As President Biden’s term draws to a close, how would you assess his performance over the past few years?

IV. Domestic Policy Implementation (1) Pandemic Response Measures On pandemic control, Biden initially demonstrated a proactive stance. Upon taking office, he unveiled a 200-page pandemic response blueprint, vowing to tackle the crisis scientifically and decisively. He assembled a pandemic advisory panel comprising 12 leading scientists and appointed Dr. Anthony Fauci as Chief Medical Advisor—placing public health experts at the core of the national response. The Biden administration vigorously promoted vaccine rollout, invoking the Defense Production Act to boost vaccine manufacturing capacity and launching the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program to turn numerous pharmacies into vaccination sites. Local governments opened community health centers, and federally operated mass vaccination centers were established nationwide, with commitments to assist elderly and disabled individuals in receiving vaccinations. These efforts yielded significant results: within three months of Biden’s inauguration, the U.S. achieved its target of administering 100 million vaccine doses by mid-March—40 days ahead of schedule. Subsequent vaccination goals were likewise met well ahead of deadlines. By late May, the federal government had secured sufficient vaccine supply for all adult Americans. Daily new COVID-19 cases and deaths dropped sharply, indicating clear progress in controlling the pandemic. Yet numerous challenges persisted. Vaccine hesitancy spread widely, with segments of the population expressing skepticism or outright resistance toward vaccination. Vaccination willingness remained low among racial minorities and rural communities; roughly half of Republican men—especially supporters of Donald Trump—refused vaccination. Similarly, many young adults aged 18–24 declined or remained hesitant about getting vaccinated. Over time, the emergence of new viral variants introduced fresh uncertainties into pandemic management. (2) Climate Change Response Biden placed high priority on climate change and swiftly reversed multiple Trump-era energy and environmental policies upon assuming office—underscoring his administration’s determination to confront the climate crisis. He revoked the Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, announced the U.S.’s re-entry into the Paris Climate Agreement, and halted oil leasing and related activities in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He signed a series of executive orders suspending new oil and gas drilling on federal lands and initiating reviews of the environmental and legal implications of mineral leasing programs. These measures garnered broad support from environmental groups but faced formidable obstacles. Powerful U.S. oil giants hold long-term leases and permits, rendering Biden’s drilling bans largely ineffective for years to come. In Congress, intense partisan gridlock—particularly Republican use of the filibuster—stymied Democratic climate legislation. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to broadly limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants—a major setback for Biden’s decarbonization agenda. (3) Addressing Racial and Social Issues Racial tensions have long run deep in the United States, and the Biden administration adopted several initiatives to address them. Upon taking office, Biden actively built a racially diverse Cabinet: among his 26 Cabinet members, non-white appointees constituted half the total—including Latino, African American, Asian American, and Native American representatives.

Oil majors sue local governments in climate litigation battles—who will win?

Global Zero Carbon The 'New Generation' in Carbon Neutrality Lead image source: Shutterstock Summary: This climate legal battle has entered a two-way firing mode—governments sue corporations, and corporations sue governments—evolving into a confrontation between institutional authority and corporate capital. → This is Global Zero Carbon’s 1,730th original article On October 24, ExxonMobil—the global oil giant consistently ranked among the world’s top carbon emitters—filed suit against California, widely regarded as America’s “climate vanguard,” in U.S. federal court. ExxonMobil accused the state of violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution through two newly enacted laws, claiming they compel businesses to endorse specific climate positions and conflict with federal regulations. These two laws, passed in 2023, are collectively known as the “California Climate Accountability Package.” They require thousands of large companies operating in California to calculate and publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions generated during the use of their products, as well as the business risks posed by climate change. ExxonMobil contends that these laws effectively force companies to publicly endorse climate views they do not share. The company argues this amounts to government-mandated attribution of responsibility for global warming—an unconstitutional form of compelled speech infringing upon constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Accordingly, ExxonMobil filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, asserting that the laws would compel it to employ flawed methodologies for calculating emissions and distort ExxonMobil’s—and its products’—actual role in global warming. The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring enforcement of the laws against the company. The complaint states: “Although ExxonMobil considers this mandated statement misleading and inaccurate, the regulation still compels ExxonMobil to disseminate the information advocated by California.” Amid the Trump administration’s retreat on climate policy and the absence of robust federal standards, California has emerged as the de facto U.S. “climate vanguard,” setting benchmarks that often influence other states. California legislators have consistently led national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ExxonMobil’s lawsuit claims that California’s two laws do not meaningfully curb emissions but instead aim to punish large corporations. Tara Gallegos, spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom, responded: “It’s truly shocking that one of the planet’s largest polluters opposes transparency.” She added, “These laws have already withstood judicial scrutiny, and we remain fully confident in them.” Image caption: ExxonMobil sues California over climate disclosure laws. The two California statutes challenged by ExxonMobil are the Corporate Climate Data Responsibility Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Reporting Act (SB 261). The Corporate Climate Data Responsibility Act (SB 253) requires large enterprises operating in California with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to annually measure and publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. It mandates the use of a methodology focused on a company’s total global emissions. Previously, ExxonMobil employed an emissions calculation methodology developed by Ipieca—a global nonprofit industry association founded in 1974 to facilitate dialogue between the United Nations Environment Programme and the oil and gas sector.

US Supreme Court to Begin Term with Oil Giants' Bid to Dismiss Climate Suits

19 hours ago

The US Supreme Court hears an appeal by ExxonMobil and Suncor to dismiss a Colorado climate lawsuit backed by the Trump administration. A ruling favoring the companies could impact nearly 60 similar state-level suits seeking billions in damages.

reuters

2025-11-18

ExxonMobil to Close UK Cracker

2026-01-30

ExxonMobil chemical earnings slide amid shrinking margins

2026-02-10

ExxonMobil Shuts Down Scottish Cracker Unit Early

2026-03-09

ExxonMobil Exports US Gasoline to Australia for First Time

2026-04-16

Exxon withdraws offer to sell two initial Golden Pass LNG cargoes, sources say