Vinod Kripalani is a freshman majoring in Political Science and minoring in Environmental Humanities. He is on the Pre-Law track interested in International Economics and National Security Law.
Climate change politics in the United States have always been a little weird. The Republican Party, which is overwhelmingly dominated by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, has cared less about the dangerous repercussions of climate change than the Democrats, who have been concerned with climate change but have made some questionable decisions.
When I read a statement by Richard Trumka Jr., a commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I arrived at the conclusion that another measure to tackle climate change was going to emerge: banning gas stoves. This policy would dramatically alter the habits of people who use gas stoves and aren’t prepared enough to use alternatives such as electric stoves.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I support the government creating policies to curb this collective action problem. In fact, I support initiatives such as the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Strategic programs like this fight climate change while investing in the economy through the formation of revolutionary clean energy industries that pump out over a million jobs and one-of-a-kind products sought after globally.
However, the issue is that the overwhelming majority of policies proposed by Congressional Democrats happen to be impractical.
A notable example of this is the Keystone XL pipeline operation reversal. Through the creation of jobs and international trade, the use of this pipeline could have fetched the nation nearly $10 billion. However, the repercussions of the pipeline were jarring; the pipeline caused chemicals to leak into groundwater being consumed by local communities, which the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was responsible for fixing.
The Biden administration’s anti-fracking policies also forced the United States to be energy-dependent on countries such as Russia since domestic oil can’t be utilized, funding Russia’s economy and making them even stronger in their war on Ukraine, a country the United States is allied with and is trying to defend. In the age of misinformation, prominent politicians such as Donald Trump brand climate change as “fake.” Democrats should capitalize on this by continuing to legislate and propose policies that prove to be an investment environmentally and even economically. Doing so will refute the Republican claim that fighting climate change can only strain the economy.
An example of this would be similar to previous achievements such as the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill. These innovative policies will convince Americans to be more willing to support these efforts, strengthen the movement for solving climate change in the United States and instill more credibility for the Democratic Party.
While the United States has managed to bear the costs of impractical initiatives, such as the Biden administration’s anti-fracking on public lands policy, it is vital for supranational and international organizations to keep in mind that similar policies could have detrimental effects on developing countries. International organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) should urge underdeveloped countries to take part in fighting this collective action issue by focusing on developing green energy industries and making public transportation systems more eco-friendly.
At the end of the day, world leaders should look at green energy investment as a measure to address climate change. Until fossil fuels are no longer needed, countries with this natural resource should continue using it as an economic asset.
