April 10, 2024 - 7:00pm
Early in tenure at the White House, Joe Biden bet that he could use climate policy to shore up his presidential coalition. While indulging the social justice politics of college-educated elites, a “green” economic agenda could also be a form of industrial policy that would win over working-class communities.
But things might not have gone according to the West Wing’s hopes. As a new report out in the Wall Street Journal shows, Biden is spending $1 trillion on climate change, but “voters don’t care”. Instead, the tensions of his green policy programme might divide his coalition. Like centre-left politicians in other Western democracies, the President finds himself torn between the economic needs of working-class voters and the emergency measures demanded by climate activists.
The green agenda includes (deficit-funded) carrots, which are easier sells for many voters. Most notably, the centrepiece of Biden’s green industrial policy, the Inflation Reduction Act, has unleashed billions of dollars in subsidies for “green” energy production, tax-credits for electric vehicles with American parts, and other financial rewards. These are not provisions likely to turn off many blue-collar voters.
Much more problematic for working-class interests are many of the sticks demanded by climate activists. It’s one thing to subsidise factories for solar cells and batteries; it’s another to ban the sale of new gas-powered automobiles, as some states (such as California and Massachusetts) have pledged. While Biden has not yet gone this far, a new EPA rule by the administration could impose significant restrictions on the sale of gas-powered cars in the future.
These measures might get glowing write-ups in the New York Times, but they could also inflict major pain on both working-class communities and on America’s industrial infrastructure. The United States has inherited a vast infrastructure for producing gas-powered automobiles, and a ban on those vehicles risks sacrificing that strategic advantage, which in turn would also make the US more dependent on electric vehicles from China. Other regulatory efforts — from the endless contortions over natural-gas stoves to restrictions on new energy development — could cause additional economic jolts.
Unfortunately for Biden, it’s not clear that many progressive voters will reward him for his climate agenda. That same WSJ story found that only 2% of swing-state voters identified climate change as a top issue, and the President’s actions fall well short of what many climate activists demand.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe traditional working-class base of the Democratic party went Republican when they were expelled as a basket of deplorables.
The democrats have not represented the working or the middle class since Bill Clinton went his 3rd Way.
They became enemies of the working and middle class under Obama.
For good o ill, the republicans have become the party of the working and middle class by default.
I think that the term “green new deal” is a mistake. It is unnecessarily annoying to working class voters. A better term might have been something like a “second new deal.”
I’d say it’s depressing to see this issue reduced to ridiculous political point scoring as elaborated in this peurile tabloid article, yet this was always going to happen and it’s precisely why nothing meaningful get’s done. Humanity is screwed and this narrative will be long forgotten when people are fighting over tins of dog food.
In which case be sure to come armed with a tin opener.
Surely everyone now realises that “Climate Change” is a culture war.
Humanity is not screwed. Crass exaggeration.
There has always been climate change. There always will be. Some species have probably died out as a result. Others have emerged. Humans have adapated – that’s what humans do.
As with any change, there will be winners and losers. That’s change for you. But you can’t stop change.
And who’s to say that if we try to “fix the climate” at the point it is today that this is indeed the optimum point ? Assuming that is that it’s even possible to fix it.
For the record, I support affordable renewable energy, recycling and responsible use of the earth’s resources. And did before “global warming” and “climate change” were a thing.
Dare I suggest that the real solutions are to stop pushing the envelope so that humans are so vulnerable to small environmental changes. Things likes consume less (no fast fashion and mobile phone waste), avoid over-population, don’t live in marginal locations (flood plains, low-lying coastal areas).
I wonder how this ends. ECHR ruling yesterday on climate change is breathtaking. Democracy is being lost to the courts (increasingly supra-national), quangos and other non-elected intermediaries. I suspect either a bloody revolution or a whimper with little in between.
Courts, national and supranational, need pinning back. I hope it can be done without violence.
The climate agenda is pure grift and people are realising it. Sea levels arent rising and if the world is warming it isnt doing do dramatically or because of CO2 or methanw. See Patrick moores ” fake apocolype and threats of doom ” if you are interested although i find most people prefer to keep their apocolyptic beliefs in general
I think that an increasing number of people are realising that there is a divergence between climate change hyperbole and reality. Furthermore the evidence for CO2 being the “control knob” for the climate is not remotely compelling given the hugely complicated and not very well understood (or possibly not even recognised) mechanisms that underpin the climate as a whole.
What people can see however is how government policy hits their pockets and increasingly it is becoming clear that mindlessly pursuing a green, climate agenda is going to become very expensive indeed, and ultimately people won’t wear it.
I actually think that the recent ruling by the ECHR will end up being a good thing as it it will accelerate scepticism towards both climate alarmism and the nature of the ECHR itself. Self referential organisations invariably overreach themselves and fall – to quote Macbeth “I have no spur to p***k the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself and falls on th’other…”
The elites get EVs and the working classes get to ride the bus. But we all need to make sacrifices.