How should we assess the state of climate policy on Earth Day? Our sense is that while a carbon tax is facing political problems, climate policy is alive and kicking. The next steps are two-fold. Climate leaders should explore different policy instruments at local, state and federal levels; without getting hung up on the carbon tax. They must show a strong commitment to developing a bipartisan plan. Second, the climate movement needs to reframe its climate communication. Unfortunately, some perceive it as serving the elite concerns about a global problem. Climate policy must be re-framed to address local issues, especially of the poor and the working class.
The Notre Dame fire and backlash against the efforts to restore the cathedral reveal the challenges facing the climate movement. Recall that in December 2018, France erupted in protest against President Macrons’ proposal to impose a green levy on transportation fuel to address global warming. These “yellow vests” protests were dying down, but they are now back in an unexpected way. The tragic fire at the sacred and iconic Notre Dame Cathedral was supposed to bring France together. Several billionaires pledged substantial personal resources for its restoration. But these pledges have provoked Phase 2 of the yellow vests protests. For the protestors, these donations reveal that the ruling establishment is willing to spend on restoring monuments instead of helping the poor. The 21st-century French ruling class (which benefited from Macron’s corporate tax cuts) seems as dismissive of the masses as was Marie-Antoinette: they do not have bread, so give them a cathedral.
The populist anger at the carbon tax is not limited to France. In the recently concluded provincial elections, the Canadian province of Alberta elected the Conservative Party, whose top priority is to abolish the provincial carbon tax. In a run-up to Australian parliamentary elections, the pro-climate Labor party has promised not to introduce the carbon tax. And in the state of Washington, the carbon tax initiatives have suffered two successive defeats in 2016 and 2018.
Alberta’s anger against the carbon tax is misplaced. The Canadian government has enacted a federal carbon tax, which applies to provinces that do not have their own carbon tax. So, Alberta will have a carbon tax: either provincial or federal. But more importantly, Alberta’s economic woes are due to the stalled construction work on pipelines that would have moved oil from this landlocked province to the coasts. Alberta’s outgoing Premier, Rachel Notley, is a pipeline supporter, and so is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Indeed, Trudeau’s government even purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan, an American company. Yet, Alberta’s United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney was able to successfully portray the carbon tax as the reason for Alberta’s declining economy.
This raises an important issue of political communication: why are Albertans holding the carbon tax guilty of the crimes it did not commit? Perhaps the French anti-carbon tax story is being repeated in Alberta. The carbon tax has emerged as a symbol of climate elitism because it allows elites to pursue their global dreams while imposing local costs on the working class.
But, there is good news on the climate front. Take the case of Australia. Although the Labor party has disowned the carbon tax, it remains committed to robust climate policy. Even the pro-coal Liberal party (which ran on a platform of “axe the carbon tax” in 2013) has turned green. Its election manifesto includes a "Climate Solutions Package" which includes massive spending for renewable power and support for electric vehicles.
In the US, Republicans have finally outlined their visions for climate policy. Two types of proposals have emerged. First, the aristocrats of the Climate Leadership Council want a revenue-neutral carbon tax. This is supported by major fossil fuel firms such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP and also by technology giants such as Microsoft.
The second vision is for a massive government-funded R&D program: the New Manhattan Project. Initially floated by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), it is supported by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Given the policy paralysis at the federal level, much of the climate action in the US takes place at the state and city levels. Although the state of Washington has voted down a carbon tax twice, it is on the verge of enacting ambitious legislation for a carbon-free electricity grid. It will be joining the ranks of New Mexico, Hawaii, California, and Washington DC. Washington state is adopting a three-step process: Washington utilities must get rid of coal power by 2025, become 100 percent carbon-neutral by 2030, and self-generate 100 percent clean energy by 2045. The lesson is that the legislative route might be more appropriate for climate policymaking than the referendum route.
But perhaps the most surprising political development is the enactment of a gasoline tax. Since 2013, 27 states have raised gas taxes, including “Red” states such as Ohio (2019), Oklahoma (2018), and Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia (2017). How did they do so? The trick is not to frame it as a carbon tax to address global warming. Rather, it is a gas tax to serve local infrastructure needs. Lessons are twofold: solve local problems and do not call it climate policy.
In sum, the climate movement needs to pay attention to the messages from France and Alberta. It needs a better communications strategy that shows how climate action solves local problems of the common people. It should not get hung up on the carbon tax and go with a policy instrument that has political support.
