In this column distributed by the Elon University Writers Syndicate, Professor of Biology and T.E. Powell Professor Jr., Dave Gammon discusses the politics of climate change on the heels of recent action by the EPA. This column was published in The Daily Reflector, The Times News, The Daily Advance and the Rocky Mount Telegram.
One-sided politics too often poisons the air we breathe as we think about climate change. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding the recent decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding established in 2009.
Climate regulation might lose its teeth due to the EPA’s decision, but politically viable climate solutions remain possible.
Many Democrats see climate change as an existential threat. To them, the recent actions of the EPA confirm their pre-existing belief that Republicans actively deny science, and that under Team Trump the United States is powerless to fight climate change.
Meanwhile, many Republicans are yawning over breakfast. The day after the endangerment finding was repealed, the top headlines at foxnews.com described various criminal investigations, gerrymandering by Democrats, and a tantalizing story about a NASCAR driver. The EPA story was nowhere to be found.
Lawyers on both sides are steeling themselves for a bitter fight over the science behind the endangerment finding. Lawyers who chant “We Love Trump” are correct that CO2 is not a local pollutant and that breathing it in does not endanger anyone. Lawyers who chant “We Hate Trump” are nevertheless correct that climate change has negative effects on the health of Americans, which means CO2 can be considered a global pollutant.
It remains unclear who will win the legal fight, but to some extent these legal battles are a sideshow. What we really need in our toxic political environment is for partisans to learn from each other.
Republicans need to question their assumption that climate change is a trivial issue. President Donald Trump is correct that climate regulations sometimes present infuriating problems for business, and he is amazing at controlling the media narrative. But Trump is also an old man who will become irrelevant within just a few years. Just like the nation’s debt, climate change is an ongoing problem, and forward-thinking Republicans cannot dodge the issue forever.
If Democrats stopped treating Republicans as enemies, then conservatives might care more about the climate concerns of liberals. The underlying data on global emissions strongly suggest that climate-related problems will intensify for the foreseeable future, as they have been for the last several years. Younger Republicans know this, and they take the issue much more seriously than their elder colleagues.
Just as the Democratic Party became less relevant by ignoring border problems, the Republican Party will become less relevant if they continue to ignore the importance of climate solutions. In the long run, anyone who agrees with Trump that burning lots of fossil fuels is our best long-term strategy will likely become ostracized in global, business, and even political circles.
Democrats need to question their assumption that the loss of EPA climate regulation means all is lost. The U.S. accounts for just one eighth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Our contribution is not trivial, but the world does not depend exclusively on the US to fix climate problems. Furthermore, total U.S. emissions have undergone a long-term reduction since 2007, including under Trump’s first term.
Even under Trump 2.0, most U.S. businesses continue to value the importance of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of the planet is also onboard. Just last year, for example, China added over 400 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity – roughly enough to power the entire East Coast.
Democrats also need to learn that Republicans are motivated primarily by their loathing of government regulation, not by their hatred of science.
A more productive strategy for climate-motivated Democrats would be to seek climate solutions that rely on markets rather than regulation and minimize the role of the federal government. For example, most economists agree that putting a price on carbon emissions would be less disruptive than regulation from a business perspective, and more effective at reducing greenhouse gases. Market-based solutions have already played a major role within the US in reducing leaded gasoline and acid rain.
Ultimately, EPA regulation is just one of many tools that belongs in a modern environmental toolkit. In a divided society, the most sustainable climate solutions will be tolerable to both Democrats and Republicans.