You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A conversation with architect Dan Nelson about Saratoga Hill House.
Dan Nelson has inadvertently become an expert in resilient design because of where he lives and builds houses: Washington state. His architecture firm, Designs Northwest Architects, specializes in complex residential projects in and around the Puget Sound where earthquake risk runs high. With strict seismic codes and geological restrictions for building near FEMA flood zones, Nelson and his firm have become quite skilled in designing homes to withstand the extreme conditions specific to the Pacific Northwest.
Nelson gained international renown for the Tsunami House, a family home built in a high velocity flood zone that would potentially need to withstand 300-mile-per-hour lateral waves. The Pacific Northwest isn’t threatened by hurricanes, Nelson told me. “Here, we have tsunamis which come from earthquakes and we have to design for that potential.”
His solution was to build the house on 9-foot piers with ground-level industrial garage doors that open to let the water flow through the bottom floor and out the other side. That level of the house was also furnished with waterproof furniture just in case.
When I called Nelson, we talked about his creative solutions for a lesser known, but equally interesting home: Saratoga Hill House, which has been in the same family since the 1940s and is unfortunately sited in a severe flood and mudslide zone. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
I saw Tsunami House in the book Designing for Disaster and was fascinated by your approach — especially the garage doors opening to let the tsunami winds and water flow through the house. I would love to hear about how you came to focus on resilient design.
Tsunami House has been covered a lot recently, especially in light of all the environmental catastrophes — hurricanes, flooding, and everything else — going on. It resonates with a lot of folks wondering how architecture can mitigate their exposure to extreme weather.
My office is about 60 miles north of Seattle, in the Puget Sound region. The Cascade Mountains divide the state in half. On the eastern side, the ecology is drier, more desert-like, and prone to wildfire. There, we are doing quite a few houses using Firewise Design concepts, which offer criteria for building more safely in a firezone. Puget Sound is west of the Cascade Range and prone to sea-level rise and earthquake-induced landslides.
Tell me about your architectural approach.
My approach to resilient architecture emanates from the challenges of the site and how the clients want to live on the property. It was born out of solving the problem of building on a certain piece of property. And every property has its own challenges.
Designing on flood plains is only one of those challenges. Building on Camano Island requires an archaeology study because many of the beaches have tribal artifacts and archeological deposits of cultural significance.
Let’s talk about Saratoga Hill House. First, where is it?
Saratoga Hill House is a beach house on the northwest side of Camano Island. There is no road to the property. There is a common parking area but whoever lives on that beach has to walk to their house. You can’t drive a truck or car to bring materials and equipment to the site. They have to be barged in or taken on a half-track with a tread system down the beach.
But then there are only a limited number of days or months we could get materials to the house because it is a smelt-spawning beach. At certain times of year, smelts spawn, so when that happens, you can’t do any work on the beach.
So, we needed an archaeologist and a biologist to do reports.
Saratoga Hill HouseSwift Studios
Your Habitable score shows severe flood risk. Were you aware of that?
We knew that. And saturated soil conditions create a potential for mudslides. They are two different issues we had to address.
As for the parameters of the site, Saratoga Hill had an unstable slope. And because it’s built on a shoreline, we had to address setbacks that dictated how close to the high-water marker we could build. Also there was no septic. All these issues set the parameter of what we had and dictated the direction of the design. And it’s why we built the house on that steel frame.
Saratoga Hill HouseSwift Studios
Tell me about those decisions.
I imagine people will think, is it even worth doing?
In this case, the client had grown up in this house. He was a third generation family member and had been going to this property since the 1940s. He was committed to building here no matter what. He spent his entire life going there and had a strong sentimental attachment to the beach. And on that beach are extended families — his sister lives next to him, his cousins live down the beach. All have been there for generations and their friends have more relatives. It’s a very tight-knit community.
How did you solve this massive puzzle?
Our first inclination was to build a retaining wall behind the house to hold the hillside back. The town planners wouldn’t let us do that because you can’t direct earth from your property to someone else’s and we were told it wouldn’t work. They said it was doubtful we could build a house there.
But the idea came to us after we did Tsunami House. If we have high velocity waves going through that house, what if we did the same with earth? We talked to the planners and proposed we find a way for a mudslide to go under the house. Instead of water, we did mud!
