We can't ask these communities to trade one crisis for another. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia can show us the way forward.
In the past five years, we’ve experienced record temperatures, hurricanes, fires, floods, droughts, coastal erosion and escalating extinction threats to wildlife. How we respond to these cascading climate impacts will define our nation’s public health, public safety and economy for generations.
While the scientific consensus calls for dramatically reducing emissions in the next decade, bipartisan federal climate solutions have remained as elusive as the impacts are pervasive. We simply have no choice but make meaningful progress in Congress during this era of divided government. We need durable, climate solutions that work for all Americans.
This month, the Republican chair and the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, held the first Senate hearing in seven years that focused on climate solutions. This was significant and not just for the time lapse. These two senators represent states with economies that are heavily dependent on fossil fuel production and facing high unemployment. Yet both called for urgent action on climate, even as they also rightfully and eloquently highlighted how climate impacts and transition costs are borne disproportionately by rural, minority and historically disadvantaged communities.
Green New Deal lends itself to mockery. But what's your climate change solution?
Kasich: Forget Green New Deal. We need solutions from free-market moderates.
Market mechanisms such as carbon pricing would absolutely accelerate the overall transition to cleaner sources of energy. But they would have very different effects in different parts of the nation, and too often these disproportional impacts on vulnerable communities and industries are an afterthought in policy discussions. We can neither ask nor expect these communities to trade one crisis for another.
Fossil-fuel intensive states and those with manufacturing and industrial facilities will face greater economic costs and transition impacts than more urban communities powered by lower-carbon sources of energy. Unless intentional, proactive steps are taken, the former will see increased near-term energy prices, even greater unemployment and limited opportunities for revitalization.
This is especially true in the communities that helped power the American Century through the production of coal. Workers there face some of the nation’s highest rates of unemployment, after decades of broken promises of better wages, pensions and health care.
Any climate solution should ensure that vulnerable communities and affected workers are first in line to work on emission-reduction projects, rebuilding America’s infrastructure, reclaiming degraded sites, decommissioning shuttered facilities, and manufacturing and deploying clean energy technologies — and ensuring that such jobs pay a family-sustaining wage.
To address regional disparities, we must drive significant revitalization investments into fossil-heavy communities. One approach would be to adopt technology-agnostic clean energy incentives that reward the amount of carbon reduced. This would accelerate deep early reductions by encouraging innovation and investment in the most affected areas. Location matters — an investment in West Virginia or Wyoming will reduce three to four times more emissions per megawatt hour than a comparable investment in California or New York. This initial approach would create a more level playing field and increase the likelihood of future bipartisan action.
A second area ripe for bipartisan cooperation is energy efficiency, especially in industrial facilities, commercial buildings, schools, hospitals and across the fossil-fuel sector and electrical grid. Energy efficiency remains the greatest opportunity for immediate emission reductions and supports well-paying jobs in every community that cannot be outsourced. Just like water infrastructure, we should accelerate energy-efficiency investments through revolving funds that are paid back with the cost savings.
Third, investments in natural infrastructure enjoy broad bipartisan support because they make communities and local economies more resilient to extreme weather, while also sequestering carbon naturally. Natural solutions include reforestation and improved forest management; sustainable agricultural practices; and the restoration of wetlands, grasslands and other essential landscapes and habitat. Those communities on the front lines should receive early investment.
Fourth, as transportation emissions eclipse those from power plants, we must strengthen fuel economy standards, electrify passenger and midsize vehicles, transition to sustainable, advanced biofuels for heavy-duty vehicles and airplanes, and expand public transit and trail systems.
Conventional wisdom is that nothing meaningful on climate can get done in Washington. While it may be unlikely that this Congress will pass comprehensive climate legislation, significant progress is possible by embedding climate solutions into policy priorities, such as rebuilding America’s infrastructure.
Sens. Murkowski and Manchin have shown they may be the perfect pair to forge a pragmatic path forward that leaves no communities behind.