by Yisroel Steinberg, 2L, Fordham Environmental Law Review Journal Staffer

President-Elect Joe Biden has appointed Brian Deese to the National Economic Council.  Deese is the new focal point for the ongoing fight in the Democratic Party between progressives and moderates. The appointment of Deese, a former Obama advisor, and current BlackRock executive has been praised by other Obama alums and criticized by the New York Communities for Change and the Sunrise Movement. The more progressive faction argues that Deese and the Obama administration failed to take the aggressive action the looming climate disaster demands. Additionally, they argue that it is up to the government to convince private companies to focus on climate-friendly policies even when they affect their bottom line. Only the government can force change since companies will do all they can to resist and limit the constraints eco-necessary policies place on them. The revolving door, where people go back and forth between government and large corporate entities, ensures that the entities’ interests have a more prominent voice than they should.  Finally, they argue, desperate times call for desperate measures and the exacerbating crisis demands more aggressive responses than Deese has been known for.

The more moderate faction argues that operating the levers of bureaucracy requires someone with the knowledge and ability Deese has. The enormity of the crisis demands people who can effectively use the levers of the government to effectuate change. Additionally, they point out that the majority of the criticism of Deese is misplaced – it is not Deese that is being criticized; it is BlackRock. Deese, during his tenure at Blackrock, did his utmost so that climate considerations were part of the decision-making process.  Thus, he should not be held responsible for BlackRock – a company whose abuses predate him and whose abuses he was hired to rectify.

The bureaucratic competence argument is compelling.  The Trump Administration could have been worse if they would have learned how to run the bureaucratic process more effectively. As committed and passionate as the various players were to their misguided goals, they were hampered by their inability to turn their vision into a reality because of their sheer incompetence. The reverse is true too.

The policy disagreement focuses on the proper role of government in addressing the crisis. The more moderate faction supports market-based solutions with less government intervention in the energy and transportation sector. They advocate for either a cap-and-trade approach or a carbon-tax approach, claiming that those provide incentives for the private market to innovate. The more progressive faction wants the government to use its great regulatory powers to mitigate emissions. There were at least one hundred different climate-related regulations, passed by previous administrations. Additionally, the government has greater resources available to invest in R&D.

The progressives have a winning argument here. First, they point out that the market-based approach has been tried since President George H. W. Bush and, while it has had some successes, a new approach is needed as the enormity of the crisis becomes apparent. Second, private innovation always faces the free-rider problem; other companies can reverse-engineer the technology and cut into the profit margin, disincentivizing private R&D. Finally, past experience has taught that none of the major innovations of the past two centuries came through market pressure alone and required government intervention. Thus, it seems apparent that climate innovation—like railroads, radio, telegraph, telephone, electricity and the internet—will require government intervention.

Let us hope the best person for the job is ultimately chosen so that we and future generations can continue to safely inhabit Planet Earth.