{"id":7445,"date":"2022-08-24T11:05:49","date_gmt":"2022-08-24T15:05:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tempestmag.org\/v01_2020\/staging\/?p=7445"},"modified":"2022-08-30T23:02:15","modified_gmt":"2022-08-31T03:02:15","slug":"we-need-better-than-the-inflation-reduction-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tempestmag.org\/test02\/2022\/08\/we-need-better-than-the-inflation-reduction-act\/","title":{"rendered":"We need better than the Inflation Reduction Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

O<\/span>n August 16, Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law. The bill was passed into law entirely along party lines, with a 51-50 vote in the Senate through reconciliation, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote, and a 220-207 vote in the House. The legislation, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, came at the apex of yet another summer with extreme<\/a> temperatures<\/a> and raging forest fires<\/a>, in which 2,000 people died in a single week<\/a> from the heat in Spain and Portugal alone.<\/p>\n

Amid all this chaos, we have to ask: is this new law really a \u201cManchin Miracle,\u201d or is there a man behind the curtain, working his tricks to keep us focused on the apparent marvel so we forget the unreality it all rests upon?<\/p>\n

The IRA is the largest piece of climate legislation in United States history by many orders of magnitude. On the surface, this may appear to be a cause for celebration, but of course, the truth is much more complicated. Let\u2019s take a quick look at the content of the law, analyze the motivations behind it, and assess where activists might place themselves in relation to it in the context of the broader fight for climate justice.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s in the IRA?<\/h4>\n

To begin with the broadest strokes, the law claims that it will cut carbon emissions by 40 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2030. Putting aside for a moment the dubious modeling, and the ten percentage points that have disappeared relative to Biden\u2019s initial promise, the legislation seeks to achieve this reduction through several corporate and household incentives.<\/p>\n

The law<\/a> first will bring in $470 billion through a raising of the minimum corporate tax rate, increase funding for IRS enforcement against higher income earners with more complex tax fillings, introduce fees on methane emissions, and implement modest prescription drug reform. $385 billion will then be spent tackling climate change, prescription drug and vaccine coverage, and \u201cenergy security,\u201d through tax credits for renewable manufacturing, assistance to energy companies to make the transition, forest restoration, and the promotion of sustainable agriculture. The law also throws billions at the development of Manchin\u2019s unicorn project, \u201ccarbon capture\u201d technologies that supposedly help mitigate the emissions from fossil fuels while encouraging individuals to purchase electric vehicles through substantial personal tax credits.<\/p>\n

The law also gives Medicare the ability to negotiate the cost of some drug prices, which will undeniably have a significant impact on many people\u2019s lives. But this section of the law will only take effect in 2026, and will extend to only ten drugs, expanding to sixty in 2029. These unnecessary delays in delivering essential cost savings for patients in need of these drugs like insulin carry the additional political risk of a Republican President and Congress being given credit for lowering drug prices by voters. <\/p>\n

The Ugly Parts<\/h4>\n

Even before we get into the ugliest bits, the law as already explored is problematic. Carbon capture and hydrogen are both totally unproven<\/a> technologies that the fossil fuel companies favor because they present the possibility to continue business as usual with minimal disruption to their current practices. The models used that are projecting a 40 percent reduction in emissions are as a result based on unrealistic expectations of carbon capture becoming a viable technology, relying on problematic net-zero metrics, and have no scientific evidence to support their projections. <\/p>\n