Global Climate Change

Overview of Our Climate Change Policy Proposal

The original impetus for the founding of the Institute for Cultural Evolution in 2012 was to help reduce public resistance to meaningful action on the climate crisis. But after working on this issue for our first two years of operation, in 2014 we shifted our focus to the issue of political polarization because we found that hyperpolarization was the main barrier to building greater political will in the U.S. to address global warming.

Climate change, of course, is more than a political issue. Preserving the health of the biosphere and preventing the disruption of human societies worldwide is a sacred cause which understandably produces a passionate moral commitment among those who recognize the stakes for humanity. This passion, however, has unfortunately become an obstacle1 to forging the comprehensive political agreement required for the U.S. government to be maximally effective in its efforts to combat the problem in the near-term.

Progressive activists argue that, to adequately respond to the climate emergency, the global economy must immediately abandon fossil fuels and significantly reform the energy-intensive lifestyles of people living in the developed world.2 Yet even if this drastic prescription may seem justified by the scale of the crisis, it is currently politically impossible. Despite clear and mounting evidence of the devastating consequences of a rapidly warming planet, the political will required to significantly reduce our energy consumption remains inadequate. And even if we reached a political tipping point in America in the near future—even if we immediately adopted the Green New Deal and implemented every feasible domestic proposal called for by environmentalists—this would not resolve the crisis.

The hard truth is that the U.S. is only responsible for 15% of global carbon emissions. Which means that America cannot arrest global warming unilaterally. Nevertheless, as the nation most responsible for the rise of modernity, we have a moral duty to demonstrate strong leadership on this issue by showing how modern economies can wean themselves from fossil fuel-based energy while retaining their commitment to ongoing economic development and rising living standards. America can accordingly demonstrate pragmatic leadership by:

  1. Overcoming domestic political resistance—building political will—to mobilize the public and private sectors to take more meaningful and significant action than is currently possible within America’s polarized political environment.
  2. Undertaking a comprehensive and coordinated public/private project to rapidly develop technological solutions that can be effectively implemented by the rest of the world. While a host of promising alternative energy projects are now in the works, given the requisite political will, the U.S. government could go well beyond current efforts by establishing the equivalent of the “Manhattan Project” to accelerate the development of exportable technological solutions.

The climate change measures currently being pursued by the Biden administration3 are welcome and worthwhile. But while the U.S. is now beginning to demonstrate leadership on this issue by working to further reduce its own domestic carbon footprint, because 85% of the carbon pollution is coming from foreign countries, the most globally effective way for America to respond on this issue is to focus primarily on exportable technological and engineering solutions.

Specifically, this means more rapidly developing breakthrough technologies such as advanced nuclear energy,4 next generation battery technology, large scale carbon capture, enhanced geothermal systems, regenerative agriculture, cultured meats and lab-grown dairy, and even geo-engineering. This technology-focused strategy for combatting global warming is exemplified by the approach known as ecomodernism (described below).

So what about reduced consumption and renewable energy? The Developmental Politics’ climate change policy proposal applauds and encourages the ongoing efforts of the environmental movement to change consumption habits and increase the percentage of renewables in our energy mix. But another hard truth is that renewable energy alone will not be able to meet domestic or international energy demands for a long time, even with anticipated technological improvements. And even significantly reduced consumption, which remains unpopular and unfeasible, cannot fill the gap. Given the rapid onset of global warming, Americans have neither the time nor the political will to pursue an “ecologically pure” strategy.

