Stop looking to the extremes for climate policy

When he took office, President Biden promised that the U.S. was back at the table when it came to tackling climate change. He made climate a cornerstone of his campaign against former President Trump, and kicked off his presidency by nixing the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. In many ways, his vocalness on the issue was in direct response to the burgeoning progressive, youth-led climate movement, led by groups such as the Sunrise Movement.

Eighteen months later, however, and his early climate cheerleaders are aggressively turning their backs on him. Biden’s signature climate package — Build Back Better — is dead in Congress, the administration has restarted off- and onshore oil and gas leases, while he has publicly asked fossil fuel companies to increase drilling. Progressive environmental groups have been vocal about their disappointment, sometimes for completely unreasonable reasons, such as Biden seeking to increase domestic fossil fuel production to bring down energy prices.

At the same time, Biden has seriously alienated conservatives and many independents. After halting Keystone, his administration temporarily paused offshore oil and gas leases and repeatedly urged investors to divest from fossil fuel projects. With voters experiencing sky-high gas prices and historic inflation, it’s no wonder that Republicans are likely to sweep to victory during the midterms in November.

It is clear that any climate policy catering to the progressive climate movement will never be enough, short of a Green New Deal. Politically, Biden wasn’t even able to convince enough people in his own party that spending trillions on climate and other provisions was a good idea, let alone attract bipartisan support. Now, he’s in the unenviable position of having angered both his own supporters on the far-left and the moderates on both sides that so often swing elections.

The American people do not want a false choice between alarmism and denial when it comes to climate change. While denial on the conservative side of the aisle appears to be  rapidly drifting into political irrelevance, it seems that much of the left is still in the clutches of hyperbolic climate alarmism. It’s crucial that we reject both and instead look to solutions that actually address the core challenges of climate change.

Given this situation, it’s reasonable to conclude that our climate debate is broken. Higher inflation and rising energy prices are unacceptable costs to everyday consumers, while the far-left’s policies would only exacerbate these problems. Instead of catering to fringe groups, our political leaders would do well to meet the American people where they actually are. We are in dire need of a new, pragmatic approach to climate change that doesn’t sacrifice our security and economy, but creates jobs, strengthens energy independence and makes America more — not less — competitive on the global stage. A clean future doesn’t have to be a poor future.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created a new dimension in climate politics: U.S. energy production and national security are two sides of the same coin. While progressives have pursued aggressive anti-fossil fuel policies, sensible people understand that domestic energy production is superior to relying on a country like Russia. Clean energy has a crucial role to play in this. While we need more oil and gas in the short-term to mitigate prices, we need to diversify our energy sources and invest in renewable energy, nuclear energy and electric vehicles for the long run. Unfortunately, many of those supply chains are currently controlled by China, emphasizing the importance of reshoring industry, streamlining regulation to support domestic infrastructure buildout and creating good American jobs at home.

We also need policies that attract bipartisan support, rather than further divide us. Polling from my organization, the American Conservation Coalition, shows that pragmatic ideas such as planting trees and restoring ecosystems are not only the most popular climate policies among voters, but they also stand a chance in Congress. From the Trillion Trees Act to the Growing Climate Solutions Act, politicians of both parties have rallied behind so-called “natural climate solutions” that suck carbon out of the air at very minimal cost.

Two of Biden’s most sensible steps on climate — his embrace of nuclear energy and his realization that domestic critical mineral supply chains are crucial to a clean energy future — also actually enjoy wide bipartisan support in Congress. In fact, conservatives have argued in favor of both for years.

Finally, we need to bring climate change back down to earth. The aforementioned polling shows that Americans care first and foremost about the environmental issues that impact their daily lives, such as clean air and water. Rather than engaging in abstract debates about emissions and climate modeling, we should communicate how our policies will lead to cleaner, healthier lives for all Americans. They are unconvinced by alarmist rhetoric, but rally behind positive, forward-looking ideas that balance maintaining their livelihoods with reducing emissions.

Any sensible, realistic, long-term climate policy must include all of the above elements. We can no longer afford to cater to progressive pipe dreams — but need to approach this issue with common sense and pragmatism. That’s what the American people want, and that’s the only way we’ll ever actually tackle climate change.

Christopher Barnard is the national policy director at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC). Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisBarnardDL