How urgently must we act on climate change, and who bears the cost of the energy transition?
Each issue breaks into the specific questions Congress actually fights over. Read each position, then head to the interactive version of this issue to mark which reflects your view and build a message to your representatives.
A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system is the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions — pricing the externality of carbon into the market. Revenue can be returned to households.
Carbon pricing has support across economists of both parties. A border adjustment prevents offshoring emissions. The political challenge is distributional — ensuring the cost doesn't fall disproportionately on lower-income households.
Carbon taxes raise energy costs for every American, hitting the working class hardest. U.S. unilateral action raises costs while China and India continue to increase emissions — harming American competitiveness without climate benefit.
Ending $20B+ in annual fossil fuel subsidies is the lowest-hanging fruit in climate policy — stopping the government from paying companies to worsen the problem.
Fossil fuel subsidies accumulated over decades through the tax code and are not easy to distinguish from standard business deductions. A phased reduction tied to alternative energy development makes transition more manageable.
What critics call "subsidies" are mostly standard business deductions available to all industries. The U.S. energy industry supports millions of jobs and energy security. Eliminating these while mandating renewables raises energy costs.
A 100% clean electricity standard by 2035 is achievable and necessary to meet Paris Agreement commitments. The IRA demonstrated that carrots (tax credits) can move markets faster than sticks (mandates).
Ambitious renewable targets make sense paired with grid reliability requirements and realistic timelines. Premature phase-out of baseload power before replacement capacity exists raises reliability and cost risks.
Government-mandated renewable targets distort energy markets, raise costs, and threaten grid reliability. Abundant, affordable energy is the foundation of American prosperity and global competitiveness.
Nuclear power has serious safety, cost, and waste problems. Investment in wind, solar, and storage is a better path than nuclear — whose construction costs have consistently overrun projections.
Nuclear is zero-carbon baseload power that the climate math may require. Advanced reactor designs and small modular reactors address some traditional concerns. The question is cost competitiveness.
Nuclear energy is America's largest source of carbon-free electricity and is critical to any realistic decarbonization scenario. Regulatory barriers and activist opposition have made it uncompetitively expensive — reform both.
The Paris Agreement is the minimum framework for global climate action. U.S. withdrawal under Trump — and the uncertainty it signals about American commitments — undermines global progress.
International climate agreements are only as effective as their enforcement mechanisms and the seriousness of major emitters' commitments. U.S. engagement is valuable; blind deference to unenforceable targets is not.
The Paris Agreement asks the U.S. to reduce emissions and transfer wealth to developing nations while China — the world's largest emitter — faces no binding constraints until 2030. This is neither fair nor effective.