There is virtually no national leader in in the developed work, Europe or OECD that does not describe today’s global warming as a “climate crisis,” “climate emergency” or even a looming “climate apocalypse.”
Those warnings are sobering. And they sound like the kind of conclusions that would be followed by calls to declare war, join other nations in new alliances, and unify and mobilize the citizenry to confront this new enemy.
When we faced such national and global crises in the past, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill called on the nation to act. Did they say, we are starting this great national effort by raising your taxes and putting up fees on petrol/gas and putting up tariffs on imports?
Of course, in time, government action and regulation led to higher prices on some products, others being barred or rationed.
Huge majorities of citizens in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union believe “climate change is a threat, and we need major action to combat it.” In a recent poll conducted for the organization, Climate Policy & Strategy, over 60 percent affirmed, with only 27 percent believing, “the threat of climate change is exaggerated and the high cost of fixing it may not be worth it.”
Yet many industries and academics and elected leaders have insisted on prioritizing raising the cost of fossil fuels, implementing a carbon tax and putting on green levies or taxes on utilities.
What a surer way to temper some of the citizenry’s enthusiasm for acting against climate change.
It is the ordinary citizen who is clear-eyed on its priorities and what is the sensible way nations normally address such a national and global crisis.
We have not lost the ordinary citizen yet. Every country faces a spike in energy bills, and they have a range of explanations for it. In the United Kingdom, they look to “profiteering” by the energy companies,” Russia reducing supplies, and growing global demand. At the bottom of the list are “green levies and taxes,” mentioned by just 13 percent.
In Germany, 51 percent say high global prices and 41 percent, expressive levels of taxation. Only 29 percent mention the “the transition to green energy.”
But there is a growing minority in Germany who mention higher energy costs as a reason to oppose government policies.
Have elites noticed that the United States passed its bi-partisan infrastructure package with President Biden and the Democrats leading the opposition to any rise in the gas price? Any further Build Back Better bill will be financed by higher taxes on big corporations and billionaires. The United States has ruled out any carbon tax or rise in energy prices.
My surveys finds only a quarter of German voters support “a tax on burning coal, oil and natural gas would be a fair and efficient way of encouraging people to switch to lower-carbon ways of living.” Putting up taxes and fees on fossil fuels drops to 20 percent as a way to “fund the development of renewables and a sustainable economy,” when the choice is the government taking the lead in “setting regulations to make energy more efficient and invest in innovative research to enable” to a low carbon economy.
While the elite discourse is focused on market solutions, the public is looking for new national targets to drive business and consumer behavior, new regulations and enforcement, and investments to spur innovation and help families deal with associated costs.
In the Climate Policy Strategy surveys, we asked the public which were most important to do. In France, it was creating new crimes for causing environment damage, followed by regulations to increase insulation of buildings and banning some internal flights. Under Merkel, it favored incentives to install solar panels and speeding up closing of coal-fired plants. Under Scholz, it is getting 80 percent electricity from renewables, restrictions on short-haul flights, and a social compensation to offset costs for “ordinary people” from EU carbon pricing. In the United Kingdom, the public chose increasing offshore wind capacity to power every home.
And in the United States, the voters embrace administration plans to replace 100 percent of lead pipes and new jobs installing service lines, $50 billion investment in making infrastructure and homes resilient and energy efficient and eliminating subsidies to fossil fuel industries to pay for environmental measures.
The public believes we face a climate emergency, and they are quite reasonably backing bold policy changes to address it. Elites should appreciate the imposition of added charges at a time when the cost of living is so painful will jeopardize the support on which climate policy depends.