Webinar Participants Chart Course of Climate Action in the Wake of the Pandemic
Yesterday, ConservAmerica President Jeff Kupfer hosted an online discussion on the future of climate change and environmental policy post-pandemic. The event featured Dan Esty, a professor of environmental policy and law at Yale and an author and editor of numerous books and articles on sustainability and environmental issues, and Dave Banks, chief Republican strategist on the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
The Need for a Broad Consensus, Especially After the Pandemic
After introductions, Professor Esty kicked off the discussion by describing the philosophy behind his recent book, A Better Planet: Forty Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future, a collection of essays focused on moving toward sustainability through actionable, bipartisan approaches based on rigorous analytical research.
"If we can step back from the partisanship that often seems to dominate the world of Washington, there are actually quite a number of ideas that I think people might agree on," he explained, "and it could provide some foundations for building not just a climate change policy…but frankly, a broader commitment to sustainability and an environmentally secure future."
Professor Esty acknowledged that the public’s priorities are always changing that and that the current crisis will obviously dominate the attention of policymakers in the near future. But that is precisely why it is necessary to develop climate solutions that are capable of gaining not just majority support, but what he calls a "70 percent solution."
If our policies are to gain the necessary buy-in from the public over the long term, they need to be so commonsense and intuitive that they will outlast short-term disruptions like the pandemic. The best way, he explained, is to avoid the top-down government mandates leveraged in the 20th Century and instead utilize public-private partnerships and greater economic incentives that are implemented incrementally over time.
The False Choices of the Past
Banks keyed in on those top-down mandates and the lost opportunities, noting that, "A lot of people forget that the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations were actually primarily responsible for developing U.S. international climate and environmental policy for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and Montreal Protocol."
In contrast, he believes the Kyoto Protocol was poorly negotiated by the Clinton Administration, resulting in the partisan polarization that followed. It became a litmus test, he claimed—you either support Kyoto, or you don't care about the climate.
"I think that false choice helped create this dynamic today between the GOP and the environmental community and the Democratic Party in general."
As a result, climate policy moved forward and Republicans didn't have much input into the strategy, which only widened the divisions.
"[The Democrats] borrowed from the Europeans, who are notorious for coming up with climate policies that don't really work and that aren't that effective," he said. "So, it came down to another false choice for Republicans—that if you somehow accept the problem, you're somehow stuck with Democratic solutions, and that's just not true."
He stressed that conservatives need to be able to counter policies they oppose with effective alternatives and was cautiously optimistic that practical solutions could be enacted if President Trump is re-elected.
"If you can convince the President that there's a climate strategy that actually gives the U.S. a competitive advantage, particularly as it pertains to China and global markets, I think there's a good chance that he's game."
A Global Problem Requires Global Innovation
The conversation then shifted toward action in other countries. Banks stressed that global emissions will continue to rise unless we find a way to deal with developing countries' increasing carbon output. He asserted that any solution deployed domestically needs to be deployed worldwide.
"Unilateral policies here, even in coordination with Europe…is not going to really be effective if those policies are not trying to leverage whatever market power we have to reduce global emissions. And in order to reduce global emissions, we have to have innovation," he said.
Innovation has to be directed toward not only solutions here in America, but even more importantly, in places like India.
Professor Esty agreed that past efforts to move forward without commitments to reduce emissions from developing countries was a critical mistake. He also affirmed that climate policy needs to be set in a greater economic context and should take the competitiveness burden between countries seriously. He is intrigued by the possibilities raised by William Nordhaus's incentive-based "Climate Club" approach, which would compel member countries to agree on a price for domestic carbon and tax imported goods from non-member countries.
"I think we need to fundamentally reorient environmental law and policy broadly," the professor explained, "creating incentives for innovation, and frankly beyond that, not just innovation in technology, but innovation in finance, public engagement, incentive structures."
Banks said there was general bipartisan agreement around innovation and the importance of the government's role in research and development. But he also balked at accusations that innovation shouldn't be used to make fossil fuels more efficient because it will merely prolong their use.
Affordable Solutions, Fiscal Responsibility Key
Professor Esty noted that there was bipartisan agreement on pursuing carbon capture and sequestration. He said it was important to "give a down ramp for past choices." He added that the economic gains should be shared with the communities hurt by decarbonization, what he referred to as "the West Virginia problem." Banks concurred, pointing out that household energy costs account for a much more significant proportion of lower-income Americans' budgets, especially in rural areas.
"The wrong carbon pricing scheme, like the current carbon tax proposals that we see, in our opinion could actually deter investment and lead to an increase in global emissions," said Banks. "What we're seeing is zero interest in a carbon tax on our side as a GOP position."
Professor Esty suggested, however, there could be an opportunity in the wake of COVID-19 to implement a slowly rising carbon charge as one of the least painful ways to come to grips with the enormous spending and debt caused by the pandemic.
A Shared, Different Agenda on Climate
Finally, the pair debated the possibilities of a "green stimulus" to rebuild the economy. Banks maintained there are some proposals that simply won't fly, such as any version of the Green New Deal. He emphasized that polling consistently shows that voters want real solutions to the economic crisis and will punish politicians who exploit it for ideological objectives. He claimed Speaker Nancy Pelosi understands, which is why green provisions were left out of the Democrats' most recent stimulus proposal.
But he said Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy remains committed to rolling out the GOP climate proposals they had begun unveiling in January and February surrounding the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture. These include the Trillion Trees Act and other initiatives on innovation and regulatory reform. He said it might not happen until the fall, but that the Leader remains behind the general vision
Professor Esty hoped for some common ground to be found in possible future stimulus packages on infrastructure, including smart grids. He suggested that, in order to attract Republicans, any green stimulus ideas should be focused on the private sector, recalling the effectiveness of setting up a "green bank" when he was a commissioner in Connecticut.
Banks suggested that one impact of the pandemic on any kind of green stimulus would be how it pertains to supply chain security, making sure that whatever is done on climate change does not worsen the U.S. trade positioning or undermine standards. Professor Esty added that this is an advantage of the Climate Club model, that we want to work with countries that share the same values.
Moving forward, both men agreed that practical solutions are possible but will necessitate leaving the past behind.
"I do think the key to policy progress here is getting people onto a new agenda, not being stuck in their bunkers with the same agenda people have had," stated Professor Esty in his concluding remarks.
"We know there is not sufficient overlap of interests that the Republicans are going to come to the Democrats' agenda or the Democrats are going to come to the Republican agenda, so I think the easier thing by far is to move people toward a new agenda that is a shared, different agenda."