Opinion – Paul Krugman: Why Republicans Turned Against the Environment

In 1990, the United States Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1970, which, among other things, adopted measures against acid rain, urban pollution, and ozone.

The legislation was very successful, greatly reducing pollution at a much lower cost than business interest groups had anticipated. I sometimes see people trying to use acid rain as an example of environmental alarmism – it was a big problem in the 1980s, but hardly anyone talks about it today. But the reason we don’t talk about it is that policies have solved most of the problem.

What is really impressive from today’s perspective, however, is the fact that the 1990 legislation passed Congress with an overwhelming, bipartisan majority. Among those who voted “yes” was a first-term senator from Kentucky named Mitch McConnell.

That was back then. Now it’s like this: The Inflation Reduction Act — which, despite its name, is primarily a climate law with a sideline aid to healthcare reform — hasn’t received a single Republican vote. Now, the LRI is not a leftist plan to insert big government into everyone’s lives: it doesn’t coerce Americans to go green; it relies on subsidies to promote low-emission technologies, likely creating many new jobs. So why the scorched earth opposition of the Republican Party?

The immediate answer is that the GOP has become strongly anti-environmental over time. But why?

Studies by the Pew Research Center show the growing partisan divide over environmental policy. In the 1990s, those who identified as Republicans or Democrats did not differ as much in their views on the environment: Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say that we should do what is necessary to protect the environment, and more likely to say that environmental regulation hurts the economy, but the differences were relatively moderate.

Since then, however, these fissures have turned into chasms, and not symmetrically: Democrats have become a little more supportive of environmental action, but Republicans have become much less supportive.

Most of the divergence is quite recent, having taken place around 2008. I can’t help but point out that the Republican thesis that environmental protection harms the economy took off just in the period when revolutionary technological progress in renewable energy was making the reductions emissions cheaper than ever.

Republican voters may be taking cues from politicians and media figures. So why have conservative opinion leaders turned against the environment?

It’s not about faith in free markets and opposition to government intervention. One of the most striking aspects of recent energy disputes is the intensity with which Republicans have tried to use state power to promote polluting energy sources, even when the private sector prefers alternatives. The Trump administration has tried unsuccessfully to force electric utilities to continue burning coal even when other energy sources were cheaper. Today, as the Times reported, many Republican state treasurers are trying to punish banks and other companies that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What about the pessimistic view that the GOP is simply in the pocket of fossil fuel interests? Of course, money talks and contributions from coal and, to a lesser extent, oil and gas flow mainly to Republicans. But the Reduction of Inflation Act – which will open up many business opportunities – has been endorsed by several large corporations, including energy companies like BP and Shell. Republicans were not moved.

What has happened, I would argue, is that environmental policy has been caught up in the culture war – which, in turn, is largely driven by issues of race and ethnicity. I suspect this is why the partisan divide over the environment widened so much after the United States elected its first black president.

An especially notable aspect of the Times’ investigative reporting on companies punished by state treasurers who seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions is the way in which these officials condemn these companies as “woke.”

Being “woke” usually means talking about racial and social justice. On the right — which is increasingly defined by attempts to limit the rights of Americans who are not straight white Christians — it has become a term of abuse. Teaching students about the role of racism in American history is bad because it’s “woke”. But also, apparently, a lot of other things, like Cracker Barrel restaurants offering meatless sausage and worrying about climate change.

This might not make much sense intellectually, but you can see how it works emotionally. Who tends to care about the environment? Often people who also care about social justice — either that, or global elites. (Climate science is primarily a global enterprise.)

Even the most enlightened Republicans do not break with the anti-scientific position of the party. As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had a decent environmental record; yet he joined every other Republican congressman in voting against the Inflation Reduction Act.

What this means is that people who expect bipartisan climate initiatives are likely deluding themselves. Environmental protection is now part of the culture war, and neither policy details nor rational arguments matter.

Translated by Luiz Roberto M. Gonçalves