This week, President Biden announced numerous executive orders on climate change.

As always, our divided political system rushed to partisan corners to vehemently oppose or applaud the decisions.

Also as always, policy is more nuanced than that...& there are pros/cons. (THREAD)

First, I'll start with the pros.

Pro #1 - The 2nd iteration of the Civilian Conservation Corps is a fantastic idea (supported by both sides). It will help get people back to work by employing them to help restore our undermanaged habitats, waterways, and public lands.

Pro #2 - The proposed climate change summit on Earth Day 2021 is a wonderful idea. A diverse summit with diverse opinions, being held by the U.S., is a wonderful step in the right direction to enhance our climate leadership on the world stage.

Pro #3 - As our nation's population grows, aiming to place 30% of U.S. federal land under conservation protections by 2030 is a wonderful goal, especially if it's done through common-sense local partnerships and active management/maintenance.

Pro #4 - Biden's emphasis on standing up for communities disproportionately affected by climate change (i.e. displaced coal workers and minority communities) is significant. His actionable follow-through is even more important, however.

Look, it's pretty exciting that there's a President acting on climate change— and swiftly—instead of just talking about it (or denying it). A transition to a cleaner future is inevitable, but we need to do it even more rapidly than we are currently.

Now, for the cons...

Con #1 - Executive orders are not a sustainable way to fight climate change. EOs can easily be undone. EOs also bypass the input of other voices in the fight..& set the completely false precedent that the federal government/President have the only power in solving climate change.

One quick (and important) aside for con #1...

These executive orders were largely put in place because of the lack of action on climate over the past few years.

Partisan gridlock in Congress, a climate-denying President, and a "Green New Deal or bust" mentality all contributed.

Con #2 - The pause on oil/gas leasing on federal lands is controversial to begin with, but few people discuss the role these leases have. These leases fund up to $1.9 billion for our national parks, $150 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, and most funding for LWCF areas.

Con #3 - job loss/displacement

Many Americans (liberal & conservative) are rightfully worried about the potential 1 mil. jobs lost from these executive orders. Statements like the one from John Kerry today, which belittled the transition for coal/oil/gas workers, doesn't help.

Con #4 - The target from the Biden Administration is spending $2T to fight climate change. While that might sound nice, the focus shouldn't be on the amount of money we spend on fighting climate change. Rather, it should be focused on outcomes (i.e. how much we reduce emissions).

Con #5 - These executive orders have a massive impact on energy production in the United States. 22% of oil and 12% of natural gas production are immediately affected. While transitioning to clean energy is vital, there needs to be a plan in place for a smooth transition.

There are other pros and cons, but no one wants to read a novel on Twitter. The point of this is to show that with every political decision (esp. on climate), there are benefits and consequences. It's essential to lay a fair groundwork to steer closer to desired policy outcomes.

My hope is for bipartisan climate work in Congress to begin...instead of EOs. Additionally, the American public needs to demand more action from companies, local governments, and state governments—where massive strides can be made quickly.

To conclude, climate action at the forefront of our political discourse is a welcome change. However, we need to have fair and honest conversations about how we move forward instead of rushing to our partisan corners.

It's up to both sides to do that. Will you?