Derek Ridgley, Nederland. The Biden Administration hosted a virtual climate summit with participants from 40 ‘major economy’ countries that together account for 80% of global GDP and greenhouse gas emissions. President Biden used the summit to unveil a new target that calls for cutting U.S. emissions 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030 (emissions data from 2005 is the baseline used for IPCC targets under the Paris Accords). In 2019, U.S. emissions were 13% below 2005 levels. Emissions last year were projected to be down 21% from that 2005 baseline, due in part to the impact of Covid. Climate Czar John Kerry and his globe trotting diplomats have been talking up U.S. leadership and encouraging other countries to decarbonize faster, only to discover a rude truth: America now suffers from a sizable trust deficit with the rest of the world. This is understandable, our commitment to reducing emissions reverses like a yo-yo with every shift in White House control. That cycle is unlikely to end soon, but perhaps the way we frame the issue is part of the problem. One way to dramatically slow the polarity pendulum is by changing the way climate policies are framed.

Economists and politicians who envision climate change as a free rider problem, in which the goal is preventing nations from taking advantage of one another, have dominated the framing of climate debates. If decarbonizing is equivalent to taxing your economy (which is true on a net basis), and if some nations are allowed to increase emissions while others are required to reduce them (which is true of the Paris Accords), then acting first is what Donald Trump likes to call ‘a suckers deal’ because other nations are benefitting from your sacrifices. The problem with the free rider framing is that it doesn’t actually influence the way other nations behave. When the U.S. exited the Paris Accords, other nations did not react by withdrawing as well. Instead, revulsion at Trump personally - and his climate views by proxy - strengthened political support for climate action in other countries.

Political scientists Michael Aklin and Matto Mildenberger argue that climate change is actually a distributive conflict problem. In this framing, climate policy must restructure the economy, inevitably creating economic winners and losers. This is familiar: the coal industry suffers; electric vehicle makers prosper. Politicians always seek to maintain the support of key constituencies, so climate policy effectively results from a societal negotiation between potential winners and potential losers, a fight between climate reformers and climate obstructionists. This construction elevates a simple truth: the real key to building a consistent climate policy is stitching together a coalition that is broad enough to support sustained decarbonization.

In an effort to side step the free rider construct, the Biden administration is pitching climate action as squarely in America’s strategic interest. Its infrastructure package seeks to develop green industries not out of a sense of global do-goodism but because America’s economic resilience and global competitiveness is at stake. There is data supporting this argument, starting with the fact that China dominates the $130 billion global PV market. As a result of massive subsidies from the government, roughly 80% of all solar panels are manufactured in China today. A similar picture applies in the wind power market, battery manufacturing, the mining of rare earth minerals and electric vehicle production. In each case, there is a compelling argument that an industrial policy supporting domestic green manufacturing is a strategic priority for America.

Which brings us back to coalition building. The GOP has made political hay for a decade criticizing the green policies of the Obama administration because so few GOP constituents benefitted from Solyndra and the failed biofuels companies who received federal loans and grants. Imagine if that paradigm were consciously reversed. Imagine new battery plants opening in Appalachia, solar PV fabs opening in Louisiana, and windmill makers opening shop in Texas - all courtesy of federal support that is explicitly linked to carbon reduction regulations. There is a reason the GOP vigorously defends ethanol blending requirements in every single farm bill - the corn lobby is hooked on federal subsidies.

Rural voters have been trained to believe that every regulatory encroachment on resource extraction and heavy industry is a zero sum proposition that takes jobs from their community and ships them outside the U.S.  Historically that perspective is pretty much on target, but the paradigm doesn’t have to be perpetuated. A more equitable distribution of green jobs, industrial subsidies, and social services targeted to offset the economic impact of carbon controls could turn rural obstructionists into reformers. Negotiating distributive conflicts is precisely what politics is designed to do. Earmarks have returned to budget bills. Let’s use them to pay for a larger decarbonizing coalition by earmarking more green jobs for red communities.

(Originally published in the May 6, 2021, edition of The Mountain-Ear.)