We worked with a geotechnical engineer who looks at soil conditions and the stability of the earth. The soil type would determine what pile systems to set our foundations on. We had to determine how much mud would come down the hill under worst-case conditions and how high would we have to set the steel frame.
Turns out, we had to go 10 feet for that lower level on the condition there was no habitable space below the house, other than the mechanical system. When we design in a flood plain, we can’t put any electrical or plumbing or mechanical systems below the flood plain. All light switches and outlets are 5 feet off the ground and anything that could get damaged by water has to be above the flood plain.
Saratoga Hill HouseSwift Studios
It’s been 10 years. Has the house been tested?
There have been mudslides in the neighborhood, but not yet on this property, And there has been flooding, but that’s not an issue for this property. We had done everything to address the flood plain — since every year now we get 100 year floods.
What are your three top takeaways for people living in a flood zone or mudzone?
If you are building a new structure, it has to be designed to meet FEMA requirements.
If you are living in a flood plain? A lot of older communities living in a flood plain actually lift the house. A house mover goes in, lifts the house, and puts a new foundation above the flood plain. You want to be a foot above the flood plain.
Retaining walls are not realistic or as effective as raising a house above the flood plain.
Are you working on any risky problems?
I feel very fortunate that I live where I live and for what I’ve learned. At the Saratoga Hill house we used a steel frame, metal siding. And it’s a cool modern house. But without having those issues we had to address, we wouldn’t have set the house on a steel frame — we did it to solve a problem and used those problems to come up with the architecture of the house.
I always say, the expression of architecture comes out of solving the problem of that site. It may seem like there are a lot of limitations that we have to work around. But by the time we’ve solved the problem of designing a structure on that site, it dictates the architecture.
This is almost hopeful for the future of climate change. What it tells us is that we have to — and can — do some pretty cool things to solve the problem.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Voters in the crucial swing state will also decide key questions on their — and our — climate future.
In four days, Pennsylvania will become just about the most important place on Earth.
It is unlikely that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump can reach the White House without carrying the Keystone State; winning Pennsylvania bumps either’s odds of prevailing in the whole election to over 90%, according to polling analyst Nate Silver’s models. The state will also play a deciding role in control of the U.S. House and Senate, which in turn will help or hamper the next president’s agenda. America’s domestic trajectory, its foreign policy decisions, and even its allies and enemies could all come down to the whims of the state’s 8.9 million registered voters.
But Pennsylvanians have other important choices to make on their ballots, too. “Pennsylvania is a major energy state, and its decisions — regardless of what type of energy it is — have a huge impact on America’s energy portfolio,” John Qua, the campaign manager of Lead Locally, which is supporting 17 down-ballot candidates in the state, told me.
As the nation’s second-biggest gas producer after Texas and third-biggest coal producer after Wyoming and West Virginia, Pennsylvania also holds the distinction of being the fifth-largest greenhouse gas-emitting state in the nation. Its state legislature hasn’t passed new climate legislation since 2008, in large part because of the influence of the fossil fuel industry over local politics. The American Petroleum Institute donates more to Pennsylvania lawmakers than those in any other state, and while fracking isn’t the decisive local issue it’s made out to be in the popular consciousness, it still employs around 100,000 people — more than made the difference in deciding the 2020 election in the state. (Harris notably reneged on her 2019 pledge to ban fracking if elected in an apparent overture to Pennsylvanians, although the state’s imperiled Democratic senator, Bob Casey, has been hammered by his Republican challenger over her prior position.)
Pennsylvania has a Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, until at least 2026, and Democrats hold slim control over the state House of Representatives by a margin of 102 to 101. The ambition this cycle is to keep the state House and flip the Republican-held state Senate. Picking up three seats there would earn Democrats a governing trifecta, with a tie-breaking vote going to Democratic Lt. Gov Austin Davis. Flip four seats, and they’d have the majority.
But “if you asked me to bet you $10 that the Democrats would win, I wouldn’t take the bet,” David Masur, the executive director of PennEnvironment, a green research and advocacy group that works in the state, told me. “I think it’s just a long shot.”
