There is universal agreement on the importance of climate policy, the need to sharply reduce carbon emissions and remain in the Paris Climate Accord among the Democratic presidential candidates.  While this is encouraging for climate advocates, the recent televised debates were more focussed on issues such as immigration and healthcare. With most candidates trying to differentiate themselves by focussing on a signature issue or two, climate discussion is more motherhood statements than clear policy objectives.  The exception is Jay Inslee who has an established record as a climate champion with a developed set of policies. Given that Gov Inslee is an unlikely nominee, what elements of climate and energy policy are likely to separate the candidates once they get deeper into the primaries?

Support for the Paris Accord is a given but it means accepting the US needs to achieve net zero CO2 emissions somewhere between 2050 and 2075.  Progressive candidates such as Warren, Sanders will likely opt for the 2050 target. Joe Biden did the same with a recent US$1.7 trillion climate plan.  Candidates wanting to take a centrist position could adopt a 2075 schedule citing concern for jobs and the economy.

Support for the Green New Deal (GND) will be important – the GND endorses the 2050 target and includes ambitious social policies such as guaranteed employment, housing and healthcare.  The GND has split the union movement and it is likely to do the same for the candidate pool. Hickenlooper, a supporter of regulated fracking in Colorado, has already come out against it

The GND has lots of nominal supporters including congressional cosponsors Harris, Warren, Booker, Gillibrand, Klobuchar and Sanders but this grouping could easily split into those who regard the goals as aspirational versus those who regard them as more than that.

In future campaigning, candidates will seek to find a climate angle for their signature topics – an easier task for some candidates than others.  Senators Sanders and Warren, both strong on reducing the influence of big business, will create a climate narrative around stopping fossil fuel corporations using money and influence to stop emission reductions. Similarly, Tim Ryan’s goal to revitalise US industry works well work with investment in energy transformation.  It is less obvious how Sen Gillibrand’s #metoo message or Juan Castro’s education focus can be tweaked to create a climate link but they will be working on it. 

Questions on the funding for emission reductions and how any proposals will get through congress are going to be tough to answer.  A tax on carbon has been liberal orthodoxy and has support among the candidates. Sen Booker proposes that carbon tax revenue is returned as a “progressive dividend” in line with his environmental justice goals.  There is, however, an emerging view that other funding schemes will be necessary. Inslee could not get a carbon tax passed in liberal Washington and has now shifted his position. This discussion may sort out those touting standard orthodoxy from those with fresh ideas.

Nuclear energy provides ~55% of US low carbon electricity and has support from self-styled pragmatists.  Opposition is based either on confidence in renewables or historic anti-nuclear positions.

As the primary campaign rolls on, look out for more questions on emissions reduction timetables, costings and funding schemes as well as providing support for communities impacted by climate change and an exit from fossil fuels.  Expect some candidates to take strong and potentially opposing positions while others try to hedge their bets. Keep an eye on endorsements from key environmental groups, GND authors, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey and watch what Jay Inslee does if he drops out.