How to get clean

The holiday weekend in America got off to an unhappy bang late last week with the Supreme Court putting forward yet another regressive ruling, this time limiting what the White House can do on climate change via the Environmental Protection Agency. Like the reversal of Roe, this is a ruling where the Court is completely out of step with the general public, which is increasingly worried about climate change.

I spoke last week to politicos Stan Greenberg (in Washington) and Nick Butler (in the UK) about the topic. They have put together a polling project to survey attitudes towards climate on both sides of the Atlantic in the midst of a slowing economy and rising inflation. What’s interesting is that in the four countries they surveyed (the US, France, Germany and the UK), the population is becoming more concerned, rather than less, in part because climate has now moved from the realm of environmentalism into the realm of national security in the wake of the war in Ukraine.

Climate has now become the hottest political priority in Germany, and is among the top three to four issues in the other three countries. Both sides of the political spectrum now want action, with much more support in the political centre, as well as among rightwing Republicans, Alternative for Germany and Le Pen supporters. “There’s been a major shift,” notes Butler, “particularly around the idea of industrial policy that supports a transition to clean energy.” Indeed, the idea of government subsidies for green now vies with agricultural subsidies in Europe and oil and gas in the US as the industry that the population would most like to see supported by the public sector.

That, of course, goes to the differences between each side of the Atlantic when it comes to climate. For Europeans, it’s a more urgent short-term matter to shift away from fossil fuels because of the threat of Vladimir Putin and a long, cold winter. But Europeans also see the shift as part of a larger, bigger push towards environmentalism, whereas Americans — who are new to supporting the transition — seem more galvanised by security and inflation (as Greenberg says “fossil fuels are now perceived as a cost centre” and a contributor to dismal kitchen table economics).

The obvious silver bullet here would be a shared transatlantic price on carbon. But Greenberg insists this would be the quickest way to lose American support for the transition to clean energy. We are simply too accustomed to cheap, subsidised fossil fuels to want to pay for clean energy with a carbon tax. Instead, Greenberg believes the public would go for a windfall tax on oil and energy companies (which are perceived as price gouging) to fund the transition. Europeans, on the other hand, are already starting to price in the cost of carbon industry by industry, little by little. Butler believes, for example, that the UK may move to a bigger congestion tax from which electric vehicles would be exempt.

Greenberg, who understands well how the left lost working class Americans over the last two decades (in part to a perception that too many policy decisions were being taken out of state control), believes that the shift to clean energy has to be done on a country by country basis. But I just can’t stop thinking about how a shared US-EU price on carbon would be the best way to not only move quickly to combat global warming, but also to immediately knock out Chinese mercantilism (which would be unsustainable if you tally the real ESG cost of cheap goods). That would be a big political win for working people in the US on both sides of the aisle. Gideon, would you agree with this, and if so, do you see any interesting political levers that could be pulled to bring the US and EU closer together on climate policy and energy security?

 Recommended Reading

•  I think David Frum is spot on about the overturning of Roe vs Wade being like the Prohibition ruling — it won’t stick, and it will hurt the winning side more and more, as all the ramifications (both human and legal) become clear.

• This piece in the Boston Globe asks some important questions about whether America’s top schools are teaching the right values. I find myself wondering this frequently.

• It is just stunning to me that the exodus of wealthy New Yorkers from the city during the pandemic cost NYC $21bn, according to this NYT piece. I feel like people who bailed should have to pay a tax to come back now that things are popping again (well, not really, but you get my feeling).

• NYT’s Tressie McMillan Cottom explored the ramifications of the reversal of Roe for the labour market, a topic that I tackle from a different angle in my column today.

Gideon Rachman responds

Well, climate change was very much in evidence in Finland over the weekend. At 8am on Saturday, I met up in the lobby of our hotel with Kersti Kaljulaid, the former president of Estonia, who I was interviewing for my podcast. Since the sun was already high in the sky and the temperature close to thirty 30C, we agreed to do the interview outside (you may hear the odd squawking bird on the tape; the episode is out next Thursday). Kersti remarked that the weather was beautiful, but also disconcerting. It simply shouldn’t be this hot.

She added that there are some dim-witted Nordics who think that they will benefit from climate change — since they will suddenly find themselves living in a temperate zone. But in general, Scandinavia is actually a hotbed of climate activism. It is not (entirely) an accident that Greta Thunberg hails from Sweden.

That brings me to the point you raised about public opinion on climate. I think that, in general, public and mainstream political opinion in Europe is more accepting of the need for climate action. And, of course, petrol (gas) is much cheaper in the US than in Europe — it’s roughly 50 per cent more expensive to fill up your car in France or the UK, compared to the US.

But that’s not to say that Europeans will necessarily accept climate-driven increases in fuel prices. In fact, the whole gilets jaunes protest movement in France was set off by just such a move.

As for your suggestion that Europeans and Americans could unite around the idea of putting up climate-based trade barriers to China (I paraphrase) — well, maybe. As you point out, there will be a real problem agreeing on a transatlantic price and therefore co-ordination. On the other hand, the EU is currently fairly well advanced in its consideration of a carbon-border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) — a fancy name for a tariff barrier, linked to climate policy (or lack of it) elsewhere. But I know that parts of European industry are very unhappy about it, because they think that it will involve loading climate-adjustment costs on to European manufacturers, which will then make them globally uncompetitive. So the CBAM is a long way from being a done deal. Meanwhile, I must check the weather forecast for the Arctic Circle.

Your feedback

And now a word from our Swampians . . .

In response to ‘The west is failing to quarantine Russia’:
“The rest of the world sees a US faltering internally on its own rules-based republic and therefore not having a moral leg on which to stand. Some may even say it is broken. Are we, the US, now just projecting our military might as a weakened republic as Russia is as a far more weakened society? (This is the Eisenhower military industrial complex take.) On a personal level, as an American I am saddened and alarmed by the crumbling republic (waning legitimacy of all branches of government and no accountability for people thwarting peaceful transfer of power).

I have also donated to help innocent Ukrainians as I have for Afghans. I have no love for Putin but want my country to show more humility as it gallivants forth and explain better Ukraine’s exalted place above other locations of human oppression, one of which the US exited last year. I too admire the valiant Ukrainians. Yet, in our inclusive sensitive world, one wonders if the extra interest in Ukraine is a preference for their heritage versus that of other oppressed people.” — PJ, Fairfax, Virginia