Home » Environment

Is the Biden Infrastructure Law Enough for Climate Progress?

Examining the climate impacts and limitations of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and what must change for real progress.

By Medha deb

Created on Sep 27, 2025

Examining the climate impacts and limitations of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and what must change for real progress.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, officially the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), was heralded as a once-in-a-generation federal investment in U.S. infrastructure and a pivotal step toward addressing climate change. Signed into law in 2021, the act pledged $1.2 trillion for roads, bridges, clean energy, public transportation, and more. Yet, nearly four years later, questions remain about its effectiveness in curbing emissions and whether it meaningfully progresses U.S. climate ambitions.

A Brief Overview of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Promises and Priorities: What Was Intended
Implementation and the Roadblock of Status Quo Spending
Emissions Impacts: Progress or Setback?
Politics, Culture, and Car-Centered Policies
What Must Change: Moving Beyond the IIJA
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

A Brief Overview of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act marked the largest federal commitment to American infrastructure in decades. Major goals included modernizing transportation, expanding broadband, renewing water systems, and improving the electricity grid. The White House emphasized its potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy by:

Upgrading public transit and rail systems
Investing in electric vehicle (EV) charging networks
Repairing bridges and roads with climate resilience in mind
Remediating pollution and expanding clean water access

With $550 billion in new spending out of $1.2 trillion total, the law aimed to serve as a springboard for President Biden’s broader climate goals and contribute to rebuilding a just, sustainable economy.

Promises and Priorities: What Was Intended

The Biden administration’s climate ambitions are far-reaching. The President has committed the U.S. to:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030
Achieving 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035
Attaining net-zero emissions across the U.S. economy by 2050
Directing at least 40% of the benefits of relevant federal investments to disadvantaged communities

In tandem with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the IIJA was meant to drive this transformation by decarbonizing the grid, supporting cleaner transportation, reducing energy costs for families, boosting climate resilience, and expanding public health protections.

Implementation and the Roadblock of Status Quo Spending

Despite these promises, the actual deployment of infrastructure funds has exposed persistent challenges:

State-level Allocation: States retain significant discretion over how highway and transportation dollars are spent. Most have continued to channel the majority of their allocations toward highway expansion and road resurfacing, rather than decarbonization or transit improvements.
Business-as-Usual Incentives: Highway expansion is often prioritized for its perceived short-term benefits like congestion relief and political popularity, even though research shows it increases traffic in the long run – a phenomenon known as induced demand.
Small Climate-Specific Programs: Climate-focused investments, though present, comprise a relatively small portion of overall funding. The savings or emissions reductions from public transit and EV infrastructure risk being dwarfed by emissions from increased car and truck traffic on expanded highways.

One recent report noted: “Over $37 billion in IIJA funding has gone toward new highways and wider roads … projects could induce the equivalent of more than 77 million cumulative metric tonnes of CO₂e emissions above pre-IIJA baseline levels from 2022 to 2040.”

Table: Major IIJA Infrastructure Investments vs. Proportion Spent on Climate

Sector	Example Investments	Spending Focus
Highways & Bridges	Expansion, resurfacing, repairs	Largest share; mostly car-centered
Public Transit & Rail	Modernization, electrification	Significant, but less than highways
EV Infrastructure	Charging networks, battery supply chains	Limited
Clean Water & Broadband	Pipe upgrades, broadband expansion	Smaller share, indirect climate impact

Emissions Impacts: Progress or Setback?

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Although IIJA intended to help reduce these emissions, analyses reveal a more complicated reality:

Increased Emissions from Highways: States’ formula-funded transportation investments could cumulatively increase emissions by nearly 190 million metric tonnes through 2040, primarily due to added driving induced by new and wider roads.
Temporary Emissions Reductions Threatened: The emissions cuts achieved through other laws, like the Inflation Reduction Act, are at risk of being offset or even undone by the increases from ongoing highway expansion.
Disparities Across States: Some states, such as Texas and Florida, have spent disproportionately on road expansion, but even states with Democratic leadership (e.g., California, Pennsylvania) appear among top emission gainers.

While the IIJA was also intended to facilitate investment in lower-emission alternatives—such as public transit, biking, and walking infrastructure—these options remain underfunded relative to highway projects. The result is a continued car-centric, fossil fuel-dependent transportation system that challenges national and international climate targets.

Politics, Culture, and Car-Centered Policies

The IIJA’s modest climate progress is not solely a function of legislative design; entrenched political and cultural dynamics play a defining role:

Political Expediency: Elected officials often see highway projects as politically safe and immediately tangible benefits for their constituents, whereas climate-positive modes like transit or cycling may be more contested.
Planning Culture: Long-standing practices in state and local planning agencies reward the expansion and upgrading of highways, with success measured by capacity and speed rather than environmental impact.
Public Demand: Many Americans are accustomed to car-based mobility, viewing personal vehicle travel as a necessity, reinforcing the demand for expanded roads even when evidence suggests it does not alleviate congestion long term.

These factors perpetuate funding patterns that run counter to climate planning, even when ample data warns of induced demand and worsening emissions.

What Must Change: Moving Beyond the IIJA

For the U.S. to realize its climate commitments, the infrastructure law will need to be only the first step in a wider reform process. Key strategies highlighted by advocates and policy analysts include:

Rebalancing Priorities: Increase the share of funding dedicated to public transit, intercity rail, active transportation (walking, biking), and climate adaptation projects, rather than highway expansion.
State-Level Reform: Federal standards or incentives may be needed to require states to prioritize carbon reduction, community health, and alternative transit in their spending plans.
Explicit Climate Performance Goals: Link federal funding to measurable climate outcomes, such as setting emissions caps or requiring climate impact analyses before road projects are approved.
Reevaluating Planning Metrics: Shift focus from congestion and speed improvements to accessibility, equity, and emissions reductions as measures of success.
Community-Led Investment: Engage local communities, particularly those historically burdened by highway construction and pollution, in planning and investment decision-making to ensure environmental justice.

The success of U.S. climate action now hinges on the country’s ability to move beyond legacy approaches and make infrastructure investments align with a zero-carbon, resilient, and equitable future.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Did the infrastructure law completely ignore climate?

A: No. The IIJA includes some climate-conscious investments, such as support for EV infrastructure, public transit, and climate resilience, but these compose a relatively small proportion compared to highway funding.

Q: Why are states spending so much on highways?

A: Due to long-standing political, economic, and planning incentives, states tend to favor immediate and visible road projects. This persists despite evidence that highway expansion often induces more driving and congestion rather than reducing it.

Q: Will the IIJA emissions increases erase progress from other climate laws?

A: Analyses suggest that increased emissions from business-as-usual highway spending could undermine or even negate the reductions made possible by other recent climate legislation.

Q: What can be done to shift infrastructure spending toward greener outcomes?

A: Solutions include setting binding climate standards for federal and state transportation spending, prioritizing low-carbon and equitable projects, and reforming metrics of infrastructure success to include sustainability and public health.

Q: How does this affect ordinary Americans?

A: Continued car-centered infrastructure can lock communities into fuel costs, extend commutes, worsen air quality, and make meeting climate targets harder for future generations. On the other hand, greener infrastructure could mean cleaner air, cheaper transportation options, and more resilient communities.

Key Takeaways

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law represents a substantial investment and an opportunity for climate progress, but current implementation is dominated by car and highway spending.
To align with national climate commitments, the U.S. urgently needs to reform transportation priorities and invest much more in transit, active transport, and emissions reduction.
Shifting entrenched political and planning practices, while challenging, is essential for realizing a low-carbon, equitable future.

References

Author

medha deb

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts.

Read full bio of medha deb