Biden Finally Picked His Fed Chair. Is a Climate Reckoning at the Bank Coming Next?

Progressives dislike Jerome Powell. But they still hope the Fed’s power over Wall Street can be a tool of climate action.

Susan Walsh/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Monday morning, President Joe Biden announced that he will renominate Jerome Powell to another four-year term as the head of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the US and a key regulator of banks.

For months, Democrats have waged an internal battle over whether Biden should ditch Powell, Trumpā€™s 2017 appointee, in favor of a nominee who would be more aggressive in wielding the Fedā€™s powers over Wall Street in service of action on climate change. Bidenā€™s decision to nominate Powell despite these protestations sets up a renewed battle about whom the president will pick to fill the three remaining vacant seats on the Fedā€™s governing body, the Board of Governorsā€”with progressives and advocates vowing to pressure Biden and the Fed to incorporate climate change into its regulation of Wall Street actors, given the major risks it poses to economic stability.

ā€œWe need a focus on climate action in all facets of the federal government, including the Federal Reserve,ā€ Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote on Twitter after Bidenā€™s announcement, vowing to vote against Powellā€™s nomination in the Senate because he “has already proven the [sic] he wonā€™t answer calls for climate action.”

ā€œPowellā€™s failures on regulation, climate, and ethics make the still-vacant position of Vice Chair of Supervision critically important,ā€ wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a statement. She also reiterated her opposition to Powellā€™s nomination, and promised to vote against him in Senate confirmation proceedings.

For months, progressive Democrats and advocacy groups have made the case that the Fed, which has a mandate to maintain economic stability, should work to mitigate climate risk, given that climate changeā€™s impactā€”including extreme weather eventsā€”could destabilize the financial system. Powell has resisted this framing.

These groups argue that the Federal Reserve should use this authority over Wall Street banks to impose rules that would make lending to companies that exacerbate climate change more expensive. There are a number of different ways the Fed could do this: creating pricey restrictions on banks that lend to companies exposed to fossil fuels or high emissions, or requiring banks to run resource-intensive stress tests to monitor whether their cash flows can withstand the sorts of natural disasters that are growing more common as the world warms. 

Thus far under Powellā€™s watch, the Fed has stopped short of taking any such action, instead simply mentioning climate risks in several reports and speeches. In the last year, the bank did create a committee to study the financial risks posed by climate change. But thus far, no significant regulation has come out of their work.

In his announcement on Monday, Biden nominated Lael Brainard, who currently serves on the Fedā€™s Board of Governors, to be vice chair of the central bankā€”essentially Powellā€™s second in command. Brainard has spoken extensively about using the Fedā€™s regulatory powers over banks to take climate action. Her nomination to the post is almost certainly the result of encouragement by advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and progressives in Congress who had pushed the Biden administration to nominate Brainard as Powellā€™s replacement, in order to put climate action front and center of the Fedā€™s work.  

But Brainardā€™s nomination to the deputy post, while promising, is not a guarantee: Sheā€™ll have a bigger platform with which to guide the Fedā€™s thinking on climate policy, but ultimately, she’ll hold little power to execute policy changes.

Several progressive groups issued statements on Monday pushing the administration to consider filling the three vacant seats on the Board of Governorsā€”particularly the powerful vice chair of supervisionā€”with avowed climate hawks.

ā€œIt is essential that President Biden nominate additional board members, including the Vice Chair of Supervision, that will act to address climate-related threats to our economy,ā€ said the Sierra Club’s Ben Cushing in a statement.

In the meantime, Powellā€™s nomination is likely to sail through the Senate: Although some Democratsā€”Warren, Merkley, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)ā€”plan to vote against him, many Republicans have praised Powellā€™s leadership of the Fed during the COVID-19 economic crisis, and want to see him remain at the bankā€™s helm.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate