The march of climate policy
Authors: Mat Hope
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2019)

Are the gilets jaunes protests in France an inevitable response to ambitious climate policy? With governments across the world declaring “climate emergencies”, climate policies have shot up the political agenda in many nations. Addressing the climate crisis requires governments to implement big, bold, policies to enact fundamental and rapid changes in national carbon usage but attempts so far have proved largely unpopular. This is perhaps best illustrated in France, where the “gilets jaunes”, or “yellow vests”, took to the streets to protest what they saw as the unjust increase in a fuel tax in the name of addressing climate change. Why implement policies that damage the wealth and health of the nation's poorest, they argue, when there are more polluting targets to go after? Failing to address climate change has well-established negative implications for human health. But climate policies that disproportionately affect society's poorest can also have significant negative impacts on health and wellbeing. In France, the gilets jaunes made this point felt in the strongest terms, with hundreds of thousands of citizens taking to the streets over the course of the last 7 months to protest. The marches continue, but reached their height in November and December, 2018, with three major national protests or “Acts”. As Davide Natalini, a Research Fellow at the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University explains: “If a policy like this is known to affect the poorest parts of the population most, and these are the people who spend most of their income on commodities like fuel to heat their homes, then that means they have much less to spend in taking care of themselves like buying nutritious food, and having access to good healthcare.” At first, Macron was dismissive of the protests, saying the “people complaining about rising fuel prices are the same ones who complain about pollution and how their children suffer”. The gilets jaunes were regularly referenced in the media as a symbol of what happens when governments actually try to implement policies necessary to address the climate crisis. As Natalini has previously argued, France is the “only example we know of”, that has seen riots over a government policy that raises the price of high-carbon fuels in the name of mitigating climate change. But it probably won't be the last, Natalini says, as governments have to implement sometimes harsh policies to address the climate crisis. And the protests can quickly escalate, he explains: “These protests seemed to turn into a struggle between the working class and what they call the establishment. Something that is above, that they don't feel that they control, that they feel they are neglected by and excluded by.” As the protests rolled on, the President was forced to climb down, admitting that climate policies needed to be designed in a more inclusive, more just, way. Not least because many gilets jaunes support climate action, just not at the expense of many already disenfranchised members of society. The gilets jaunes argued that there are many ways the climate crisis can be addressed in a more equitable fashion. Policymakers have spent decades trying to make these options work effectively, but so far the impact on global emissions has been limited. That also hurts societies' poorest, as Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science and the University of British Columbia explains: “The consequences of any poorly designed policy of any sort that hurts the poor can have consequences for public health,” she says. “But the contribution of climate policy is often exaggerated. We also know that if we don't address climate change, it will be the poorest that are hurt the most.” So there's an economic, environmental, and moral imperative to get buy-in to effective climate policies, she argues. Perhaps the best-known version of a policy that goes after big polluters rather than people is emissions trading. Under such schemes, companies need permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit. If they emit less than the permits they hold, they can sell the excess credits to companies that emit more; thus creating a carbon market. The EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS) was launched in 2005. But early mistakes in its design—such as giving away the permits for free at the outset, rather than auctioning them—meant it was largely ineffective. Decades of tweaks and reforms now mean it functions with a carbon price liable to make some impact on companies' activities. But the EU's biggest carbon-saving driver to date remains the financial crash of 2008, due to the impact it had on manufacturing across the continent. China is planning on implementing a national emissions trading scheme in 2020, 7 years after it established pilot schemes in seven regions. There are also some regional schemes in North America, but on the whole policy makers in the US prefer a different approach. Most recently, momentum has been gathering behind a so-called Green New Deal—a grand idea with few policy specifics thus far. But for years, there has been some support for “fee and dividend” system, largely thanks to the support of renowned NASA scientist James Hansen. Under the scheme, a fee is levied on highly polluting products such as fossil fuels, and a dividend is then paid to every citizen. The idea is that it makes high-carbon products expensive and economically unattractive, while also giving everyone some economic benefit, keeping public opinion on-side and ensuring the poorest are not unduly harmed. An influential group of Republican former Secretaries of State and business leaders are supportive of the idea. They say the plan could “strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government and promote national security”. Despite being first officially proposed in 2009, however, it remains a legislative pipe-dream in a political arena in which climate policy is proving an increasingly polarising force. A simpler option is a flat carbon tax levied on high-carbon companies, set by the government, and reviewed periodically in line with the latest science and economics. The revenue from that tax could then be spent on bolstering state-provided health care, transport infrastructure, or other policies that could help society's poorest. It could also be spent on other climate mitigation or adaptation strategies, though most economists say this shouldn't be the predetermined aim. There is, of course, one major problem with the policy: “People don't like to be taxed”, Harrison points out. Governments have tried to call it other things, “a fee, levy, price, et cetera”, she says, “but then opponents just accuse the government of trying to hide something.” In Ireland, the government is trying to implement a combination of the carbon tax and dividend plans. And in Canada, an Ontario court just ruled that the carbon tax couldn't constitutionally be considered a tax as ultimately it's not for spending, it's “giving people all the money back”, Harrison says. And that's the best way to get people to buy in to such policies, she argues: “it's not about punishment, it's about incentives”. What the gilets jaunes protests made clear to all policymakers was that whatever option they choose, it must be fair to all in society. Without it, there will remain staunch opposition and the risk of conflating climate policy with blue collar job losses. A highly visible example of this occurred at last year's annual UN climate talks, in the old coal town of Katowice in Poland. At the meeting, the Polish trade union Solidarity put out a joint statement with a number of groups known for their climate scepticism arguing that: “The negative impacts of expensive energy on human health and welfare are manifest and devastating. Affordable energy is absolutely necessary to lift people out of poverty and secure a brighter future for the people of the world.” By “affordable energy”, they meant fossil fuels. The statement showed the deep faith that some representatives of blue-collar workers retain in the fossil fuel industry's ability to deliver jobs, despite evidence that emissions are rapidly decoupling from income. There are promising signs that global policymakers are engaging with the notion that any transition away from fossil fuels must be equitable, however. At the same meeting, the concept of a “just transition”—the idea that climate policies must be coupled with measures to provide those hit by the policies with new jobs and a new future—got top billing. Thanks to the gilets jaunes, the message that the climate crisis must be addressed, but in an equitable way, is now loud and clear.