It’s Getting Hot In Here

The rules of the game have just changed. Less than ten days ago, the Republican Party rode a massive wave into Washington. For the next two years, gone are the days of heart-wrenching testimony from young citizens impacted by climate change and gone are the days of AutoTuned lawmakers discussing the economic benefits brought about by clean energy legislation. We’re operating under new circumstances.

Going forward into the 112^th Congress, the smart money is on inaction, delay, and discord. The punditocracy and inside-the-Beltway flacks are bracing themselves for government shutdowns, a fight over health care repeal, and investigations into the Obama Administration. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this movement, it’s that committed youth clean energy and climate activists don’t give up easily, and I can’t imagine us starting to quit any time soon. Since the rules and expectations have changed, it’s time for us to change too.

Congressional Republicans have already started claiming that the American people have given them a widespread mandate to cut government spending, reduce the deficit, and jumpstart the American economy. In general, these are folks who have an abysmal record on climate and can’t wait to twiddle their thumbs while the world burns. But, since they’re now in charge of “the people’s branch,” youth climate advocates would do well to listen to what our opposition is asking for and see if we can find some common ground.

As the New York Times reports, “Reducing red ink — the $1.3 trillion deficit — will be a major test of Congress’ split-party makeup following elections that partly focused on runaway government spending.” Sounds like it might be time for some unsexy messaging – let’s talk about the deficit, baby. The National Debt was on tip of everyone’s tongues this election season – from Rand Paul to President Obama, American politicians seem to be seeking a way to cut our mounting deficit.  One unexpected way to do this? Put a price on carbon.

This is not a new idea. In 1993, President Clinton tried to sell his BTU tax as a deficit reduction measure, using his first State of the Union address to propose “a broad-based energy tax as the best way to provide [us with] revenue to lower the deficit, because [the tax] also combats pollution, promotes energy efficiency, and promotes the independence economically of the country, as well as helping to reduce the debt.” Testifying in front of Congress in 2007, former head of the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s OMB Peter Orszag suggested, “policy- makers could choose to use the revenue from auctioning [carbon] allowances to reduce the federal deficit. If that reduction lessened the need for future tax increases, the end result could be similar to dedicating the revenue to cutting existing taxes.” This past month, influential economist Brad DeLong puts a carbon tax on his list of recommendations that “everybody centrist and deficit-hawkish in the reality-based community should be willing to commit to today.” (Bonus Points to my Dad who points out the President’s Debt Commission is getting the ball rolling by proposing a 15-cent increase in the gas tax starting in 2013. He also brought up the idea of carbon revenue to help cut the deficit way back in May 2009).  The jargon is hard, but the idea is simple: Cut the Carbon, Cut the Defict. It’s a win-win.

This thinking has certainly failed before, and the ugly spectacle of the House Republicans chanting “BTU! BTU!” on the House floor after the passage of Waxman-Markey will forever be hauntingly burned into my brain, but times have changed. Our deficit is at its highest point since World War II. The climate change morality movement has added an efficient economics wing. While our power isn’t huge, it’s not insignificant either. Can we partner with those deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives? If we can, would it be enough to get Washington on board with a price on carbon? I don’t know. But if Congressional Republicans are asking for reducing the deficits, let’s give’em exactly what they’re asking for – a price on carbon.

Many climate activists and advocates frown upon this tactic, and rightly so. It sucks to go to the people that have been fighting against you tooth and nail and delivering what they’re asking for. Wouldn’t it be better to come up with a policy and legislative idea that fits our needs and is science-based, and then work as hard as we can to build support for it in Congress? Yes. Can’t we build a movement strong enough that we can impose our ideas on the waffling politicians in Congress who are never too far behind where public opinion lies? Maybe.

We need a plan that gets us passed “maybe.” We need to be thinking about getting to “yes”, and quickly. The best way to get bills passed in Washington, especially when you’re in the minority, is by finding your opposition and finding a way to work with them. We need to find out what Congresspeople want out of a climate bill and work to deliver something that is close to their needs. They will appreciate our willingness to listen and trust us more for it. Does it stink that we’ve got to do this? Sure, it would be way better if we could pass a huge climate bill that would get us below 350ppm as soon as possible. But, as Grist’s David Roberts said yesterday in a debate on the Huffington Post, “we have to get over the idea that we’re going to tackle it in one fell, dramatic swoop. That we’re going to pass one gigantic bill and suddenly we’re going to be on a new trajectory and everything will be taken care of.”

Conservatives have found a great rallying cry: “we’re stealing our children’s and grandchildren’s future by burdening them with mounting debt.” Let’s tell the GOP Congress, “If you really want to create a stable future for young and future generations, cut the deficit with a price on carbon!”

(PS. Next weekend, I’m heading to the Wesleyan “Pricing Carbon” Conference in Middletown, CT. Let’s see if we can really start talking about “politics and other realities” once we’re there…)