This is an installment of the Landline, a fortnightly newsletter from High Country News  about land, water, wildlife, climate and conservation in the Western United States. Sign up to get it in your inbox.

The climate bill is historic and worth celebrating — but its drawbacks must be acknowledged

On Aug. 7, when the U.S. Senate finally passed its landmark climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the environmental community’s initial reaction was a burst of elation, a sense of unbridled joy that Congress — a powerful yet dysfunctional, do-nothing institution — would actually take meaningful action on climate change.

There is plenty in the 755-page bill for climate hawks to celebrate, including $369 billion for wind and solar tax credits, clean energy innovation, electric vehicle incentives and methane leak mitigation. But there’s also a buzzkill or two, with page 669 receiving the most ire: Before the federal government can issue a renewable energy right of way on public lands, it must offer at least 2 million acres per year for onshore oil and gas leasing. While the concession was necessary to get Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., on board, it also directly contradicted the bill’s myriad emissions-cutting measures.

And so, the initial love fest quickly devolved into a cacophony of wildly divergent takes from across the climate advocacy spectrum. To some, like the analysts at the independent research organization Rhodium Group, the bill is a “game changer for U.S. decarbonization.” To others, such as Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity, it’s a “climate suicide pact.” And still other environmentalists fall somewhere in between.

But the debate over whether the bill will be good or not so good for the climate threatens to give us a case of carbon tunnel vision. By focusing exclusively on the climate impacts of a given policy or technology, one can overlook its on-the-ground effects on frontline communities and be blinded to the possible impacts on human rights and social justice as well as on ecosystems and public lands.

Now that the Inflation Reduction Act is law, it seems like a good time for even its most ardent supporters to step back and acknowledge its drawbacks, if for no other reason than to be ready to mitigate them when they begin to play out in the Western U.S. This is by no means a comprehensive list.  

The oil and gas leasing requirement

Substantial increases in tax credits for carbon capture

Oil and gas companies will be charged up to $1,500 for every ton of methane they emit

$7,500 credit for new electric vehicle purchases + tax break for “critical minerals” mining

A substantial tax credit for “clean hydrogen” production

$30 billion in tax credits for existing nuclear reactors to prevent them from closing + $700 million for U.S. uranium fuel production

Still, taking the good and the bad together, this is a truly historic piece of legislation. The first and last time Congress actually did anything about climate, as far as I can tell, was in 1979, when a few lines were included in the massive, fossil fuel-friendly Energy Security Act, calling for a study of carbon dioxide emissions and their effects on the climate. The National Research Council completed its Changing Climate report in 1983, concluding that continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere via fossil fuel combustion would cause global warming.

But science was not enough for Congress, which did nothing. So the legendary astronomer and planetary scientist Carl Sagan was brought in to testify. He patiently explained the greenhouse effect to a rapt bipartisan audience, and calmly implored them to act: “ There is a tendency to say it’s not our problem,” he said, “ but if you don’t worry about it now, it’s too late later on.” Did Congress listen? Nope. Well, a few people did: In the ensuing decades, Democratic lawmakers, and even a Republican or two, introduced climate bill after bill, each employing a different strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They all flopped.  

When the Build Back Better legislation failed to garner enough support, even as climate change-exacerbated heat waves and floods and fires ravaged the West, it seemed as if the run of congressional climate failure would continue for another 37 years. But then, at last, Manchin came around. The result is far from perfect, but it’s something, and, perhaps, it’s only the beginning of a great deal more.

In June, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton called on the seven Colorado River Basin states to figure out how to cut 2 million to 4 million acre-feet of water consumption (and that’s a lot!) within 60 days to keep the whole system from collapsing. Well, the deadline has passed, and the states still haven’t reached a deal. Far from it. The Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) have basically taken a pass, saying they’ve reduced consumption enough, already. Utah even has plans to suck more water out of the system with its proposed Lake Powell Pipeline. California has offered up about 500,000-acre feet of cuts, which just won’t cut it. So, on Aug. 16, the feds dipped their toes into the rapidly diminishing waters, so to speak, stopping well short of draconian cutbacks and saying they’d continue to work with the states. Ian James, of the Los Angeles Times , reports on the states’ stalemate and on how federal mandates could get messy. But some help is on the way: The Inflation Reduction Act authorizes spending $4 billion on drought mitigation efforts, including paying farmers to stop irrigating. Since agriculture accounts for about 80% of the consumptive use of the Colorado River, that could go a long way. | Los Angeles Times

First came the fire, then the floods — flash floods, that is, along with river-choking, silt-filled debris flows. High Country News ’ B. Toastie reports on the McKinney Fire in Northern California and the torrential rains that helped firefighters control the blaze but ultimately killed thousands of fish in the drought-plagued Klamath River. | High Country News

[RELATED:https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-mining-workers-report-feeling-unsafe-at-nevadas-largest-gold-mining-corporation]

After a global mining corporation took control of a consortium of Nevada operations, workers noticed a swift change in the company culture, which came to prioritize production and profit over safety. Nick Bowlin of High Country News and the Nevada Independent’s Daniel Rothberg continue their deep-dive investigation into Nevada Gold Mines and its operator, Barrick Gold Corp. | High Country News in partnership with The Nevada Independent

In 2016, the Obama administration suspended all coal leasing on federal lands over climate concerns. A year later, the Trump administration — hell-bent on achieving its elusive goal of “energy dominance” — rescinded the moratorium. But last Friday, a federal judge brought the coal-leasing ban back . He also required the Interior Department to redo an environmental review, this time considering climate impacts, before selling any more coal mining rights. | Associated Press

We want to hear from you!  

The states that rely on the Colorado River just blew past the Bureau of Reclamation’s deadline for them to produce plans to drastically reduce their water consumption. What do you think should be done to cut water use and save the Colorado River?

Give Jonathan a ring at the Landline, (970) 648-4472, or send us an email at  [email protected] .

Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor at  High Country News . He is the author of  Sagebrush Empire: How a Remote Utah County Became the Battlefront of American Public Lands .