Preserving the health of our natural environment is crucial for our collective well-being. Which is why we can no longer indulge in the idealistic fantasy that America’s economy and energy systems can be immediately and radically transformed. Totalitarian demands may feel good, but this kind of absolutistic rhetoric serves to block the formation of a larger national consensus around the most timely and realistic near-term approaches. As Ted Nordhaus and Morgan D. Bazilian write: “the climate discourse gyrates between apocalyptic doomsaying and utopian claims that a rapid energy transition over a decade or two is within reach. … [But] the politics of an actual energy transition can only proceed by detaching it from the grandiose demands of the global climate commentariat.”5

Problems to Be Solved

Our Rapidly Changing Climate Is Causing Global Disruptions

The world-wide growth of modernity’s fossil fuel-based energy economy is generating green house gasses that are now causing rapid global warming. Rising temperatures are disrupting human societies and biological ecosystems, and scientists predict that these disruptions will increase in severity and intensity as the climate gets hotter. To ameliorate the disruptions associated with our rapidly changing climate, we need to reduce emissions both domestically and internationally. “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”6

Renewable Energy Sources Cannot Yet Meet Demand

The cost and efficiency of renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, are improving. But without a major technological breakthrough, renewable energy alone cannot meet the world’s current or anticipated future needs for affordable energy.

Ameliorating Climate Change Requires Global Cooperation

Because the U.S. is only responsible for 15% of global carbon emissions, its efforts to meaningfully ameliorate global warming will not succeed unless other countries significantly reduce their emissions as well.

Government Actions to Combat Climate Change Are Resisted by Many on the Right

Efforts to combat global warming have become embroiled in America’s culture war wherein peoples’ position on climate change now serves as a proxy for their political identity. Many U.S. voters see the issue as a Trojan Horse for the larger progressive agenda of socialism. Resistance to more meaningful action on climate change is accordingly viewed by many conservatives as necessary to counter the growing power of progressivism.

Wins Sought for Each Major Worldview

As with the other issue positions in our platform, our climate change proposal seeks to build political consensus by finding “win-win-win” solutions that integrate the values of all three major American worldviews: progressive, modern, and traditional. Indeed, significantly increasing our investment in remedial technology will itself require a strong political commitment from the American public, and the Developmental Politics’ method of “values integration” can help build this commitment.

A win-win-win policy for ameliorating climate change would ideally achieve the following wins for each worldview:

Progressivism’s wins

  1. Political will to combat climate change would be significantly increased.
  2. The U.S. would demonstrate more effective international leadership on the amelioration of global warming.
  3. By pursuing a policy guided by ecomodernist philosophy, “humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth—even as developing countries achieve modern living standards, and material poverty ends.”7

Modernity’s wins

  1. A strategy that sees ongoing economic development as an indispensable precondition to preserving the environment would ensure that globalizing modernity continues to bring prosperity, connectivity, and democracy to the developing world.
  2. Increased government funding of technologies and industrial capabilities to address climate change would create a significant market for investment and wealth creation.
  3. By endorsing meaningful increases in our national efforts to ameliorate climate change, modernists would help reduce progressivism’s anti-modernist proclivities and create a more cooperative political environment.

Traditionalism’s wins

  1. A twenty-first century “Manhattan Project” to transform energy technology would bolster healthy civic nationalism. America could once again become “the indispensable nation” by leading the world on this issue, and by thus passing on a homeland in which our children and grandchildren can flourish.
  2. The stigma of climate denialism would be reduced within conservative politics, making Republican affiliation more acceptable to young people.
  3. The progressive Green New Deal, and similar radical proposals, would be averted.
  4. The Biblical injunction for stewardship of the earth would be followed: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”8

An Example of a Realistic Policy Approach: Ecomodernism

The Institute’s strategy for developing its overall platform of political positions is to identify existing exemplary approaches for each issue that can potentially deliver wins to all three worldviews. For example, in our position on healthcare reform we pointed to the Swiss healthcare system as a good example of a win-win-win policy solution that could work in the U.S. On the issue of climate change, we believe that an existing policy approach that could similarly garner meaningful support across America’s political spectrum is found in the framework known as ecomodernism.

From Wikipedia: “Ecomodernism is an environmental philosophy which argues that humans should strive to protect nature and improve human wellbeing by developing and deploying technologies that decouple human development from environmental impacts. Ecomodernism emphasizes that intentional innovation and deployment of environmentally beneficial technologies should be a focus of state policy, and that intensification of human activities can reduce harmful human impacts on the natural world.”9

Ecomodernism is not a panacea for climate change, but this approach has the best chance of overcoming the first barrier to more effective action identified in our overview above: domestic political resistance. While additional domestic legislative remedies, such as a carbon fee and dividend law, may be desirable, national legislation aimed at pricing carbon remains politically unattainable. Taxing carbon is less popular than defunding the police. Given the urgency and international scope of the problem, our political efforts should therefore be focused on policy approaches that have a more realistic chance of near-term success.

Ecomodernist solutions focus on accelerating the pace of low-carbon energy innovation, reducing humanity’s footprint by using nature more intensively, and bringing these programs of innovation and intensification within democratic control. Ecomodernism ascribes a central role to publicly funded innovation in steering technological change towards socially desirable objectives. Pursuing an ecomodernist climate change strategy could accordingly begin with the following three steps:

  1. The significant increase in government funding for the research and development of breakthrough energy technologies—a twenty-first century “Manhattan Project.” The federal “Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy” needs more money to help develop battery, carbon capture, next generation nuclear, enhanced geothermal systems, and geo-engineering technologies. These efforts could be supplemented through the creation of a major public/private initiative to share and coordinate R&D around clean energy technologies.
  2. The appointment of a federal “Nuclear Energy Czar” tasked with fast-tracking the construction of next generation nuclear power plants across the U.S. through government-backed financing and regulatory simplification.
  3. The formal signaling of America’s commitment to renew its international leadership in the amelioration of global warming through the substantial funding of R&D described in steps 1 and 2 above, and through a renewal of America’s climate-focused international diplomacy, in which climate change amelioration would be given equal priority with trade and security issues.

Post-Progressive Persuasion Strategies

Argument to progressives: The well-meaning attempts of progressives to use climate change as a justification for larger social and economic reforms have unfortunately contributed to contemporary political resistance on this issue. By supporting a more widely agreeable win-win-win approach, as exemplified by ecomodernism, progressives can increase the political effectiveness of their climate change amelioration advocacy and respond more pragmatically to this urgent problem. Although the rise of modernity has created the climate crisis, even if it were possible, significantly scaling back or abandoning modernity would create global problems equal to, or even greater than, the challenge of a warming world. Given the limited time we have left to prevent the worst scenarios, we must now combat this problem with the most powerful and pragmatic tool we have: American ingenuity.

Argument to modernists: Pursuing an ecomodernist approach will be a boon for American business. And this kind of approach will help preserve economic vitality while meeting the increasing demands of the investor class for environmentally sustainable economic policies and business practices. The United States has a proven historical track record of creating “entirely new technologies and sectors that set the stage for later long-run economic growth (jet engines and radar, medical and agricultural research). … The most fundamental technological advances of the past half century … were funded by government agencies, with private businesses moving into the game only once the returns were in clear sight.”10

Argument to traditionalists: The problem of global warming affects everyone. We can no longer allow meaningful action on this issue to be stymied by America’s culture war. As Jim Rietmulder writes: “We must put aside political differences to make way for American ingenuity, technological power, and manufacturing excellence to secure our children’s future. In addition to boosting the economy, reasserting American leadership in this manner can build young people’s pride in our country.”11


  1. 1. See: The Institute for Cultural Evolution’s “Campaign Plan for Climate Change Amelioration” (2013)
  2. See e.g. Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (‎Simon & Schuster, 2015).
  3. See e.g. “Biden Completing Opening Moves in Climate Strategy,” American Institute of Physics, May 25, 2021.
  4. See the Nuclear Innovation Alliance website for a description of coming nuclear energy technologies.
  5. Quote from “Biden’s Welcome Hypocrisy on Climate Policy,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 26, 2021.
  6. Quote from “The Fourth National Climate Assessment,” representing the consensus view of 13 U.S. federal agencies and 300 experts. Cited in: Clancy and White, The Ultimate Guide to the 2020 Election (Diversion Books, 2020).
  7. Eduardo Porter, “A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development,” New York Times, April 14, 2015.
  8. Psalm 24:1.
  9. Ecomodernism. See also: “An Ecomodernist Manifesto”
  10. Symons and Karlsson, “Ecomodernist citizenship: rethinking political obligations in a climate-changed world” in The Journal of Citizenship Studies, 22(8):1-20, August 2018.
  11. Quote from author Jim Rietmulder’s comment on an earlier draft of this position paper.
Showing 14 comments
  • Steve Richardson

    One reason solar, EV, wind farms, and other “clean” technologies need federal subsidies to compete with coal, oil, and gas sources is because energy prices paid by consumers don’t reflect their full cost. Removing direct and indirect subsidies of fossil fuel exploration and production, including environmental costs, will reduce consumption and provide market incentives for developing alternatives.

  • anders erkeus

    Hi, in Sweden, where I dwell, there is a growing disappointment with the idea of maximizing consumption, the way it is usually looked at. You can even see commercials saying you shouldn’t buy so much stuff. The traditional values of being able to deal with your own life and situation, not to waste, but fix broken things, the resistance to “showing off” with expensive stuff are on the rise. Modern rationality is starting to see that efficiency isn’t all about time and money but mainly about quality and resource handling. We see how leaving ever more tasks to machines start making people less competent in stuff that used to be basic knowledge, counting, spelling, knowing where you are. Is it really progress to put great effort into making machines that you can talk to,instead of pushing buttons, while depleating the earth’s resource base? Many long for a life of meaning, community and common responsibility.

  • Patricia Gordon

    The PPP includes large-scale carbon capture in its Breakthrough Institute-based climate policy. Breakthrough Institute focuses on carbon capture and storage (CCS), so I am assuming this is what PPP is referring to. An even larger carbon capture approach of possible interest to PPP is supporting massive deployment of ocean “irrigation” systems that make possible a massive increase in marine areas with kelp growth (kelp grows at a rate of up to two feet a day), with subsequent cutting of it and ocean sequestration. (See the last part of The Washington Post’s 9/17/20 “Stopping Climate Change Could Cost Less Than Fighting Covid-19).

  • Patricia Gordon

    Concerning the Post-Progressive Project’s recommendation of globally deploying numerous advanced nuclear power plants, although Deep Isolation has made heartening progress on the long-term storage of nuclear waste and although advanced nuclear designs (as described in the Nuclear Innovation Alliance website) are safer and generate either less waste, less long-term waste or lower-toxicity waste than older designs, the toxic waste problem is still significant, as is the increased toxic mining that would be required and the increased transport at various points in the nuclear cycle. For transport, strict protocols, meticulous coordination and reliable execution are required. Few nations would be able to fulfill these requirements, and can even the US continue to do this successfully long term? Many progressives, as well as a number of modernists and traditionalists, would not support the nuclear power part of the Post-Progressive policy applications, thus dampening the PPP’s uptake by the population.

    The nation’s innovative economic growth and global leadership and the world’s well-being can perhaps be served by PPP supporting other large-scale energy solutions. In its policy PPP could possibly favor massive deployment of small, modular and scalable geothermal systems that can generate electricity from low-pressure, low-temperature (as low as 80 degrees Centigrade) geothermal sources, which are highly abundant throughout the planet. (See Instead of highlighting enhanced geothermal systems (which are useful certainly in their unusual depth) in its policy, PPP could also or instead list this potentially more massive approach to geothermal energy (which could potentially result in deals for manufacturing opportunities in the US)?

  • Cliff Sommers

    Your goals of addressing climate change while increasing consumption are totally at odds. No species in gross overshoot, consuming far more than the planet can support (as humans undeniably are), can last long. A massive die off inevitably results, and that is the probable extinction event we are plainly rushing towards.

    • Steve McIntosh

      If the economy was thrown into reverse and the burning of fossil fuel was immediately halted it would most likely result in the “die off” of democracy, which would precipitate horrific wars across the world. We do need to combat global warming more urgently and more vigorously. But there are numerous threats that must be balanced, which means that simplistic thinking like this is ultimately part of the problem.

  • Clifford Collins

    In the central breadbasket of the U.S., as much as, and in some cases more than 12 feet of historic tops oils are gone,…. forever. These rivaled in fecundity any ever to have existed on Earth. Yet, agribusiness roars on, providing popcorn, (sorry/not for the sarcasm), and nutrient poor mega tonnage for an obese nation. There is so much to fix, that I’m afraid hope becomes hopeium,(sic). I can appreciate the effort, but your Post-Progressiveism seems mired in whitewash for past sins, and perhaps this is territory needing slogging through to some new paradigm. Thanks for tackling this and good luck. I would think Post-Progressives would be better served moving on from the “C” word. I do not, and I was raised conservative, ever remember much conserving of anything unattatched to jingoistic nationalism and self interest. I do not remember who said it, but-“The Earth can supply all of mans needs, but not his greed”. The 12 feet of topsoil was conservatism, mot merely in mouth noise, but direct action. Are they, either one, retrievable?

  • Richard Eisenman

    At age 67, I’ve been an evironmentalist since a teen in the 1960s, and more on the conservative, traditional side since the 1980s. The recent “climate change” mantra bugs me; it isn’t inclusive enough for the totality of environmental concerns. But I guess the slogan is necessary politically given the “modern” center of gravity of the culture; the modern frame of mind requiring sciency rationalizations (“all scientists agree climate change is real”) for political action (“politics being the art of the possible”). I would hope eventually to see an environmentalism grounded more in beauty.

  • Katharine Hudson

    I appreciate the goal, but we are in a moment that requires action now. Can you look into the current carbon pricing proposals currently being floated?. There is something in many of them for all three world-views. For example carbon pricing is market based for modernists; carbon pricing with dividends support eco-justice concerns of progressives by protecting low and middle income households from rising prices. For traditionalists, carbon pricing mechanisms with carbon border adjustments allow for nationalistic protection supporting American manufacturers. Here’s an excellent example of such a proposal:

    • Ann Drumm

      I agree with Katharine. I’m not willing to write off carbon pricing yet. There’s a big push to get it included in the budget reconciliation. If we don’t succeed in this cycle, then I might grudgingly accept your evaluation that it’s politically impossible. But I’m not ready to give up yet.

      • Steve McIntosh

        Thanks for your comments Katharine and Ann. Our decision not to include a carbon tax in our proposal does not mean that we don’t support such a policy. Rather, it is guided by our first stated goal: building political will. The chance of getting the kind of bipartisan support needed for a “Manhattan Project” for clean energy technology increases significantly if a carbon tax is not included. So it’s mainly a strategic choice about where to best spend our political capital. “Politics is the art of the possible.”

  • Libby Comeaux

    I would like to see an emphasis on a widely-effective, if widely-implemented, surge in regenerative agriculture. This new term refers to an ancient respect for the way God created the interaction of plants and organisms within the living soil, to naturally capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the soil. A ten-year implementation industry-wide would make a huge dent in the climate problem, while honoring and enabling the continuation of the ancient, natural process that has provided us with “fossil fuels” and supported a natural “carbon cycle” necessary to life. Current emissions from burning fossil fuels would be absorbed on a current basis. That’s a big-impact “technology” that already exists but that requires ecomodernist attention for the mechanical and AI supports that would fast-track the transformation. I support this form of “carbon capture” because of its many side benefits, in addition to aligning with God’s plan as revealed in nature, such as: storing water in the soil (and in some cases generating more water), providing better income for farmers and ranchers, enhancing the nutritional concentration in foods, enhancing public health, reducing dead zones where rivers meet oceans, and more. My favorite resource providing agricultural expertise to support farmers and ranchers is John Kempf, who has an online presence interviewing, connecting, and supporting farmers and ranchers.

    • John Mistler

      I totally agree! Soil regeneration is a huge piece of the puzzle, and needs to be included if we really want to tackle this problem head-on.

      • Steve McIntosh

        Thanks for your comments Libby and John. I have added “regenerative agriculture” to the list of technologies we recommend developing.

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search