democratic process. "Do my Republican colleagues remember that day?" Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, asked moments after the vote. "Do my Republican colleagues remember the savage mob calling for the execution of Mike Pence, the makeshift gallows outside the Capitol?" "Shame on the Republican Party for trying to sweep the horrors of that day under the rug because they are afraid of Donald Trump," he added. This piece comes from our live briefing, where you can find more updates on the news in Washington today. SUBSCRIBE TODAY If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible. RECOMMENDED READING Where Wind and Solar Power Need to Grow for America to Meet Its Goals A broad shift toward renewable energy could transform landscapes and coastlines all over the United States. By Veronica Penney Annelise Capossela How Ranked-Choice Voting Could Affect New York's Mayoral Race New York City will use a ranking system in the mayor's race for the first time. A phenomenon known as "ballot exhaustion," when every candidate ranked by a voter has been eliminated, could prove decisive. By Nate Cohn Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox. Is there anything you think we're missing? Anything you want to see more of? We'd love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

In Her Words: ‘A mixed picture’

Which country had the worst 'she-cession'?

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story May 28, 2021 Six-year-old Leo completes a homeschool activity as his mother, Moira, works from home in the village of Marsden, England.Oli Scarff/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images By Alisha Haridasani Gupta Gender Reporter "Really, it's not about one single thing." — Matthias Doepke, an economist at Northwestern, on what's causing the global "she-cession" Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT After more than a year of on-again, off-again school and day care closures around the world, there's not a doubt as to who has borne the brunt of the caregiving burden: mothers. We saw mothers working out of their bathtubs with their children playing nearby; we saw children interrupting their mothers on live television; we heard mothers scream into the void. As a result, millions of women — particularly those with children — were either pushed out of their jobs or were forced to downsize their careers, spurring what many economists are calling the world's first "she-cession." In the U.S., White House policy advisers and members of Congress have held up women's enormous job losses as an urgent reason to expand investment in child care by historic proportions, which they argue will jump-start the recovery. But a new study published in April by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which analyzed employment figures in 28 developed countries in North America and Europe, presents a more nuanced picture of the damage. The sudden collapse of child care did indeed upend the global economy, but the authors note that other factors, like labor protections or the ability to work remotely, played equally significant roles in overall female employment. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT The economic damage was worse for women in almost every country analyzed: The supply of women in the labor force, compared with men, fell in 18 of the 28 countries. But the gender gaps in employment widened the most in Canada and the U.S., said Matthias Doepke, an author of the study and an economist at Northwestern University. The New York Times | Source: Matthias Doepke, Northwestern University Department of Economics Part of the disproportionate impact on women globally was, undoubtedly, related to the extent of school closures. Schools have been closed the longest in the U.S. and Canada (where female employment fared the worst), for a total of 52 weeks and 43 weeks to date, respectively, according to data from UNESCO, the U.N.'s education agency. Meanwhile, in France, schools were closed for a total of 11 weeks, and female employment losses were among the lowest of the 28 countries analyzed, Mr. Doepke added. However, France also ended up with higher Covid-19 infection and death rates than other European countries. Another place where unemployment stayed low for both men and women was Germany, Mr. Doepke noted, even though school closures there reached 30 weeks in total By The New York Times | Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization One critical difference between the U.S. and Germany (as well as several other countries in Europe) is the expansive furlough programs, in which workers remained employed and received subsidized paychecks while working reduced hours or none at all. Often, those paychecks were larger for parents. In Germany, for example, "very few people lost a job," Mr. Doepke explained, but when comparing hours worked between countries, Germany had one of the biggest gender gaps. The New York Times | Source: Matthias Doepke, Northwestern University Department of Economics There is little consensus among economists on whether furloughs, more broadly, are a better tool in a crisis than laying workers off. Furloughs can be seen as a hindrance for workers who might otherwise seek better-paying opportunities, because when workers are on furlough, they are often tied to a specific job. But job cuts have a "tremendously destabilizing effect on the individual who has been laid off and on their families," said Sandra Sucher, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of a forthcoming book, "The Power of Trust." Job cuts also slow the economic recovery, Ms. Sucher added, and there is a wide body of research to suggest that when women lose jobs, they take longer to re-enter the work force. One of the more unexpected findings in Mr. Doepke's study was that among the major developed countries, including the U.S., Canada and the U.K., the gender gap in economic participation widened more among parents with school-age children than among those with younger children. "That surprised us," he said, "because at first we thought that with pre-K kids, child care needs are the highest," he said. "One good interpretation of that gap is that, overall, a good number of mothers are already out of the labor force for their child's first three years or so." In the U.S., even before the pandemic, many mothers with young children were driven out of the work force in large part because of the lack of paid parental leave and the lack of affordable, accessible quality child care centers. During the pandemic, those who had young children and who continued to work probably held jobs that weren't terribly affected by the recession or had the means to employ nannies, Mr. Doepke added. Still, according to Mr. Doepke's analysis, the lack of child care support during the pandemic explains fewer than 20 percent of the job losses of women compared to men. The single biggest indicator of job losses for American women in the last year was actually whether they could work from home in the first place. Among mothers of prekindergarten children who could not work remotely, their hours declined by almost 18 percentage points more than fathers. But for mothers who could work remotely, that gap was between two and three percentage points. Another economic study, published in 2013, suggested that policies like paid parental leave and flexible, part-time schedules also affected female labor force participation. The study found that a lack of family-friendly policies had accounted for an almost 30 percent decline in female labor force participation in the U.S. between 1990 and 2010, relative to more than 20 other countries. Interestingly, in this pandemic, "we also see large declines among women who don't currently have kids," Mr. Doepke said. "So really, it's not about one single thing." Having access to child care is just one part of the equation, but so is workplace flexibility, caregiving responsibilities of elder relatives or even cultural gender norms. "It's a mixed picture," Mr. Doepke said. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. SUBSCRIBE TODAY If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible. What else is happening Here are three articles from The Times you may have missed. Emma Stone making a fashionable entrance in "Cruella" in a gown inspired by Vivienne Westwood and Alexander McQueen.Laurie Sparham/Disney "For as long as there have been films set in the fashion industry, that world has been portrayed as a gilded cesspool of caricatures, cattiness and occasionally criminality." In the new Disney movie "Cruella," fashion continues to be shorthand for morally corrupt and toxic. Our fashion critic, Vanessa Friedman, explains why. [Read the story] "Four years at the Orsay gave me this confidence, this crazy idea that I could be the next president of the Louvre." Laurence des Cars will become the first female president of the Louvre, France's famed cultural jewel, in its 228-year history. [Read the story] "What we really need is for President Biden to be a bold and transformational leader on abortion right now, but we haven't seen that yet." As a case before the Supreme Court threatens Roe v. Wade, many liberal reproductive rights activists are worried by the president's silence on the issue. [Read the story] In Her Words is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta and edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Judith Levitt. Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. Follow us on Instagram at @nytgender. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018