How green policies backfire at elections

As climate policy increasingly drives up living costs with next to no results, voters are becoming wearier of expansive green promises. We can only hope this backlash could lead to better, cheaper, and more effective measures.

Voters are inevitably viewing climate policies with more skepticism, after dealing with climate activists blocking roads and gluing themselves to runways, celebrities who take private jets while lecturing us about taking the bus, and policies that cost the world but deliver little. The transformation has been reflected in rightward shifts in various European countries in the European Union (EU) elections and a broad perception of a “green backlash.”

Germany’s energy policy was famously promised to cost the public merely the equivalent of one scoop of ice cream each month. Now, as costs have far surpassed half a trillion euros, the per-person price tag seems more comparable to an entire ice cream truck. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, the crippling costs to families of policies like replacing gas stoves or boilers have become evident, leading to repeated political reversals.

In general, what we’re seeing exemplifies what climate economists have long warned: policies pushing a transition to greener energy are inherently costly.

McKinsey and Co. estimates that the cost of transitioning from fossil fuels to green energy would exceed $5 trillion annually, and recent economic estimates show that the resulting slowing economic growth could make the real economic impact five times higher. For the average person in wealthier nations, this translates into unaffordable costs of about $13,000 annually.

At the same time, climate policies are delivering much less than promised. The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act was hailed for its potential to dramatically lower emissions rapidly this decade for $369 billion. It turns out the price could run in the trillions, and the temperature impact is much smaller. In Germany, landmark legislation to switch to green energy has achieved next to nothing: in 2010, 79.6 percent of German energy was powered by fossil fuel while 12 years later, it had declined by just 0.3 percentage points to 79.3 percent.

The shrillness of climate doom also wears down voters. While climate change is a real and man-made problem, constant end-of-the-world proclamations from media and campaigners massively overstate the situation. While climate economics shows the overall impact of global warming is negative, its likely total impact is equivalent to one or two recessions over the rest of the century—a problem, but nowhere near end-of-world.

And, of course, voters face many other problems: inflation, health care, education, and security. Polling data illustrates a shift in sentiment. For instance, ahead of the EU elections, German voters revealed a significant drop in climate concern. In the United States, climate change remains a lesser issue, with climate change ranking 12th of 14 priorities.

There is a real need for smarter, more practical climate policies. What we need most is innovation. Throughout history, humanity has tackled major challenges not by imposing restrictions, but by developing transformative technologies. We didn’t address air pollution by banning cars; we created the catalytic converter, which significantly reduced emissions. Similarly, we didn’t combat hunger by urging people to eat less; the Green Revolution allowed farmers to produce far more food.

However, for the past 30 years, innovation in green energy has been sorely neglected. Back in 1980, developed countries allocated over 8 cents of every $100 of GDP to research into low-carbon technologies. But as climate policies shifted toward making fossil fuels more expensive, spending on green innovation fell by half, down to less than 4 cents per $100. Investment in green energy research has been shown to yield significant benefits. Studies indicate that every dollar invested in green research and development (R&D) could prevent $11 in long-term climate damages, making it arguably the most effective global climate policy available.

When R&D eventually drives the cost of green energy below fossil fuels, everyone will switch—not just rich countries, but crucially also China, India, and Africa.

Patience with today’s hugely expensive but ineffective climate policies is wearing thin. Fortunately, this could be the push we need to change track and focus on much cheaper innovation that could actually fix climate change.

—————-

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”