from what i can see, these are fairly modest proposals, which he likely only has limited jurisdiction over. see, this is the part the discourse forgets - in the united states, this is mostly a state-level issue, which is why california and kentucky are on such divergent paths. i don't think that biden can end coal production in appalachia if he wants to.
that said, from the perspective of capital, there is a big difference between funding new industries and ending old ones. we have three things to look at:
1) government funding for profitable new industry will be welcomed by capital. that's the kind of thing you're likely to see substantive action on, and it's a step, at least. you have to give consumers a real choice before you blame them for rejecting it; right now, this is a supply-side issue, primarily. shifting that is helpful. so, call it what you want - investment, welfare - but it's probably the crux of what you'll actually see this government focus on.
2) shutting down out-of-date, unprofitable or obsolete industries is a normal part of capitalism, and large parts of the carbon economy are moving in to that category. what biden can do here is take credit for this by spinning it. and, the democrats aren't competitive in the regions where it's a concern, anyways, so the political fallout is of minimal concern - just like the liberals don't really care about losing votes in saskatchewan.
3) shutting down profitable sectors of the economy that are causing large amounts of pollution. this strikes me as highly unlikely; that essentially won't happen..