By Bob Inglis, republicEn.org
The language of redemption is what’s missing from the climate conversation. Remarkably, that language might come from the dismal science, making economists the bearers of good news.
Campaigners on the left are quick to tell us of the dangers of climate change. They finger fossil fuel as the culprits and pronounce the word “corporation” as a cuss word — that way that President Ronald Reagan pronounced the word “government.”
Too many on the left fear that there is no way out, that the situation is hopeless. They struggle to see the path to redemption. The result is resignation.
Meanwhile, right-of-center folks feel attacked. They like their fossil fuels, and they don’t see any practical alternatives. They take offense at being accused. They might wish for but don’t see a path to redemption. The result is resignation.
Both left and right need the hope of redemption.
According to Dan Kahan at Yale Law School, left-of-center folks are communitarian egalitarians. They want the whole community to succeed (they’re communitarians), and they focus on fairness.
Right-of-center folks are hierarchical individualists, Kahan says. They believe in working through a chain of command (they’re hierarchical), and they’re motivated by individual effort and reward. It’s very important for them to get the gold star in class, to be the kid with the answer.
The two personality types speak different languages. The challenge for those of us working right of center is that the climate conversation has been conducted mostly in the communitarian egalitarian language of the left.
When speaking of the ills of climate change, left-of-center folks typically talk more about culpability than forgiveness. They decry the sins of capitalism. They fulfill their orientation toward fairness by calling out the environmental injustice of some people suffering more than others. They’re not so big on messaging a means of redemption, and their faith in free enterprise innovation is quite uncertain.
Meanwhile, right-of-center folks come to the climate conversation with a fair amount of guilt. They hear the left’s attacks on the capitalistic system. They’re told that the way that they’ve powered their lives is wrong. They hear that they’re not supposed to use gas stoves.
Because many right-of-center folks are also people of faith, these attacks have a religious valence: “You’re telling me that the way that I’ve lived life is wrong? You’re saying that I’m guilty? You’re saying that I’m a sinner?” We might wish for these right-of-center folks a deeper theology of redemption, but their pulpits are more ablaze with populism these days than with the doctrines of Grace.
Come from the four winds of the dismal science. Come, economists of the world, to tell us that there’s a simple and sound answer: internalize the negative externalities associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Say it more accessibly by declaring that we should, “Bring accountability for the side effects of burning fossil fuels.”
Explain that it’s akin to charging a tipping fee for dumping into the trash dump of the sky. Start that fee here in America and make it worldwide by charging the same tipping fee on imports, making it in the interest of our trading partners to do the same — lest they pay a tipping fee here (a carbon tax) that they could have collected for their own government.
And for those of us working right of center, pair the domestic carbon tax with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in payroll taxes (or dividend the carbon tax revenue back to American citizens), thereby making sure that there’s no growth of government.
In government speak, it’s a revenue-neutral, border-adjustable carbon tax. It’s the solution that most economists of the world — left, right and center — say is the first and most obvious thing to do about climate change.
It would unblock a flood of innovation. Greener, cleaner products would win out against dirty products made accountable. Consumers, in the liberty of enlightened self-interest, would choose their self-interest. They’d respond to the price signal, and free enterprise would deliver innovation at speed and scale. Redemption.
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina, 1993-1999 and 2005-2011) directs republicEn.org, a growing group of conservatives who encourage free enterprise solutions for climate stability. Banner photo: Environmental terms (iStock image).
Sign up for The Invading Sea newsletter by visiting here. To support The Invading Sea, click here to make a donation. If you are interested in submitting an opinion piece to The Invading Sea, email Editor Nathan Crabbe.
I couldn’t agree more! In my substack post, “Climate Change in Translation: Become bilingual to save the planet,” I argue that climate activists are primarily schooled in the language of policy and legislative processes (sausage-making). And that ” Learning the language of business and market forces would strengthen climate advocacy.
By getting schooled in the dynamics of market forces and business strategies (sausage-making 2.0), activists would gain proficiency in the language of climate doers, the companies that actually build windmills, install EV charging stations, and innovate lo-carbon cement.”
My experience is precisely that right-of-center people turn off to the whole climate emergency idea because our side has been stressing evil. But “redemption” smacks of religious sinners. “Blame” is the root of environmental mantras. That’s gotta stop IMHO
Thomas Jefferson (as most other founders) owned slaves. Was he an evil man because of this? Of course not anymore than coal plant developers are not evil either. IMHO it’s not a matter of good vs evil but of “growing up”.
I don’t blame myself for reading comics at age six. Why should we blame ourselves for errors of the past?
Otherwise, I applaud your latest
Bill
This isn’t a new or revolutionary idea. Taxing carbon and returning a dividend to the taxpayers to create powerful revenue-neutral incentives for reducing carbon emissions? That is the mission of the Citizens Climate Lobby. It is in the langage of “the right”, yet “the right” rejects it out of hand. The problem isn’t the language used. It’s the decades of anti-science climate denialism from the right. The same old same old.
For half a century, right-of-center folks (more precisely, fossil fuel and tech-bro cliques and their largely Republican political claqueurs) have unloosed a flood of falsehoods, misdirections, and incoherent arguments against climate science and scientists. According to Rep. Inglis’ article, now they seek “redemption”. Left-of-center folks have no reason to give it to them, and shouldn’t.
“Forgiveness” and “Redemption” are the ends of a process that begins with “Confession” and “Restitution” Right-of-center folks have shown no interest in the first two required prerequisites, but want to jump to the end of the line.