The president’s plan, worth up to $4 trillion, represents a fundamental shift in the way Democrats talk about tackling climate change: It’s no longer a side issue.

WASHINGTON — President Biden’s next big thing would fuse the rebuilding of America’s creaky infrastructure with record spending to fight climate change, a combination that, in scale and scope, represents a huge political shift, even for Democrats who have been in the climate trenches for decades.

A guiding philosophy of the Biden proposal argues that the future of good jobs is the transition to an economy that no longer churns out carbon dioxide through the burning of coal, oil and gas.

Aides are set to brief Mr. Biden this week on plans to invest between $3 trillion and $4 trillion in spending and tax credits on a wide range of efforts meant to bolster the economy. The money is currently planned to be split between two packages, starting with an infrastructure bill that is rooted in the effort to halt the emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide. Administration officials stress that the details remain in flux.

But as currently constructed, accelerating a clean energy transformation underpins nearly every part of the plan, people familiar with it said. It includes building electric power lines that can deliver more renewable energy, building electric vehicle charging stations, capping oil and gas wells to reduce emissions and reclaiming abandoned coal mines. There is money to build a million new affordable, energy-efficient housing units and to make existing structures more energy efficient. Hundreds of billions of dollars would go toward “high-growth industries of the future,” such as advanced battery manufacturing.

The underlying message — that the next step of America’s economic recovery is fundamentally tied to countering the climate crisis — represents a major pivot in the way Democrats make the case for tackling global warming. No longer merely an environmental imperative like saving the polar bears, or a side element of a stimulus package like it was under the Obama administration, climate change has become the centerpiece.

Administration officials say they view averting catastrophic warming and pursuing American dominance of the emerging global industries as inseparable. That is a sharp break from even the most recent Democratic administration, when Mr. Biden was vice president, let alone the Trump era, when the president denied the existence of climate change.

“Thinking about addressing climate change through infrastructure is in itself not a revolutionary idea, but if you said to most people, ‘Is America’s infrastructure in trouble?’ I think the first words they would mention to you are bridges and roads, not E.V. charging stations,” said Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard University.

White House officials would not put a dollar figure on the amount dedicated to climate change, but one person familiar with the talks said climate and clean energy spending could exceed $2 trillion.

“If you said to most people, ‘Is America’s infrastructure in trouble?’ I think the first words they would mention to you are bridges and roads, not E.V. charging stations,” one analyst said.
John G Mabanglo/EPA, via Shutterstock

Some climate activists say the plan suffers from a lopsided approach that would increase the supply of clean-energy projects and products while doing little to spur demand by forcing reductions in fossil fuel consumption.

Republicans, who unanimously opposed Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus package, and even some independent analysts recoil at wrapping climate policy in the widely popular mantle of infrastructure, which raises old arguments against government-driven industrial policy.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said in a statement that Mr. Biden should focus on working with Republicans “to fix America’s crumbling roads and bridges,” rather than “raise taxes while also spending trillions on a bill that includes the punishing regulations of the Green New Deal.”

But Mr. Biden is not straying from his recent positions. He promised during his campaign to “build a more resilient, sustainable economy” that puts the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury, while creating “millions of good paying jobs.” He has continued to hit the theme since his inauguration.

Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

“Today is climate day at the White House, which means that today is jobs day,” the president said in January before signing a suite of executive orders to combat warming.

Along with more than $600 billion for the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, and electric vehicle charging stations, the infrastructure package will incorporate some form of a rebate program championed by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, to replace millions of gas guzzling cars in the next decade with electric vehicles.

Some environmental groups on Monday criticized Mr. Biden for not proposing an even bigger package for climate change. But Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, who has championed the Green New Deal, an aggressive plan to address climate change and revamp the economy, called reports of the infrastructure package “encouraging.”

“One of the big goals we had when we introduced the Green New Deal was to shift climate change from being a billion dollar problem to a trillion dollar opportunity,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview.

“The fact that climate and infrastructure is seen as part of the same endeavor is, I think, highly reflective of that shift,” she said.

Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York Times

So far, the package excludes the one thing that economists agree is the most efficient way to draw down planet-warming emissions: taxing or otherwise putting a price on the carbon dioxide emissions that cause it. Instead of a gasoline tax, for instance, the president plans to greatly raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, forcing automakers toward electric vehicles through regulation, not legislation. Similarly, Mr. Biden plans to reimpose strict emissions regulations on electric power plants to move the sector away from coal.

