Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For the last four years the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations and blocked policies that would create jobs, save Americans money, and reduce carbon pollution. Joe Biden and his campaign have promised to do the opposite and put America on a path to net-zero emissions by 2050.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that buildings contribute roughly a quarter of emissions in the United States, getting Americans to upgrade their home insulation<\/a> and switch to heat pumps<\/a>, LED lighting<\/a>, hybrid water heaters<\/a> (or tankless water heaters<\/a> where hybrids aren’t possible), will be essential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how much could a Biden administration achieve given Republican opposition to environmental policy in Congress and a likely 6-3 conservative Supreme Court? And how would their plan to address the climate crisis differ from the plans laid out in the Green New Deal? In this report we sought to answer those two questions, with a focus on building sector emissions (35% of total US emissions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The short answer to the first question is that Biden could achieve a lot. As a Democrat known for his ability to work with Republicans, many of the policies would likely win bipartisan support and votes from moderate Republicans like Alaska\u2019s Senator Lisa Murkowski. For example, if Biden were to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol\u2014something that Republican Senators recently expressed support for\u2014he could cut emissions by 9.5 billion metric tons by 2050.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden could also cut emissions without passing a single bill through Congress. For example, updating appliance efficiency standards would cut emissions by 5.2 billion metric tons. However, going around Congress would come with a tradeoff. Something like appliance efficiency standards would face intense legal opposition by manufacturers and trade groups that would likely reach the Supreme Court. With Trump\u2019s nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Republican Senators eager to confirm her before the election, it\u2019s very likely that appliance efficiency standards cases would be heard by a 6-3 conservative court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the second question\u2014how different is Biden\u2019s plan than the Green New Deal\u2014the short answer is, once again, a lot. Biden\u2019s campaign has promised they would upgrade 6 million buildings in America over 4 years. The Green New Deal suggests upgrading 50 million buildings over the same period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the ResStock model and data from previous energy efficiency research, we also looked at the environmental and economic impact of Biden\u2019s plan to upgrade America\u2019s home energy efficiency (referred to as \u201cweatherization\u201d). We then compared it to the plans suggested by the Green New Deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden plans to \u201cweatherize 2 million homes over 4 years\u201d\u2014an average of 500,000 homes per year. A Green New Deal would upgrade 8 million homes per year to \u201cmaximum energy efficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to our analysis Biden\u2019s weatherization plan would create 109,860 jobs, generate $14 billion in economic activity, and reduce annual emissions by 6.6 million metric tons by 2025. The Green New Deal, on the other hand, would create 10 million jobs, generate $1.2 trillion in economic activity, and reduce annual emissions by 263 million metric tons. In other words, when Biden said, \u201cThe Green New Deal is not my plan,\u201d he wasn\u2019t lying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why we wrote this report<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Carbon Switch<\/a> produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. Our guides help people make decisions like whether to buy a tankless water heater<\/a>, electric water heater<\/a>, or a heat pump water heater<\/a>, decisions that have big emissions impacts that last decades. Our hope is that these guides can lead to a change in consumer behavior. But we believe that only policy and systemic change will solve our current environmental crisis. Without good policies, climate solutions like heat pumps<\/a>, home insulation,<\/a> and LED lighting<\/a> will remain too expensive and out of reach for most Americans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s why we produce rigorously researched reports like this one based on important climate policies. These reports have been covered by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Time, CNBC, and dozens more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Highlights from this report<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

• Biden\u2019s plan could cut building emissions by 16 billion tons between now and 2050<\/strong>, a sharp contrast to the Trump administration\u2019s regulatory rollbacks over the last four years.<\/li>
• Some of the most impactful actions wouldn\u2019t require Congressional support.<\/strong> For example, appliance efficiency standards would cut emissions by 5.2 billion MTCO2 eq.<\/li>
• But many of those policies would be at-risk if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice<\/strong> since they are likely to face intense legal opposition from trade associations and manufacturers.<\/li>
• Most of his proposals have bipartisan support.<\/strong> For example, if Biden ratified the Kigali Agreement, emissions from HFCs would be cut by 9.5 billion MTCO2 eq.<\/li>
• Biden says his administration will \u201cset a target of reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock 50% by 2035.\u201d<\/strong> But the commitments listed in his plan would only reduce emissions by a few percent.<\/li>
• Biden\u2019s weatherization plan would generate $14 billion in economic activity, create 106,000 jobs<\/strong>, and save 2 million Americans $606 per year on their utility bill. However, it wouldn\u2019t achieve the carbon reductions necessary to meet the Paris targets.<\/li>
• Biden\u2019s plan to curb building emissions looks very different from the Green New Deal.<\/strong> The Biden plan sets a target of upgrading 1.5 million buildings a year compared to the Green New Deal\u2019s 8 million per year target.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

  To hit the Paris targets every building needs to be 50% more efficient<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

  In 2019 buildings were responsible for 35% of energy-related emissions in the United States \u2014 emitting a total of 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2. To put that number in perspective, if America\u2019s buildings were a country, they would rank 4th<\/a> in total emissions, just behind India and ahead of Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n