“It’s the economy, idiot.”
it was that word built By political strategist James Carville, he supported Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, which defeated President George H.W. Bush. And it encapsulates the idea that how voters think about the economy is the most important factor in determining presidential elections.
If recent polls are reliable,That certainly seems to be the case this time. Recently gallup surveyFor example, the economy was ranked. It’s the most important of the 22 issues registered U.S. voters say will influence their presidential choice. According to Gallup, “This is the only issue on which a majority of voters, 52 percent, say a candidate’s position will have a ‘very important’ impact on their vote.”
Meanwhile, climate change was second to last on the list of concerns (just above transgender rights).
This makes sense. We all have to shop regularly for housing, food, transportation, medical care, and more. On the other hand, unless a wildfire burns down your house, climate change may not seem so pressing. The question seems to be less about “what can I put on the dinner table tonight without spending a fortune?” and more about the future of things that can affect us.
If that sounds like you, consider two charts that show how doubling down on the transition to clean, climate-friendly energy can strengthen the economy, not weaken it.
A tale of two graphs
We’ll start with a graph related to climate change, and then look at a second graph to show that it’s important to do something about climate change. already helping We put things on the table without breaking the bank.
This graph shows three scenarios for U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change, based on computer modeling. The gray line shows projected emissions trends if current policies continue, including those enacted under the Biden administration. The blue line shows what will happen with further action focused on reducing emissions to net zero by 2050. Additionally, the orange line shows emissions estimates based on the provisions outlined in Project 2025, a policy blueprint created for a Republican president and Congress. Conservative Heritage Foundation. (Credit: Energy Innovation Policy and Technology)
This chart focuses on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet and exacerbating many climate impacts such as heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and extreme precipitation. This is based on modeling by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank. comprehensive report Written by researchers affiliated with the organization.
The gray line shows the impact of policies enacted under the Biden administration, including the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and new Environmental Protection Agency rules. The trajectory of this line shows that the rate of emissions reduction has doubled compared to before. The report says this puts the United States in a good position to meet its goal of reducing emissions by at least 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
But much more is needed to achieve that goal, and ultimately net zero emissions The blue line in the graph above shows what that trajectory will look like.
Now let’s talk about the orange line. This means that the energy supply project 2025 The nearly 900-page policy blueprint, created by the conservative Heritage Foundation, was enacted by the new Republican administration and Congress.
Interestingly, emissions continue to decline slightly, at least for some time. That’s because economics now supports continued improvements in energy efficiency and a continued transition from dirty fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. We are already moving towards a new energy economy, the only question is how quickly we can get there. In the Project 2025 scenario, progress is barely visible and levels off as we approach 2050.
And the science clearly shows that under this scenario, warming and climate impacts will be significantly worse.
As a side note, it is true that Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, saying he doesn’t even know who is behind it. but investigation At least 140 people who worked for him were found to have been involved in developing the policy blueprint. Therefore, if the president wins the election, this document is likely to have a major impact on the new Trump administration.
But even putting Project 2025 aside, former President Trump made his thoughts on climate change clear, calling it “one of the biggest frauds in history.” During his first term, he pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord; rolled back Over 100 environmental regulations. In his second term, he vows to go further by blocking U.S. involvement in future global climate change agreements and ending federal support for the clean energy transition, while ramping up oil and gas drilling. There is.
So there should be no question about what will happen to carbon emissions under a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress.
But once again, “It’s about economics, stupid.” right? And yes! That’s absolutely true!
Compared to the United States’ continued leadership in reducing carbon emissions, Project 2025 will lead to a significant reduction in job growth. (Credit: Energy Innovation Policy and Technology)
Energy Innovation researchers also modeled how continuing to invest in clean energy technologies, building upgrades, and industrial restructuring would impact job creation compared to increasing fossil fuel production. did. The blue and red bars in the graph above tell you this.
The numbers behind the blue bars are: This climate leadership scenario adds 2.2 million jobs in 2030 and 2.1 million jobs in 2050. On the other hand, under the Project 2025 scenario, job growth does occur in the fossil fuel industry. more than offset by job losses elsewhere in the economy,” the report says. “Under the Project 2025 scenario, 1.7 million jobs would be lost in 2030 and 260,000 jobs would be lost in 2050.”
But what about inflation? Would refocusing on fossil fuels save American households money?
According to our analysis, this is not the case. Redoubling America’s climate leadership will lead to lower energy costs for households in the long run. Because renewable energy has already surpassed fossil fuels. a Last year’s reportResearchers at the same Energy Innovation think tank found that 99 percent of existing coal-fired power plants in the United States are more expensive to operate than new solar and wind power.
The bottom line is that there is no need to prioritize either a strong economy or fighting climate change. If the United States chooses to remain at the forefront of the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, we can reduce the risks we face from climate change while also helping to build a strong economy that is the envy of the world.
