What’s Not in Biden’s Climate Bill: The Hidden Limitations
A revealing look at the gaps and compromises in the Biden Administration’s landmark climate legislation—where ambition stops, and fossil fuels remain.
What’s Not in Biden’s Climate Bill: Understanding the Gaps
The Biden Administration’s climate bill, formally known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), has been widely lauded as the single most ambitious piece of climate legislation in U.S. history. Its hundreds of billions in clean energy investments are transformative, yet what the law doesn’t contain is nearly as revealing as what it does. Key policy omissions, trade-offs, and compromised ambitions reflect the complex, divided landscape of American climate action—and set the stage for the struggles that lie ahead.
The Ambition of the Climate Bill
Signed into law in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was crafted as a sweeping answer to the climate crisis. It includes:
- Historic funding for renewable energy, targeting solar, wind, battery storage, and grid modernization
- Incentives for electric vehicles and building efficiency upgrades
- Support for clean manufacturing, agriculture, and energy justice projects
These investments aim to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, moving toward a net-zero economy by 2050. For climate advocates, this marks a generational turning point.
The Political Roots of What’s Missing
No bill of this size passes without negotiation—and the IRA is shaped profoundly by its political context. Passing through a 50-50 Senate, it emerged from difficult talks with pivotal Senators, particularly Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a key moderate with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. To secure his support, significant policy concessions were made. As a result, while the bill includes extraordinary progress on clean energy, it backs away from direct action against fossil fuels, and excludes or waters down several bold measures that were initially promised.
Fossil Fuels: The Enduring Elephant in the Room
One of the IRA’s most controversial features lies in what it does—and doesn’t—do about fossil fuels:
- No new taxes or regulatory restrictions on oil and gas extraction. The bill does not impose an explicit price on carbon or ban new drilling. There is little that limits oil and gas production on federal lands in the near term—in fact, new lease requirements are created.
- Mandatory fossil fuel lease sales. Before the government can issue new renewable energy leases (such as for offshore wind), it must first offer millions of acres for oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters—potentially locking in new fossil fuel projects for years.
- Increased royalties for oil and gas leases on federal land—modest financial penalties but not restrictions on the activity itself.
These provisions were necessary to secure support from fossil-fuel-state legislators, but they severely limit the bill’s power to quickly curtail U.S. fossil fuel production.
Polluter Accountability: Missing the Mark
The bill does not introduce a comprehensive framework to hold polluters directly accountable for historical or ongoing emissions. While it provides tax credits and grants to reduce pollution, there are no enforceable limits or new regulatory powers aimed at major emitters, and attempts to enact a robust carbon pricing scheme or cumulative pollution cap were omitted.
Pipelines and Infrastructure Expansion
Notably, accompanying legislative deals and side agreements (especially those relevant to Manchin’s vote) looked to accelerate approval of fossil fuel infrastructure, such as gas pipelines. Although some proposals failed to become law, the intent displayed an openness to expanding—rather than contracting—hydrocarbon infrastructure, undermining the transformational narrative around the climate bill.
The Environmental Justice Gap
President Biden campaigned on a sweeping commitment to environmental and climate justice, promising at least 40% of benefits from relevant federal investments would flow to disadvantaged communities. But the reality is more complicated:
- No direct restrictions on new polluting facilities in overburdened communities
- Lack of enforcement muscle for environmental justice
- Communities of color and low-income communities, often on the frontlines of fossil fuel extraction and industrial pollution, did not see a ban or enforceable moratorium on new sources of harm
What others are reading
Despite funding for long-overdue pollution clean-up and support for clean upgrades, federal guarantees to prevent new pollution in these communities remain elusive.
Key Provisions Excluded or Diluted
The original vision for U.S. climate action, as articulated in the early Build Back Better agenda and Biden campaign platform, was even bolder than what ultimately became law. Several transformative policies were removed or softened along the way:
- Carbon pricing: The bill does not include a federal carbon tax or fee, a long-discussed policy with bipartisan technocratic support but little political traction.
- Caps on total emissions: The bill offers incentives—not mandates—eschewing hard limits or deadlines on fossil fuel phaseout.
- Clean Electricity Standard (CES): A proposal to require utilities to steadily increase clean power generation was dropped, replaced by more flexible tax credits and grants for voluntary action.
- Direct air pollution regulation: New regulatory powers for the EPA to speed the phase-down of fossil fuels were left out, reflecting the political fragility of executive rule-making after Supreme Court decisions limiting agency authority.
- Shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels was not prioritized; U.S. tax benefits and leasing provisions for oil and gas largely remain in place.
Each omission illustrates the profound challenge of legislative climate policy in a deeply divided Congress, especially when a single senator’s vote can reshape the direction of national climate plans.