The path to winning the state Senate and achieving a governing trifecta clearly runs through three districts. The first and easiest pickup is in SD-15, around the state capital in Harrisburg, where the “map is much friendlier to Democrats,” according to Masur. The party would then need to win a competitive seat in SD-37, in the Pittsburgh suburbs, which has tilted blue recently and also seems theoretically within reach. But things get trickier in SD-49, Democrats’ “white whale” district in Erie County, which President Biden won by 2 points but where Republican senator Dan Laughlin remains well-liked. To wrest back the chamber, in other words, the Democrats would “have to run the table,” Masur said. “I don’t even think there’s another race where you could go, ‘Oh, they could get the majority by winning this other seat.’ There’s nowhere else to go. They have to win those three.”
Because of recent redistricting, the climate groups working in the state are cautious about getting their hopes up too high. “Flipping the [state] Senate, which is currently held by Republicans, might be a two-cycle endeavor with these new maps,” Lead Locally’s Qua said. This doesn’t necessarily mean all is lost: Even maintaining control of two of the three levers of government in Pennsylvania would be a victory, and Democrats this summer managed to garner enough bipartisan support to pass legislation to bring solar panels to state schools.
But the stakes — and promises — of a trifecta feel crucial and tantalizingly close. According to a recent analysis by PennEnvironment, Pennsylvania is 48th in the nation for the percentage growth of total solar, wind, and geothermal in the past decade, and 46th in the nation for the percentage of growth in total solar over the past five years, generating less than its neighbors New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio. “The fossil fuel industry is extremely moneyed and extremely influential, and it’s created a political reality where it’s very difficult to move good climate and clean energy policy forward in Harrisburg,” Flora Cardoni, PennEnvironment’s deputy director, told me. Climate obstructionists in the state Senate often refuse to call up good environmental policies for votes, leaving the state with “no laws on the books that require utility companies in Pennsylvania to increase the amount of clean renewable energy that they provide to their customers” which is “a huge impediment to progress.”
It’s not as if Democrats aren’t ready to go — they are. Shapiro is sitting on a two-bill plan for tackling climate change in the state. One would boost renewable energy to 35% of Pennsylvania’s total generation by 2035, which Cardoni described as “a huge step in the right direction, although we need to do much more.” The second bill would make polluters pay for their carbon emissions and spend the resulting money on clean air, water, and energy efficiency projects — essentially, a backup plan for if the state’s attempt to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative fails. (Owing to a question of constitutionality, RGGI is in limbo with the state’s Supreme Court.)
So, in a sense, you have to go for it. “Yeah, they’re really hard races,” admitted Caroline Spears, the executive director of Climate Cabinet, which is supporting 26 candidates in the state. “But if you win,” she added, “you win the fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the country.” While she was loath to “compare our states against each other,” Spears pointed out that Pennsylvania’s emissions are about two and a half times those of Arizona, which makes it a much bigger opportunity for reductions.
Perhaps the most important point: No one really knows what’s going to happen. Not only are organizers working with new maps in the state due to 2022 redistricting, but state-level races also rarely attract substantial enough polling to make reliably predictive guesses, especially when there are so many toss-ups and razor-thin margins. Adding to the trickiness, Pennsylvania is one of the few states where residents still appear willing to split their tickets; in 2020, ticket-splitting between the president and the state Legislature was up to 15 points in places, which is part of why Climate Cabinet has targeted races in the state with margins of up to 10 points that other groups wouldn’t touch. “Folks have been like, ‘the Pennsylvania Senate’s not doable.’ That’s the word on the street,” Spears told me. “But I think people are forgetting a little bit that that was also the word on the street about the Minnesota Senate and the Michigan legislature,” which flipped during the 2022 midterms.
What’s encouraging is that Pennsylvania voters — contrary to their image of being fracking obsessives — have been curious or even enthusiastic about pivoting to clean energy when organizers have spoken with them. Following Winter Storm Elliott in 2022, which caused outages across the state, many residents now “recognize that the grid is outdated,” Julia Kortrey, the deputy state policy director at Evergreen Action, a national climate advocacy group, told me. There’s an acknowledgment among many that “the status quo is not working.”
