A failed Fed nomination shows how excruciating climate politics can be

A failed Fed nomination shows how excruciating climate politics can be

Paul Waldman — Read time: 4 minutes

Joe Biden ran for president with the most ambitious climate agenda of any Democratic nominee in history. Most of that agenda now lies in suspended animation — not quite dead but not going anywhere, either. And the failed nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to a key position at the Federal Reserve shows how excruciating climate politics in Washington can be.

Raskin was an obvious choice for top banking regulator at the Fed, having previously served as deputy secretary of the treasury, a member of Fed board, and the chief financial regulator for the state of Maryland. But her opponents — the fossil fuel industry, the entire Republican Party and at least one important Democrat — seized on the fact that she has been outspoken about the need to prepare for the continuing effects of climate change on the financial sector and the economy.

That should be the minimum indication of reasonableness in a world where climate change is already having dramatic economic impacts. Instead, it was transformed into evidence of unacceptable radicalism.

Raskin withdrew her candidacy on Tuesday, after Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) announced his opposition, because she “failed to satisfactorily address my concerns about the critical importance of financing an all-of-the-above energy policy.” To translate: As a banking regulator, Raskin was insufficiently committed to the continued burning of fossil fuels for Manchin’s taste.

He deserves plenty of blame, but don’t forget that Manchin’s vote against Raskin would be determinative in a 50-50 Senate only if every single Republican — both conservatives and supposed moderates — also voted against her. Which apparently they would have. GOP members of the Banking Committee were so opposed that they boycotted meetings to prevent a quorum and a vote.

Yet because so much attention is paid to Manchin, Republicans get let off the hook. Their role in stymieing climate action is taken as just a given and therefore not worthy of much comment or exploration.

In substantive terms, Manchin probably would have been completely fine with Raskin serving at the Fed. He knows she’s not some kind of fanatic, and she probably has similar views to those of whoever will eventually get the job. But by killing her nomination, Manchin got to show folks back home that he continues to annoy his own party (which is deeply unpopular in his state) and that he continues to advance the interests of the dying coal industry. The practical effect was essentially zero, but the political effect was to reinforce Manchin’s brand. It was irresistible for him.

To be fair, for all the attention he attracts and his key role at moments including this one, Manchin is not a categorical enemy of every initiative to address climate change. He does accept the presumption that climate change is a bad thing, and from time to time he supports a Democratic bill that will do at least something about it.

In a slightly different world — one where Democrats had a few more seats in the Senate — Manchin wouldn’t be the decisive vote, and it would therefore be possible to pass climate legislation and confirm officials who acknowledge reality much more easily. In fact, were that the case, Manchin would probably be more likely to go along with the rest of his party on climate-related matters.

Only when he can kill a nomination or a piece of legislation in such a high-profile way is there so much political benefit to doing so. If he were just one more vote on the losing side, along with all the Republicans, he’d do better to stick with Democrats and negotiate things he wants out of whatever bill is going to pass.

There’s some chance that could be the case after the November elections — but it’s not particularly likely. Democrats might grab a couple of extra votes in the Senate, given which seats are up this year, but even if they do, chances are Republicans will take the House. Which means there will be no significant legislation at all, on climate or anything else.

In her letter to President Biden withdrawing her nomination, Raskin noted what should be obvious about her contention that the financial sector should plan for the effects of climate change:

This is not a novel or radical position. The Department of Defense has been systematically analyzing the energy security risks of climate change for years, developing mitigation strategies to confront them. Banks and insurance companies incorporate financial aspects of extreme weather events into their plans. Farmers, ranchers and businesses across the country already are struggling to adapt to extreme floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels and wildfires. Central banks around the world have already begun acting on these issues.

Yet what in all those sectors is considered obvious prudence and acknowledging reality is, to some who have power in Washington, dangerous radicalism.

To be sure, there are many parts of the government where committed people are working hard on climate. But the failure of Raskin’s nomination shows just how difficult it will continue to be to make progress, when so many people and interests are so committed to stopping us from dealing with the catastrophe that is already upon us.