Was it really just a month ago that the “Access Hollywood” tape was sending the Trump candidacy into its death throes, the Republican Party was melting down, and the first-ever Congressional debate over carbon taxing seemed in store for 2017?
It sure looked like it, as I wrote in this space on October 9:
Democratic control of both the White House and Congress clears a path for a federal carbon tax without having to somehow vault over GOP denialists. Which could make next month’s ballot referendum in Washington state, Initiative 732, even more momentous. Enacting the country’s first carbon tax wouldn’t just produce a template for other states; it could spark national legislation establishing a U.S. tax on carbon emissions, perhaps as early as 2017.
Sad to say, I-732 went down to defeat Tuesday, resoundingly, 59% to 41% (those figures, updated Nov 11, supersede the 58-42 Election Night result). But that loss is but a charred matchstick in the burnt landscape we awoke to Wednesday morning: a Trump presidency, a continued GOP lock on Congress, and a hard-right Supreme Court.
Where do climate campaigners, and carbon tax proponents in particular, go from here? As I search for answers, I’m bearing these points in mind:
1. Solar, efficiency and wind will keep advancing — Yes, R&D will be cut, maybe also tax credits for wind turbines and solar PV. And some states’ rules and regulations affecting siting and financial treatment for renewables and efficiency could turn for the worse. But clean energy’s rapid growth isn’t going to stop. Tech progress, plummeting costs, and the advent of business models to handle logistics and financing remain powerful forces. As clean energy spreads, so will the constituency for aggressive climate policy — perhaps even carbon taxes, a possible scenario laid out last year by David Roberts of Vox (he called it “strategic sequencing of climate policies”) that is especially pertinent today.
Polling stumbled this week, but these results are still striking.
2. Americans may be less averse to carbon taxes than you think — It’s a shame I-732 didn’t win, not least because the heroic activists at Carbon Washington worked their butts off for it. But let’s not write off carbon taxing. The defeat of the Washington referendum owes a lot to the unfortunate split within the green movement. Carbon taxes that prioritize equity and protect low and moderate-income families can be politically popular, as suggested by a 2015 poll by Stanford and Resources for the Future — the only national polling to date of explicitly revenue-neutral carbon taxing.
3. The Clean Power Plan is in the rear-view mirror — Don’t fret too long over the likely dismantling of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. Events have largely overtaken it, with U.S. coal-fired power generation cut in half in just a decade. Calculations we’re finalizing at the Carbon Tax Center will show that by year’s end the U.S. electricity sector will have already made nearly all of the carbon reductions the CPP demanded for it by 2030. And while much of that progress was sparked by EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule that helped precipitate coal plant shutdowns, Americans’ long-standing support for clean air will make it hard for even a President Trump to dial back those standards.
Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nevada, aerial photo by Benjamin Grant, courtesy NY Times. Solar farms and rooftops will keep sprouting despite Trump.
4. The Law of Reaction (“Pride Goeth Before a Fall”) — We’ve seen it time and again: over-reaching that precedes a disastrous stumble: A nuclear industry spokesman publicly inviting a prominent TV news anchor to “come see the safety features at our new flagship reactor at Three Mile Island,” just before the infamous meltdown in 1979. The bombshell that seismic attenuators were installed backwards at one of the Diablo Canyon reactors just as the new Reagan administration was rushing to water down atomic safety regs in 1981. This syndrome isn’t mere coincidence; the media crave counter-narratives. With the Republican Party now “owning” climate change, extreme weather will give us many opportunities to put them on the defensive.
5. Uniting Our Movement — The split in the green movement over I-732 laid bare genuine divisions among climate activists, over leadership and inclusion as well as policy. We can use the new enforced policy hiatus to get better at listening to each other. Carbon tax advocates, myself included, need to commit to sharing and even ceding leadership to more diverse voices. We can also do better at conveying why we place carbon taxes at the center of climate policy, and why we believe they are the best policy complement to divestment and keep-it-in-the-ground campaigns.
Am I “whistling past the graveyard” here? I don’t know, frankly. Trump’s victory is traumatic, and it’s really hard to face the future. But face it we must and will. There’s too much at stake. Fighting for a livable planet and a humane society is what I’ve done my whole life. I’m not stopping now, and I know neither are you.
vicsar says
This sounds like the beginning of many post apocalyptic novels I have read… Is that really where we are headed? I guess only if we stay quiet.
“It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Nathan Stiritch says
I agree that we can’t stay quiet, but we also can’t do what I believe was done during the George W. Bush years, which was trying to persuade on the science. Most deniers will never accept the science if the don’t already. We need a group that starts from the premise of economic and strategic national security benefits (oh yeah, green energy help the environment too…) or otherwise, denier politicians and their voting base will simply stop listening. And now they control all branches of government…sigh. But maybe deniers can buy into solar when arguments to expand its use are bolstered by the facts that the military and NASA are using solar power. Maybe those who fear “radical Islam,” or whatever the catch phrase is for selling Fear, will pay attention to a message urging the adoption of renewal resources in order to avoid vulnerability to ISIS hitting our supply lines to fossil fuels in either the Middle East, on the seas, or in Canada (God forbid that any of these actually happen…).
Much respect to T.R., but failure cannot be an option!
If there’s something we can learn from Despicable Don, it’s that he changed the conversation and expanded his map (i.e., electorate). Environmentalists NEED to do the same.
Maribel Andonian says
Agreed! We must do a better job of communicating and tailor the message to the audience. Failure to communicate was why I-732 failed, squabbling among Greens notwithstanding.
Anthony Ed says
There ya go… that name calling will put them in their place! Try education your liberal side on how to communicate and take a listen to Jonathan Pie on FB (President Trump. How and Why? Then respond when you learn something!