Gaps in Agricultural and Land Use Reforms
The bill does provide substantial funding for conservation and climate-smart agriculture but falls short of structural transformation in the sector. Missed opportunities include:
- No binding limits or phase-outs on emissions from industrial farming, livestock, or fertilizer use
- Reliance on voluntary incentive programs, not mandates or performance standards
- Minimal reforms to large-scale monoculture, deforestation, or land conversion
This approach runs the risk of sustaining high-emission agricultural practices while hoping financial incentives alone will drive change.
Shortfalls in Methane and Industrial Emissions
Methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, is addressed mostly through fee-based incentives—not strict restrictions. Other major emitters, such as cement and steel production, are not subject to legally binding pollution reductions.
| Sector | Policy Mechanism in Bill | Omission/Shortfall |
|---|---|---|
| Oil & Gas (Methane) | Fees for leaks, tax credits for improvements | No ban or timeline to end leaks; technology-first approach |
| Heavy Industry | Tax incentives for clean tech upgrades | No emissions cap or performance standard |
| Power Sector | Tax credits, voluntary adoption | Lacks Clean Electricity Standard |
International Climate Commitments and Gaps
The IRA does little to strengthen U.S. support for global climate finance or direct assistance to nations most vulnerable to climate change. Despite campaign promises, legislative limits and opposition meant the U.S. fell short of international expectations for both ambition and funding.
This complicates U.S. leadership in global climate negotiations—where moral leadership often depends on matching domestic reforms with international solidarity.
The Strategic Trade-Offs of Incentive-Driven Policy
The debate between ‘carrots versus sticks’ is central to understanding the bill’s design. Incentives, subsidies, and credits dominated over mandates, penalties, or regulatory sticks, reflecting a political judgment about what is most viable. This market-driven approach is:
- Easier to pass in Congress
- Appealing to industry and innovation sectors
- Likely to draw faster corporate buy-in and investment
- Potentially less effective without complementary restrictions or timelines on fossil fuels
Critics contend that this approach risks prolonged fossil fuel reliance, as incentives alone may be insufficient to drive rapid, systemic decarbonization.
What Has Been Achieved—and Where the Gaps Lead Next
The Inflation Reduction Act is a transformative start. It:
- Puts the U.S. on a path to historic emissions cuts
- Catalyzes a new era of clean energy investment and job creation
- Provides crucial, if modest, support for communities historically harmed by pollution
Yet, by sidestepping direct fossil fuel phaseout, mandatory emissions limits, and robust environmental justice protections, the bill’s legacy will depend on future leadership. Executive action, rulemaking, and community organizing will remain essential—especially as Supreme Court decisions and political turnover constrain federal power.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: Does the Inflation Reduction Act ban new oil and gas drilling?
A: No. In fact, the Act requires new oil and gas lease sales on federal lands before renewable energy projects can be approved, meaning new fossil fuel extraction may continue alongside clean energy deployment.
Q: Why did the bill include concessions to the fossil fuel industry?
A: Concessions, such as required lease sales and minimal new restrictions, were included to secure crucial votes in a narrowly divided Senate, particularly from senators representing fossil fuel-producing states.
Q: What happened to the proposed Clean Electricity Standard?
A: The Clean Electricity Standard—a mandate requiring utilities to phase in a certain percentage of renewable energy each year—was dropped amid opposition, replaced with voluntary incentives like tax credits.
Q: How does the bill address environmental justice?
A: While the bill dedicates funding to clean up pollution in frontline communities, it does not create new federal tools to block or limit new polluting activities in those areas, a key disappointment for environmental justice advocates.
Q: Are there any mandatory emissions reductions in the Inflation Reduction Act?
A: No. Emissions reductions are expected to come from voluntary adoption of cleaner technologies incentivized by tax credits and grants, not from legal emission caps or bans.
Looking Forward: The Role of Future Movements and Policy
The omissions from the Biden climate bill highlight the hard limits of the current American political system. Realizing the President’s broader climate agenda will require:
- Sustained pressure from grassroots movements and advocacy groups
- Executive orders and agency rulemaking within legal boundaries
- Future congressional action to address the remaining gaps, especially as climate impacts worsen
- Continued engagement with international partners to meet global climate goals
Whether the U.S. can move beyond the era of fossil fuel compromise may depend less on the laws passed so far, and more on the next wave of political and societal will to finish what this bill has started.
References
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act
- https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/climate/
- https://climatechangeresources.org/learn-more/federal-government/executive/bidens-climate-plan/
- https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress
- https://earthjustice.org/article/the-biggest-climate-spending-bill-ever-just-turned-two-heres-what-it-has-achieved
- https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/summary-inflation-reduction-act-provisions-related-renewable-energy
- https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-taken-more-climate-action-than-any-other-in-history/
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
