Checkpoint: Working-Class Climate Policy Matters More Than Carbon Targets
Climate change is here, and even its mildest stage is already amplifying natural disasters, damaging agriculture, and sowing cracks in our economic and political systems.
Decarbonisation now is a species level priority.
It is also set to affect the working class significantly more than anyone else, especially in areas of global and national poverty.
However, when advocates raise the alarm, they find only limited responses to dire warnings about the threats that are emerging in the coming decades.
This is in part because of stranded assets in established carbon-heavy industries like oil, steel and coal, as well as long-standing lobbying and PR campaigns by fossil fuel companies seeking to discredit predictions and pull focus.
Fortunately, beyond merely pulling ourselves out of a burning building, the economic arguments for green growth and industry are rock-solid. It is with this, that green politics should be mobilising. For as much as we would like to pretend people calmly evaluate long term ecological health, not being sure where next month’s rent money comes from tends to leave less room for such concerns. After all, the number one issue for 81% of American voters in the last election was the economy, with climate change unfortunately drifting behind at 37%. Climate policy needs to both clearly benefit American workers, and motivate them to come out politically.
Additionally, the GOP, make much hay when discussing how much climate plans cost and how they are disconnected from working people’s issues.
Senator Josh Hawley, in debates during his recent senate election, described an opponent’s ‘nutty’ decarbonisation plans in terms of money spent, job losses, rising taxes and dependency on China.
Of course, there was no public discussion by the Senator for Missouri on the threats faced by his constituents as the climate destabilises. The USDA notes that the southern agricultural state will face more droughts and flooding, disease pressure on crops, and changes to the growing season that will force massive reorganisation.
Hawley’s pro-fossil fuel position is even more ridiculous since Missouri has no oil refineries, produces less than 0.1% of US coal and already produces biofuels, an industry needed for the climate transition.
Yet by reorienting climate change as economic pressure on working Missourians, as opposed to one of danger or long-term health, Hawley frames himself as ‘pragmatic’, despite his position being anything but.
If such politicians’ arguments retain any political sway, not only will already-softened climate targets fail to be met in the coming years, but the lack of growth in today’s growth industries will further disillusion working-class Americans. Other arguments must be made often and loudly when it comes to climate policy.
To emphasize this further, in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri, only about 34% of respondents said climate change is being caused in whole or part by human activity . The Fossil Fuel lobby has successfully undermined public understanding of climate change and so to achieve decarbonisation, pivoting toward growth and affordability, is required.
The reality is that solid decarbonising climate policy will produce good union jobs, rebuild neglected infrastructure and thus renew faith in the social contract. These are strong points to champion, and while some politicians do so, more needs to be done to explain to Americans just how positive that direction is. It is a fact that the idea of the ‘just transition’ used by the UN in its climate advocacy, has its origins within US labour unions, who have been key (if fractious) players in advocating for their communities’ social and economic interests through the green transition.
In 2023, thanks in part to the Inflation Reduction Act, the green energy sector provided a major economic bright spot. Even better for mobilisation is that green energy jobs had higher rates of unionisation, 13% more than in the fossil fuel sector in fact. Not only were green energy jobs being created at twice the general rate (4.2% vs 2.0%) but growth rates in Idaho and Texas were particularly high (7.7% and 6.0% job growth respectively). Energy construction had double the job growth compared to the entire construction sector (4.5% vs 2.3%).). This is only touching on substantial job growth in other areas such as energy efficiency jobs as well.
Given the US has seen particularly poor job growth under Trump, it should be obvious that inspiring green workers and hammering the GOP on how the president is sabotaging their economic futures could be a great and truthful message. This is especially true since President Trump’s attempts to hobble the sector have only had limited effects, with investment funds continuing to raise billions of dollars at a time.
The benefits of a worker-first environmental policy can be further amplified by the fact that AI has led to soaring energy demands and renewable power generation is both cheaper and faster to set up. As the AI industry seeks to eliminate jobs, finding a way to turn that into job growth for average Americans is vital.
The clean energy transition has already begun, and the race is on to see which countries can politically and economically mobilize to adapt fastest. History is full of stories of those nations whose rapid investment led to comparative advantage, thus gaining knowledge and capturing market share more quickly.
If advocates and politicians framed their major green infrastructure as empowering working-class Americans in terms of growth, innovation and ‘Land of Opportunity’ narratives, how could the GOP even respond?
At best they would be forced to either try to undermine a positive pro-worker economic message or argue for the maintenance of an increasingly distrusted status quo.
I can see neither of these being election winners.
