What Happened to Climate Change as a Political Priority?

Environment Policy #176| By: Todd J. Broadman | November 3, 2024

Featured Photo: Photo by Emmet on Pexels

__________________________________

POLICY

Along with nuclear annihilation, environmental collapse would seem to eclipse all else worthy of media coverage and political action. Climate-related policy though, has been ushered to the political backstage and that in itself is noteworthy. Why? The power brokers who control the megaphone have a trail of clues.

Former president Trump announced what had perplexed so many at a Sept. 26 press conference: “Do you notice that they never mention anything about environment anymore? What happened to the environment?” He then followed with his answer to that question: “I am going to cut your energy [costs] in half.” Risks associated with climate have been tied to what many politicians believe resonates more deeply with voters: their pocketbooks. Trump’s path to reducing energy costs rests on a common playbook: cut taxes and regulations.

Even the current administration finds it difficult to stir public sentiment around inconsistent and equivocal climate policies. When Biden took office, he wasted no time in rejoining the Paris Agreement, underscoring the looming threat and the importance of global cooperation. For a time, new oil and gas leases on federal lands were paused; work was halted on the Keystone XL pipeline. Government vehicles were to be replaced with a fleet of EV-powered transport. Then we hear the stark reality that on the ground it’s drill-baby-drill, that in 2023, U.S. fossil fuel production reached an all-time high.

Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center, a free-market think tank, points to a major source of confusion, explaining that “proponents of the Green New Deal have attached to the plan too many issues unrelated to climate change.” When the blueprint was introduced in 2019 climate change was framed as a threat to national security, and that renewable energy sources were the answer, not increased domestic treasure hunts for petroleum. Over time though, opposition hammered away at the enormous government price tag for the entitlements and subsidies that would dig an even deeper chasm of federal debt.

The broader populous, even if uninclined to believe that climate change is “a hoax” as Trump says, view shorter term job insecurity, food and medical costs, as more relevant. In addition to pocketbook issues, rule of law, border security, and threats to free speech continue to resonate on the campaign trail. Insecure voters are unmoved by yet another litany of climate statistics about sea level rise and unprecedented flooding events. Thomas Friedman put this into perspective when he wrote “If you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof, bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the very nature of the electricity grid – moving it away from dirty coal or oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project – much bigger than anyone has told you.”

In crucial swing states along the rust belt, even new investment in renewable energy like the new lithium battery plant that will employ 2,200 in Jeffersonville, Ohio, does not resonate with locals as a necessary component of tackling climate change. The jobs are appreciated, but the role of big government in providing subsidies is not. The billions of dollars allocated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in August of 2022, were to be largely directed to “cut the pollution that is fueling the climate crisis and driving environmental injustice.” If not for V.P. Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote, there would be no IRA; not a single Republican senator voted for its passage. This ideological divide is showing no signs of mending. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris touts the 800,000 manufacturing jobs created during her executive term.

The Green New Deal, first proposed in 2019, was intended to serve as a basis for reframing the economy with the science of climate change as its foundation. There was to be a sweeping social transformation in line with a complete transition away from CO2, aggressive investments in clean manufacturing, a huge expansion in sustainable agriculture, and housing with a small environmental footprint. On top of this, there was to be the guarantee of jobs with a “family-sustaining wage” for the minimum wage masses. 

Rather than utilize the Green New Deal to inspire fundamental change, the blueprint has been used to undermine climate policy proposed by “radicals” who would “wage war on coal.” This dilemma of ideals can be clearly seen with Rick Scott (R-FL) who, in spite of acknowledging the reality of climate change, characterizes the Green New Deal as “the religion of the new Left in America.” He made sure the state of Florida’s carbon-reduction goals were removed. No less telling, is his personal holdings in carbon-based energy companies. This intersection between short-term personal gain and longer-term policy shift is the kind of ambiguity that stifles climate change political action. Scott and others are a sounding board for Trump’s rousing sentiment that refers to it as the “Green New Scam” and a “socialist nightmare” that would ruin the American economy. 