.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-k59gj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;width:100%;}.css-1e2usoh{font-family:inherit;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;border-top:1px solid #ccc;padding:10px 0px 10px 0px;background-color:#fff;}.css-1jz6h6z{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;text-align:left;}.css-1t412wb{box-sizing:border-box;margin:8px 15px 0px 15px;cursor:pointer;}.css-hhzar2{-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform ease 0.5s;-webkit-transition:transform ease 0.5s;transition:transform ease 0.5s;}.css-t54hv4{-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-1r2j9qz{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-e1ipqs{font-size:1rem;line-height:1.5rem;padding:0px 30px 0px 0px;}.css-e1ipqs a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-e1ipqs a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1o76pdf{visibility:show;height:100%;padding-bottom:20px;}.css-1sw9s96{visibility:hidden;height:0px;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cz6wm{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;font-family:’nyt-franklin’,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;text-align:left;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cz6wm{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1cz6wm:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1cz6wm{border:none;padding:20px 0 0;border-top:1px solid #121212;}

Frequently Asked Questions About the New Stimulus Package

The stimulus payments would be $1,400 for most recipients. Those who are eligible would also receive an identical payment for each of their children. To qualify for the full $1,400, a single person would need an adjusted gross income of $75,000 or below. For heads of household, adjusted gross income would need to be $112,500 or below, and for married couples filing jointly that number would need to be $150,000 or below. To be eligible for a payment, a person must have a Social Security number. Read more.

Buying insurance through the government program known as COBRA would temporarily become a lot cheaper. COBRA, for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, generally lets someone who loses a job buy coverage via the former employer. But it’s expensive: Under normal circumstances, a person may have to pay at least 102 percent of the cost of the premium. Under the relief bill, the government would pay the entire COBRA premium from April 1 through Sept. 30. A person who qualified for new, employer-based health insurance someplace else before Sept. 30 would lose eligibility for the no-cost coverage. And someone who left a job voluntarily would not be eligible, either. Read more

This credit, which helps working families offset the cost of care for children under 13 and other dependents, would be significantly expanded for a single year. More people would be eligible, and many recipients would get a bigger break. The bill would also make the credit fully refundable, which means you could collect the money as a refund even if your tax bill was zero. “That will be helpful to people at the lower end” of the income scale, said Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Read more.

There would be a big one for people who already have debt. You wouldn’t have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt if you qualify for loan forgiveness or cancellation — for example, if you’ve been in an income-driven repayment plan for the requisite number of years, if your school defrauded you or if Congress or the president wipes away $10,000 of debt for large numbers of people. This would be the case for debt forgiven between Jan. 1, 2021, and the end of 2025. Read more.

The bill would provide billions of dollars in rental and utility assistance to people who are struggling and in danger of being evicted from their homes. About $27 billion would go toward emergency rental assistance. The vast majority of it would replenish the so-called Coronavirus Relief Fund, created by the CARES Act and distributed through state, local and tribal governments, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. That’s on top of the $25 billion in assistance provided by the relief package passed in December. To receive financial assistance — which could be used for rent, utilities and other housing expenses — households would have to meet several conditions. Household income could not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, at least one household member must be at risk of homelessness or housing instability, and individuals would have to qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced financial hardship (directly or indirectly) because of the pandemic. Assistance could be provided for up to 18 months, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Lower-income families that have been unemployed for three months or more would be given priority for assistance. Read more.

“Biden never made a carbon tax the center of his proposal,” said John Podesta, a former adviser to President Barack Obama on climate change. “I think he believed that the combination of investments and standards with a focus on equity was a winning formula both for the economy and was more politically viable.”

Others, though, said they worried that Mr. Biden’s strategy — long-term projects and regulation that could take years to finalize — was too lengthy, too pricey and too uncertain to cut enough emissions.

“The scale of the climate problem demands the most economically efficient response, and because it’s politically difficult to talk about pricing carbon we’re drifting toward a really expensive way of addressing climate,” said Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative nonprofit group that supports a carbon tax.

“A carbon tax at least has to be part of the discussion,” Mr. Flint added.

Mr. Stavins of Harvard University cautioned that using government spending to achieve both job creation and climate change, while popular, isn’t always compatible. Quick boosts to the economy rely on so-called “shovel-ready” projects — and those aren’t necessarily the ones that will lead to deep decarbonization.

Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

But, he conceded, if Mr. Obama could not secure legislation to cap carbon emissions when he had 59 Democrats in the Senate, Mr. Biden cannot win a similarly tough plan with 50 Democrats, one of whom, Senator Joe Manchin III, represents the coal state of West Virginia.

Supporters of the package say tying climate action to fiscal growth is good politics and grounded in fact. A federal report in 2018 found that failing to curb planet-warming pollution could result in more record wildfires, crop failures and crumbled infrastructure across the country, shrinking the U.S. economy 10 percent by the end of the century.

Jamal Raad, who co-founded the climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, said both the politics of climate change and the market for clean energy have changed dramatically over the past decade.

“There’s been a whole lot of work telling a broader story about what climate change means and what the transition to clean energy would mean for our economy and jobs,” he said. “This investment package is about telling a positive story about economic growth in clean energy.”