As in many parts of the country this year, local races in Pennsylvania are mainly focused on battles over education, abortion access, immigration, and crime, not necessarily clean energy. But often, climate-related issues are bubbling just under the surface. “I’m not going to go up to someone’s door and ask ‘What issue is on your mind today?’ and have them say, ‘I’m really worried about the PM2.5 concentration or the Mauna Loa CO2 readings,’” Spears told me. “But if they’re like, ‘The cost of living is too high,’ I’m going to have a conversation about home insurance.”
A particularly good example of this is playing out in one of Pennsylvania’s U.S. House races, which will help determine the ultimate makeup of Congress. In the Lehigh Valley, Democratic Representative Susan Wild is attempting to hold off her Republican challenger, state Representative Ryan Mackenzie, who voted against the school solar bill and the state’s clean water act. Wild had been particularly instrumental in helping to replace lead pipes in the area, and she’s made her leadership on the issue prominent in her campaigning. “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and lead pipe removal can seem very — I don’t want to say national, but it can be hard to visualize,” Nate Fowler, the regional campaigns director of the League of Conservation Voters, told me. “But for voters in this part of the Commonwealth, it’s easy for them to understand why this is so important.”
It won’t be until after the dust from Tuesday settles — when Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral college votes have been allocated, and its U.S. House and Senate races decided — that national attention will turn to the consequences of the state’s down-ballot races, if it ever does. But whether Democrats run the table or Republicans eat into their opponents’ grip on the legislature, Pennsylvania’s elections will be pivotal to the nation’s greater evolving energy story.
“So much of what we can accomplish in Pennsylvania will lay the groundwork for what is accomplished across the country,” Kortrey, of Evergreen Action, said. “I tell folks, ‘If we can do it in Pennsylvania, we can do it anywhere.’”
On an EV production pause, a fancy new chart, and positive emissions news from the EU.
Current conditions:New York City, Long Island, and the Lower Hudson Valley, along with much of the Northeast Corridor, are under red flag warnings for fire after a month of dry weather • Typhoon Kong-rey made landfill in Taiwan with winds over 125 miles per hour, injuring more than 500 and killing two • The first snow of the year showed up in Iowa and, yes, Hawaii.
Ford is planning a temporary shutdown of the plant that produces its fully electric truck, the F-150 Lightning. The shutdown will last seven weeks, Bloomberg reported. Earlier this week, Ford told investors that its profits had fallen in part due to a $1 billion charge it had taken after overhauling its electric vehicle strategy earlier this year. Ford sold just over 7,000 Lightnings in the third quarter of this year, more than double its sales in the third quarter of last year, but just about 3.5% of its total F-150 sales. Overall, electric vehicle sales rose in the third quarter, but when it came to trucks, consumers preferred the Tesla Cybertruck to the Lightning.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
The Department of Energy announced Thursday that it would award $45 million in funding for eight electric vehicle battery recycling programs. The projects “will advance research, development, and demonstration of recycling and second-life applications for batteries once used to power EVs,” the DOE said. The programs include money for diagnostics, automatic sorting for used batteries, and automated battery dissembling. The projects being funded are in Southern California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee.
Microsoft will use wood to build two data centers in Northern Virginia, the company announced Tuesday. Use of “cross-laminated timber” will reduce the carbon footprint of the data centers’ construction by about a third compared to steel and almost two-thirds compared to concert, the company said. This is just the latest move by Microsoft to try to reduce emissions associated with construction — the company is also working on developing a market for buying environmental attributes of low-carbon cement, Heatmap reported earlier this month. Microsoft’s “indirect” emissions of greenhouse gases rose by over 30% last year, largely thanks to the massive data center building binge it’s been on, along with the rest of Big Tech.
While plans to build data centers are creating electricity demand anxiety all over the country, the boom may not disrupt or strain New York’s grid, at least for a while, New York Focus reports. “Despite mounting pressures due to the state’s climate law and a burst in new manufacturing and tech facilities, New York has enough power plants operating or planned to meet statewide demand over the next decade,” the news nonprofit reported, citing an analysis by NYISO, which operates New York’s electricity market.
This finding is important because it means that not every carbon-emitting power plant has to stay open to meet new demand, which may let New York get closer to achieving its emissions targets. The reason for the more optimistic forecast is that some of the largest loads in the state like crypto mining or hydrogen told NYISO they can shut down during times of high demand on the grid.
European Union greenhouse gas emissions fell 8.3% in 2023, according to the European Commission’s annual climate report. It was the largest fall in emissions “in several decades,” not counting 2020, when economic activity plummeted due to Covid-19. Annual emissions have fallen by more than a third since 1990, while economic activity has increased by two-thirds since then. The report attributed much of the drop to the continent’s energy sector, whose emissions dropped 18%.
“This drop was due to a substantial increase in renewable electricity production (primarily wind and solar), at the expense of both coal and gas and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in both electricity and heat supply compared with 2022, and to the recovery of hydro and nuclear power.” The drop in EU emissions stands in contrast to rising emissions globally in 2023, according to the United Nations.
To the delight of energy nerds, the Energy Information Administration has published a new Sankey diagram showing how energy gets used in the U.S. economy.
While a Harris victory would no doubt ensure smoother negotiations, there’s still Congress to deal with.
Less than a week after election night in the U.S., the United Nations’ annual climate conference begins in Azerbaijan. COP29, as this year’s conference is called, has climate finance and carbon markets on the agenda. It’s no secret that the outcome of the U.S. presidential election could shift the tenor of negotiations significantly on both topics. Everyone knows there’s one candidate who’s better for the climate and one who will be much, much worse.
Even if Harris wins, however, the United States may well continue to shirk its global climate finance obligations. If the U.S. can’t deliver on what it promises at COP29, it may not matter what actually happens there.
Negotiators at COP29 are tasked with setting what’s called the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance, a goalpost for the amount of cash governments must put up to meet global climate investment needs. Global South countries excluding China have suggested that they require more than $1 trillion per year in external finance to meet their climate targets. An agreed-upon NCQG will also help all countries flesh out the latest iteration of their national climate plans, also known as Nationally Determined Contributions, as required by the Paris climate agreement.
And yet preliminary discussions over the summer were inconclusive, not just on the NCQG target itself but also on which countries are expected to contribute and what kinds of financing (e.g. public, private, loans, grants) will count toward it. More controversially to some climate activists and civil society groups, negotiators are also using COP29 to finalize a framework for the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the creation of a global carbon credit market, which countries could use to trade emissions reductions and contribute to each others’ NDCs.
To put it simply: If Donald Trump wins, not much of this will matter. President Biden’s negotiators can still endorse ambitious NCQG and Article 6 targets, but there’s no evidence a second Trump administration will commit to delivering on them. Should Trump win, the U.S. will almost certainly cut itself out of the global climate finance architecture a second time. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan, authored largely by Trump associates, not only calls for the U.S. to slash global climate and development funding (as Trump already called for in his first term) but also to withdraw from global negotiating fora entirely. In the breach, Trump administration diplomats will likely stress the importance of gas and non-renewable energy technologies (such as carbon capture) with an emphasis on ensuring domestic energy security and affordability, even as they prepare to gut most if not all of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
A Kamala Harris victory next week will assuredly be much better for both global emissions reductions and the climate diplomacy landscape. While she has outlined no specific proposals for global climate policy in particular, there is also no evidence that she will renege on any U.S. global commitments made in the past four years or attempt to repeal any climate laws.
As president, she will likely preserve President Biden’s key global climate and development policy initiatives, including the Just Energy Transition Partnerships and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. She will also likely support the Biden administration’s push to see the multilateral development banks support more investments in climate and development, particularly through mobilizing the private sector. The current World Bank President, Ajay Banga, was nominated by the United States in early 2023 after serving as co-chair of the Partnership for Central America, a private sector-backed economic development initiative launched by Vice President Harris herself as part of her broader engagement with the region. Their shared history suggests that they will continue collaborating on good terms if Harris is elected.
While none of this is directly connected to COP29 (and putting doubts about the efficacy of these programs aside), it speaks to the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to, at the very least, platforming global climate and development issues. But will Harris actually deliver on the U.S.’s commitments to the NCQG or otherwise meaningfully increase the amount of public spending devoted to global climate and development goals? Probably not ― although in that case, Congress will be the more likely culprit, not her.