Jobs creation along the rust belt is real enough. In Ohio alone, close to 5,000 new jobs that range from a solar panel maker employing 1000 in Pataskala, to a vehicle parts factory employing 650 in Dover. Much of the IRA funding for these companies comes in the form of credits for energy saved, for carbon that stays in the ground. Credits for the Honda/LG lithium battery plant in Jeffersonville mentioned earlier are expected to come to $400 million annually up until 2030.

Elon Musk’s Tesla also has been the beneficiary of government credits for building transportation alternatives, and Musk, in 2018, seemed unequivocal in his position that “climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces this century.” Yet in another indication of the uncertain political winds, Musk has expressed some degree of skepticism of the immediacy of the climate crisis. Since joining forces with candidate Trump, he emphasizes our dependency on oil to prevent economic collapse; that we risk mass starvation with any abrupt change. As he said recently, we should be “predominately sustainable 50 to 100 years from now,”  a sufficiently watered-down comment – to the point of contradiction.

Perhaps most perplexing is the backpedaling on climate-change policies given the volume of damage, both to humans and the environment, from fire, drought, and flooding, over the last decade. Over the last six years, economic losses have tallied to over $1 trillion. There is a tacit, complicit bi-partisan agreement that this toll, however egregious, is preferrable to life without black gold.

ANALYSIS

For the most part, U.S. climate change policy has relied on incentives for individuals and businesses to make the switch to non-carbon energy sources. These economic carrots do work but their application is targeted and highly limited in scope. The U.S. electric grid is 60% carbon-fueled while 92% of autos on the road burn gasoline. Agriculture contributes a little over 10% of U.S. carbon emissions and given current trends will be the last sector to make the transition to renewable sources. Politicians have not ventured down the path of using sticks, such as penalties and fines, and there is no indication of such a move.

While the IRA has substantial funding for sustainable manufacturing, it is one small package of incentives in a sea of business-as-usual fossil fuel exploration projects which include fracking. The use of coal has gone down to 16% of energy fuel domestically due to economic pressures and relative low cost of natural gas. Coal exports though, have surged, with India accounting for 25% of all coal exports from the U.S. The expectation is that coal production will continue to rise due to overseas demand. By far the largest coal producing state is Wyoming and when the Biden administration announced a ban on new coal leasing in Wyoming, as expected, it was met with strong opposition from Wyoming senators who said the ban constituted “a war on coal.”

The environmental dividing line in Congress is stark. A new Republican seat in either Ohio or Montana will likely tip the majority to red and this would further diminish already slim chances of any major climate-change bills from passing (even if Kamala Harris wins the presidency). A Trump victory will virtually assure attempts that every potential oil spigot will turn full throttle. To get there, Republicans will cut regulations and rally for energy independence. As a precursor, Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed legislation this year that erases references to climate change in state law. The governor also rejected more than $350 million in federal funding for energy efficiency initiatives and another $320 million to reduce vehicle emissions.

The private corporate sector has been more aggressive than the government in setting and meeting voluntary sustainability targets. Approximately half of the fortune 500 have set net-zero goals. The leading industry is utilities, while mining and other carbon-intensive sectors have much lower targets. The lack of political will has had an impact and the last year has seen some firms scale back their commitments. Investors are also concerned about climate-related risks in their corporate investments, and in response the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rules requiring disclosure of climate-related information. An outstanding example is Johnson & Johnson whose aims is for net-zero across its entire value chain by 2045.

There is a combination of climate-change fatigue and a reluctance to curtail the conveniences of a carbon-fueled society that has reduced the perception that addressing climate-change should be a top priority. Rising food and housing prices for working class voters has also overshadowed interest in the sustainability transition, and politicians have echoed and reinforced this sentiment. The suffering from climate catastrophes is slated for a dramatic uptick in scale and frequency, but as seen from the recent hurricane Helene, the demands for the ending of fossil fuels are muted, scarcely heard.

Engagement Resources

• Yale E360 offers opinion, analysis, reporting, and debate on global environmental issues.
• Earth.org is a voice, a lifeline, a place of sanity in a world of increasing chaos.
• Climate Change Resources enables a more educated and empowered army of climate change activists to take all of the critical steps necessary to rescue humanity’s future