The Third Conference of the Parties (COP) took place on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, where representatives of 160 nations convened to do something unprecedented: they agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions as part of an international agreement titled the Kyoto Protocol.
Eighty-four nations signed the Protocol, but one key participant did not become a party to it: The United States. Despite President Bill Clinton’s words that the Protocol was “environmentally strong and economically sound,” he never attempted to persuade Congress to approve the ratification of the Protocol. Thirty-seven developed nations — the most significant historical emitters — would sign binding agreements to reduce their collective emissions by 5.2%. Developing countries such as China and India, however, were not subject to similar binding contracts, which U.S. businesses feared would give those nations a sizable competitive advantage in global markets. Despite the promise of the Protocol, world emissions are still rising, and China now emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation.
In 2023, Cambridge researchers published a paper titled “How to Get Coal Country to Vote for Climate Policy.” Persuading residents of coal mining districts in the U.S. to vote for a climate agenda would be a prodigious achievement, so how did the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) convince residents of coal districts to shut down 28 coal mines in the Asturias, Teruel and León regions? The answer is a combination of stakeholder engagement, compensatory policies, and community enhancement projects.
The PSOE decided to negotiate a “Just Transition Agreement” (JTA) — a plan to phase out coal mining in specific municipalities while providing job and financial support for affected workers — with representatives from coal mining businesses, labor unions and provincial governments of mining regions. An official involved in the negotiations specified that the PSOE intended to build trust between stakeholders and the Spanish government through the talks: “This was always a discussion, also very honest, very little tactics, it was to win the trust of the actors by honesty.”
Well over a thousand workers would lose their jobs under the JTA. To rectify the loss of employment, the PSOE promised early retirement funds for miners over the age of 48 and for miners who had worked 25 years. The government would provide redundancy payments of €10,000 to young miners, as well as retraining programs for work in green industries. Additionally, the plan included funding for business initiatives, economic development, and environmental restoration within the coal mining municipalities. The PSOE sent a clear message to miners: we will be with you through these times of uncertainty and change. The total investment cost amounted to €250 million over eight years (2019-2027).
It worked! The plan became law in 2019, and the mines closed. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the PSOE touted the successful JTA as a Green New Deal (El New Deal Verde). Following a snap election — one that a party decides to call earlier than initially scheduled — Prime Minister Sánchez called in 2019, the PSOE prominently featured the Green New Deal in its election manifesto. The PSOE party won 120 of 350 seats in the election. Not a majority, but enough to declare them the winners amidst a far-right uprising within the country. The PSOE’s vote shares increased by 1.8 percentage points in coal mining municipalities. The party also gained a favorable boost from labor unions during the election. A socialist plan had garnered the support of coal miners and labor unions, adding momentum to what became a successful election campaign.
Why did the Kyoto Protocol fall short of expectations, and the JTA succeed? A specific type of climate change policy has consistently failed to stimulate the transformative change necessary to address the problem: market-based solutions. In President Clinton’s statement about the Kyoto Protocol, he said: “I am particularly pleased that the agreement strongly reflects the commitment of the United States to use the tools of the free market to tackle this problem.”
In a book titled “Climate Change as Class War,” Syracuse Professor Mathew T. Huber explains that climate policies, such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade plans, evolved when the United States’ preferred economic paradigm shifted to a neoliberal stance after stagflation began to squeeze the American people financially during the 1970s. In a time when the dominant question was how to reduce the cost of various things — such as housing, education, groceries, infrastructure and energy — policymakers’ focus shifted from the best way to solve the climate crisis to the most cost-effective way to do so.
In a political landscape ripe with free-market ideology, the solution to climate change became market incentives that would steer consumers toward climate-friendly products. A surge in demand for these products would then prompt an economic shift toward a low-carbon future. Indeed, a study of 1,500 climate policies implemented across dozens of countries found that the majority of successful policies — a measly 63 of the 1,500 studied — involved price instruments such as carbon prices, energy taxes, and fossil fuel subsidy reforms. The study also revealed that a bundle of these policies reduced emissions more effectively than any single policy.
Interestingly, however, as climate journalist Kate Arnoff discusses in her book Overheated, numerous fossil fuel companies — Exxonmobil, Shell, BP and others — have become members of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC). This non-profit think tank champions an approach that “revolves around market-based solutions…” The think tank also advocates for a revenue-neutral carbon tax of $40 per ton of CO2, which is significantly lower than the amount most experts consider necessary to represent the “social cost of carbon accurately.” Evidence also suggests that pricing carbon doesn’t lead to substantial emission reductions. Governments have tried market-based solutions, and the world is still warming, and emissions are still rising. Humanity needs a new strategy. The market will not save us.
The socialization of the economy, achieved through a Just Transition framework, is likely the most effective path out of the climate crisis. Any policy that aims to limit emissions must appeal to the working class: those who do not control production in a capitalist society, but who nonetheless hold the power to realize widespread change. By putting the needs of citizens at the forefront of climate policy, as the PSOE did, governments send the message: we care about the prosperity of the people we govern. Citizens who feel that the government cares about them will be more likely to trust and support reform efforts. Thus, governments must complement their transition to a social, low-carbon economy with robust welfare programs designed to aid struggling workers.
To free nations from the shackles of capitalists — who are concerned only with the accumulation of surplus value from labor, not the health of the planet or the proletariat — and put control over the economy in the hands of workers — the mark of a genuinely democratic nation — America must embrace a transition plan catered to the working class. While carbon tax schemes are not entirely ineffective, they are unlikely to garner sufficient political support to reduce carbon emissions effectively, as energy companies will likely pass the cost of carbon on to consumers who are already struggling. Indeed, the question of what to do about climate change is inextricably linked with politics, and thus, a successful climate solution must be a politically popular one. The socioeconomic conditions of other nations differ from those of Spain, but progressives should find some encouragement in the success of the PSOE. It is evidently possible to convince coal miners to support climate policy, so a low-carbon future may still be within reach.
Acknowledgment: The ideas expressed in this article are those of the individual author.