Attempts to appropriate additional funds for global climate programs are cursed with a severe case of legislative inertia. Congress did not significantly slash funding for global climate priorities during the first Trump presidency, but it also did not raise it much during the Biden presidency. Last year’s bipartisan debt limit negotiations didn’t help, of course. But even in the early Biden presidency, when Democrats had their narrow trifecta, Congress massively undershot Biden’s budget requests for global climate-related priorities. In fiscal year 2022, Congress passed less than half of what Biden requested; since then, presidential requests for global climate spending have ballooned in size, while appropriations have stayed flat.
This divergence reflects a stable short-term equilibrium: The Biden administration can showcase the full range of its commitments and bona fides and blame Congress for its failure to deliver on any of them, while Congress can coast on the spending cap deals it made to avoid government shutdowns. But it also ignores the planet-sized elephant in the room — that there’s been no new spending on mitigating climate change. Regardless of who is president, there’s only so much discretionary funding they can ever reallocate toward priority programs absent additional appropriations.
(Here it seems pertinent to remind everyone that the U.S. has never endorsed the global consensus framework of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which would mean acknowledging a quasi-legal obligation to provide climate finance to Global South countries, on account of the fact that Congress has never been enthusiastic about this. The chances that anyone changes their tone are slim.)
In summary, even if Harris comes out on top on Tuesday, the U.S. will still be stuck in a holding pattern with respect to its global climate priorities. This puts the Biden administration’s COP29 negotiators in a vise: Pushing for a low NCQG gives other countries ground to criticize the U.S.’s inadequate ambition and care for the Global South relative to its ability to contribute, but pushing for an ambitious NCQG also gives other countries greater reason to criticize the U.S. if it fails to deliver. Ambition was never the problem; it has always been the delivery.
Optimistically, a Harris victory at least prevents the U.S. from being a roadblock to other countries’ climate action. But at a time when major Global North donor countries are cutting their aid budgets, American unwillingness to finance solutions to global climate and development challenges makes the rest of the world more dependent on private capital and, in turn, more vulnerable to market downturns, interest rate hikes, and capital outflows. (Alternatively, it makes Global South countries more dependent on petrostate wealth and Chinese imports for macroeconomic stability, although they may be less able to count on large Chinese capital inflows from here on out.) As expert report after expert report has detailed, climate change mitigation or adaptation simply will not happen at scale across the Global South without substantial new external financing.
Still, in lieu of new financing, a Harris administration could stress that efforts to catalyze private investment in the Global South (including through voluntary carbon markets) and reform global taxation also contribute to global decarbonization. And it could continue to argue that the U.S. is doing its part to decarbonize if it manages to pass more landmark climate and green industrialization laws like the Inflation Reduction Act. But it would be false to argue ― as President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have done at times, particularly in 2022 ― that the Inflation Reduction Act helps lower the cost of clean tech uptake across the Global South. This is not true — the credit for making clean technology, particularly solar energy, cheaper and more accessible for the Global South goes decisively to China. The U.S. is nowhere close to becoming a major clean technology exporter or a bona fide partner in green industrial transformation for any Global South country, policymakers’ pretensions to the contrary.
One prominent member of Harris’s advisory team, President Biden’s former National Economic Council Director Brian Deese, is trying to change that, advancing ideas like a “Clean Energy Marshall Plan” as an opportunity to deliver on both domestic industrial policy priorities and demands for global leadership vis-a-vis China; his writing exemplifies how American climate diplomacy is being subsumed into national security planning. (Deese is also a Heatmap contributor.) Tactically, this might work in the near-term: The bill to reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation, which would boost the U.S.’s ability to invest in decarbonization-related priorities across the Global South and particularly critical minerals supply chains, cleared the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support over the summer. But this is not a strategy that on its own centers the climate and development needs of Global South countries.
So while a Democratic victory next week would certainly be a step toward continued climate action, and while what the Biden administration negotiates at COP29 will at least set a floor for future U.S. commitments (even if that floor is performative), we won’t see a major departure from the status quo unless a Harris administration can convince legislators that American leadership requires a lot more American money.
“We are not going back” ― this much is true. But it would be nice to go forward, too.