The Economist

The EconomistAugust 4th 2018 United States 29

2 base turns up because it has nowhere else
to go she is trying to broaden and energise
the base while hoping to pull in some
swing voters and suburban moderates re-
pelled by Mr Kemp.
Despite Ms Abrams’s voter-registration
efforts and an energised base over 50000
more Republicans than Democrats voted
in this year’s primaries. Still that is hun-
dreds of thousands more than the Demo-
crats managed in 2010 or 2014. Mr Trump’s
approval rating in Georgia though posi-
tive has slipped giving her an opening.

And Mr Kemp wasnot the Republican es-

tablishment’s first choice. Like Mr Trump’s

endorsement that probably helped him

prevail in the party primary. It may hurt

him in the general election.

Whoever wins in November will gov-

ern Georgia in 2020—a census year when

new congressional districts are drawn. A

win by Ms Abrams may mean another reli-

ably Democratic congressional seat or two.

More important it would be a lesson for

the Democratic Party about how to build

winning coalitions. 7

C

ARLOS CURBELO a Republican con-

gressman from southernFlorida rep-

resents a district vulnerable to both cli-

mate change and a Democratic swing in

the mid-term elections this November. Per-

haps that is why on July 23rd he offered a

bill that would tax carbon pollution. The

measure is symbolic and doomed to fail.

Just a few days earlier Mr Curbelo’s fellow

Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a

resolution calling a carbon tax “detrimen-

tal to American families and businesses”.

Just six Republicans voted against the pro-

posal. But even that represents progress.

When an identical measure was offered in

2016 not one was brave enough to do so.

Republican orthodoxy on climate

change can seemunassailable. The party

platform pooh-poohs climate change as

“far from this nation’s most pressing na-

tional security issue” and opposes any car-

bon tax—generally thought to be the most

market-friendly way of reducing emis-

sions. But the odd crack is showing. Some

coastal Republicans who must contend

with the consequences of a warming plan-

et do not attempt to deny the scientific con-

sensus. Carlos A. Gimenez the mayor of

Miami was plain when talking about ris-

ing sea levels last year:“It’s not a theory. It’s

a fact. We live it every day.”

Others have been swayed by political

currents. More than half of the Republi-

cans who represent districts won by Hilla-

ry Clinton in 2016 are members of the Cli-

mate Solutions Caucus a bipartisan group

that advocates climate-change fixes. Some

endangered Republicans defend the envi-

ronment if only in aNIMBYish way. Unfor-

tunately for the overall sanity of their

party those Republican politicians are the

most likely to lose their jobs if a Democrat-

ic wave transpires this autumn.

According to a survey by the Pew Re-

search Centre 52% of Republican voters

think there is “solid evidence” of global

warming—up from 39% three yearsago.

Only 24% believe that human activity is to

blame though compared with 78% of

Democratic voters. That huge partisan gap

has grown since the 1990s when President

Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore

turned green and made it a Democratic

cause. “There’s a huge identity-based effect

based on the cues Republicans have re-

ceived from Fox News conservative media

and elected officials telling them that the

science is uncertain” says Matthew Nisbet

who studies political communication at

Northwestern University.

Yet moderate and younger Republicans

are more likely to agree with the estab-

lished science. And support for green poli-

cies can be found in odd places. Slim ma-

jorities of registered Republicans back

limiting carbon-dioxide emissions from

coal-fired power stations and favour a car-

bon tax on fossil-fuel companies accord-

ing to a survey conducted in March by the

Yale Programme on Climate Change Com-

munication. Bob Inglis formerly a Repub-

lican congressman representing South Car-

olina who introduced a carbon-tax

proposal nine years ago still thinks it could

win support. Conservatives have long had

difficulty talking about climate change be-

cause the debate is often framed in the

“language of repentance guilt and doing

with less which doesn’t work well in the

conservative community” Mr Inglis says.

Carbon taxes are less preachy especially if

they are balanced by tax cuts.

Small signs of compromise can be seen

at the edges of climate policy. In February

Congress passed a bill that provides tax

credits for carbon capture and storage a

technology that prevents emissions from

entering the atmosphere by placing them

underground. A bipartisan group of sena-

tors also pushed through a bill that would

speed advanced nuclear reactors to mar-

ket. Grander schemes are unlikely to suc-

ceed during the presidency of Donald

Trump who pulled out of the Paris climate

accord. On August 1st he nominated Kelvin

Droegemeier a respected weather expert

as his science adviser. Whether he will fol-

low his advice is a different matter.

The vicious partisanship over climate

change is bad for America and the world.

That a rich well-run country cannot pass a

bipartisan law to deal with climate change

is a tragedy. But if much Republican oppo-

sition to climate science is purely politi-

cal—a way of identifying yourself as not a

Democrat—then it can be swayed. Two so-

cial psychologists Leaf Van Boven and Da-

vid Sherman have found that Republican

voters will back carbon taxes if they are

told Republicans favour such a policy. If a

leading Republican were to start singing a

different tune admittedly a remote pros-

pect his or her party could soon join in. 7

The politics of climate change

A slow thaw

WASHINGTON DC

Some Republicans are inching towards action on global warming

No I can’t see it either