BARBARA WILSON says
Electoral College Petition
BARBARA WILSON says
Dear CCL Members,
This is a constitutional remedy. We can try to salvage this horrendous situation. Please, if you in good conscience can sign and circulate do.
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=8634411&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
With respect for all you do,
Barbara Wilson
Marin Chapter CCL
sp_NewPost Add Replysp_NewTopic Add Topic
Nathan Stiritch says
I think the best way to “sell” saving our planet going forward is to speak in blue collar language. By that, I mean that we need to better detail the story of how a green economy creates jobs. We need to detail the story of how China, Germany, and so many other countries have surpassed the U.S. in moving to renewable energy that–as a matter of national security–the country becomes more vulnerable to powers that can impact the price/availability of fossil fuels (Russia & ISIS). These are simply a couple of ideas off the top of my head, but environmentalists HAVE to find a way to sell saving the planet to the deniers!
Jan says
Google “Let’s talk climate “
Meta McLaughlin says
I don’t believe that the election of Donald Trump and other GOP members of congress (naysayers that they are) is any worse situation than anyone else who will probably be elected only to have their hands tied (most times willingly) by lobbyists. It is our job, as activists and folks who care about our environment to enlighten those in our communities who aren’t interested in the movement and cause them to care and participate. It is only through small community movement at the beginning that change at the local then the state level can we get things accomplished.
Nathan Stiritch says
I agree with much of what you say, Meta. And that is another reason we need to #GetMoneyOut of polictics, whether by amending the federal Constitution or by going on the state level to amend the definition of a “company” or “corporation” to make clear that they are not “people” entitled to the same First Amendment protections as natural people (which was true before Citizens United) and they are not empowered by the state statutes creating them to use money as “speech.”.
Kirk Winters says
A carbon tax is our best hope against climate change. Polls suggest that most Americans support such a tax. But it’s politically impossible — climate change deniers would never support it.
Or so I thought.
I recently had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance at the gym. He’s a self-described conservative Republican. He and I have discussed various issues the past 2 years. I’ve made it clear that climate change is my #1 concern. He has said repeatedly that climate change is a hoax and he has cited multiple sources supporting his view.
I said we need a revenue-neutral carbon tax. I also said…
– such a tax is supported by most economists and many Republicans.
– it could allow us to reduce income taxes and thereby increase take home earnings for workers.
– it would encourage consumers to conserve energy.
– it would spur energy producers to innovate.
– it would strengthen our energy industry, create jobs, and establish the U.S. as a world leader and exporter of sustainable energy solutions.
Nothing wrong with that, he said. In fact, he said, I like it!
As we talked about it, he grew more supportive. This is right in line with conservative Republican principles, he said. Get government out of the way; let markets decide.
I was floored. A die-hard climate change denier supports a carbon tax?
Imagine if deniers and believers could set aside the issue of whether global warming is happening and to what extent humans are causing it. Imagine if deniers and believers could agree on taxing carbon while reducing income taxes — and eliminating government subsidies for all energy, including fossil fuels.
Do you think any Republican leaders might be open to such an approach?
Kirk Winters
Arlington, VA
NOTE: I sent this message a year ago to my representatives in the House and Senate, and to the White House.
ed phillips says
This is essentially George Schultz’s position. He was Secretary of State under Reagan.
Kirk Winters says
And I meant to say also:
THANK YOU, CHARLES, for not giving up!
Kirk
Drew Keeling says
The experience with I-732 indicates that some of the traditional mainstream “Green” organizations have become actually less green than they present themselves to be. This week’s election has produced a range of wake-up calls to the political establishment on raft of issues, and that one is certainly not the most immediately critical but should also not be left unattended in the pending box either. And listening to diverse voices should not be an excuse for perpetuating policies and “advocacy” positions that are mainly pro-environment in name but not substance. The revenue reimbursed carbon tax works in British Columbia, and could still work in neighboring Washington state too. The 42% who supported it can consider themselves on the side of the future, not the past, rethink the structural details, and try again in future elections. And other states can be encouraged to also look more closely at such common sense approaches. Thanks to carbontax.org for its coverage.
Lorna Salzman says
Ten years ago I proposed to environmental groups and activists that they unite behind a short but tough energy policy campaign: end energy subsidies; impose mandatory energy efficiency standards and measures; impose a carbon tax (or “fee and dividend”. I got no response from anyone. Since then progressives and the left, while conceding the growing threat of climate change, has refused to move off the dime of social justice and continues to sideline energy and environmental policies. Ideology has moved environment to the back burner, just as blaming American workers for being racist and xenophobic has sidelined the genuine sorry plight of workers and communities. One has to wonder whether these are deliberate attempts to deny the role of consumerism and economic growth in both climate change and trade policy. There’s a big opportunity here for some sane valid analysis and critiques of capitalism and American overconsumption (due in large part to the underpricing of energy of course). We need to refocus our paranoia about Trump into an environmentally based movement that abandons the notion of re-jiggering human behavior in favor of re-jiggering national and international policies. And we need to make it clear that social justice will never be achieved on the backs of the earth’s natural systems and creatures. Nature Comes First. That must be our battle cry…..in the last battle.
David Collins says
I appreciate the unfortunately-unusual Komanoff insight, manifested particularly well in this essay. Such a relief to be able to find anything; the latest Dot∙Earth entry is a sad example of the watery soup now being served up in the environmental soup kitchens.
My thanks also to the commenters here. Lorna Salzman, your analysis is right on target… and inspirational.
Jesse says
Go vegetarian and start making a difference right away. There’s no time like the present.
Vincent Pawlowski says
In the long game of climate policy, what is the possibility that other countries would add border adjustments aimed at the US to their NDC solutions if we renege on ours? Does China have plans for border adjustments?