CLIMATE CHANGE, MONEY & POLITICS?
by Jay R. Mandle
Global warming has resulted from the fact that environmental damage associated with the use of fossil fuels is not paid for by its users. Correcting that damage requires that the government take action to reduce fossil fuel usage. Seen in this way, the mitigation of climate change should be considered a public good. As taught by economic theory, public goods are needed to correct the harm to society that occurs when market processes produce dangerous outcomes.
The American government has largely failed to treat global warming as a problem that requires a public goods remedy. This, despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the United States are by far the highest in the world. In 2020, the last year for which the World Bank provides data, this country’s CO2 emissions stood at 13.0 metric tons per person. That level was far higher than for the second leading polluter, China (7.8 metric tons per person), or for the European Union (5.5 metric tons per person).
The US failure to aggressively mitigate climate change is rooted in our dependence on wealthy individuals and private corporations to fund our political campaigns. Big donors gain excessive political influence over environmental policy and legislation by contributing to the campaigns of politicians who oppose governmental action on climate change. Firms do so because they prioritize their own commercial success over social well-being. Once in office, corporate-funded politicians see to it that the government is hamstrung in its climate mitigation efforts.
Notorious in this regard are firms in the Oil and Gas industry sector. Thus far in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top five oil and gas firms have already paid out $55.6 million in campaign contributions. Koch Industries alone has spent $27.3 in its effort to influence the political process. The contrast with campaign donations from green energy firms (the non-renewable energy sector) could hardly be more stark. The top five firms in the Alternative Energy Production and Services industry during these same years have donated a total of only $1.5 million.
A recent report issued by the Center for American Politics (CAP) explains a number of ways by which oil and gas firms effectively limit climate change mitigation. First, they provide false or misleading information. The CAP report points out that in its advertising, the industry misleadingly emphasizes its investments in biofuels and hydrogen. They do so despite the fact that these investments are “largely superficial and vastly outweighed by the continued reliance on fossil fuels that the industry perpetuates.”
A second category includes the money spent by oil and gas firms “to influence policymakers to keep the system rigged for itself.” CAP argues that these efforts “hamper robust, often popular, climate proposals.” Specifically, it points to the fact that “despite two-thirds of Americans supporting renewable energy growth over oil and gas expansion, fossil fuel money [has] helped defeat strong climate initiatives” at the state level.
The third, and perhaps most egregious use of oil and gas industry funding, affects voter suppression. This actually includes, CAP reports “funding the organizations leading the voter suppression charge.” CAP specifically mentions Koch Industries as a “key funder” of organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with the purpose of disenfranchising “communities of color, low-income groups and Indigenous peoples – communities that favor environmental regulation and climate change legislation significantly more than other demographics.”
The environmental movement of course has long been aware that the private funding of election campaigns is an impediment to the achievement of its goals. Twenty years ago, Paul Turner and Hecter Preciado wrote in the journal Race, Poverty and the Environment that “real comprehensive campaign finance reform is needed to lessen the impact of corporate contributions that often work in direct contrast to environmental justice goals.” It is no secret that between the time that Turner and Preciado penned those words and today, the obstacles to climate change mitigation if anything, have grown more robust. This is especially the case in light of the anti-environmental rulings of the Supreme Court, as well as Court decisions that have materially enhanced the role of corporate wealth in the political process.
In the age of Trump, it is understandable that, for many, the priority this year is to defeat the ex-President. But the fact is that impediments to all kinds of progressive governance – including environmentalism – are not caused by one would-be tyrant. Present for all to see is the extent to which wealth dictates this country’s political agenda. So long as our political process is structured to benefit wealthy private campaign funders, US efforts to mitigate global warning will continue to fall far short of what is needed to save the planet.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jay Mandle is the W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good,. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website, and explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues.
The views expressed in Money On My Mind are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters, and are meant to stimulate discussion.