CFR’s “Climate Realism” Regrettably Strays Into Climate Imperialism

The Council of Foreign Relations recently published a manifesto calling for “climate realism.” That merits attention because CFR is an influential voice. Unfortunately, while the article provides useful insights and some sensible policy recommendations, it also veers badly off course by recommending that we force emerging economies to slash their emissions. This muddles the overall message with a troubling mix of morally questionable ideas and ultimately unrealistic views on how to address climate change “realistically.”

Authored by Varun Sivaram (a former senior fellow with ITIF’s Center for Clean Energy Innovation), the paper starts with four broad assumptions:

1. NetZero 2050 is not achievable. (Here, ITIF agrees.)

2. Reducing U.S. emissions makes little difference. (Again, we agree.)

3. Climate change is real and poses a long-term risk to the U.S. economy. (We partly agree, although hysteria is not warranted.)

4. The United States should prioritize developing clean energy technologies. (We strongly agree.)

On that basis, the paper calls for three action pillars.

First, the CFR paper argues that the failure of NetZero means that we must prepare by becoming more resilient to the impact of climate change. This is correct, and will require much more effort, partly as some environmentalists have blocked resilience projects because they claim resilience work will reduce motivation to cut emissions. In fact, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the United States (and other countries) will need to significantly strengthen resilience efforts.

Second, the paper calls for a much more intensive U.S. focus on internationally competitive clean energy technologies. We strongly agree. In fact, ITIF has been calling for this for years (with Sivaram contributing authorship on several occasions); building better and cheaper clean technologies is the only long-term solution to the climate challenge. And the CFR paper correctly criticizes the Biden administration for focusing support too heavily on existing technologies. That was a mistake. Without green technologies that reach price/performance parity (P3) with fossil fuels, developing countries—where emissions are large and growing—will not adopt them.

Third, the CFR paper calls for the United States to lead international efforts to avert catastrophic climate change. This is where we have a sharp parting of the ways. The paper says we must work with “like-minded partners to drive China and emerging economies—the source of most future cumulative greenhouse gas emissions—to slash their emissions.” To that end, the paper says, “Every tool of the United States and allies’ arsenals, spanning diplomatic and economic coercion to military might, should be on the table.”

This is old-fashioned imperialism harnessed to different ends—and it is about as far from climate realism as you can get. It assumes that having failed to generate any serious traction for pro-green policies at home (as the article admits), the United States should round up its allies (if it still has any) and then embark on a global crusade to force developing countries to reduce emissions. Specifically, the CFR paper says, “Advanced economies should develop aggressive trade tools, tariffs, and so-called ‘climate clubs’ that penalize countries with large and fast-growing emissions.” The obvious first-order result of this would be reduced growth in developing countries; alternatively, they would be forced to adopt expensive green renewable energy—which is another way of saying reduced growth.

The CFR paper acknowledges this, saying, “Granted, this approach is fundamentally unfair. Emerging economies often reasonably argue that they should have every right to the fossil fuel-led economic development that Western economies enjoyed. Nevertheless, the fact is that foreign emissions are endangering the American homeland.” Therefore, the paper reasons, every coercive tool must be on the table.

This is nonsense. No Western ally would agree that developing countries home to billions of people should slow their electrification, energy consumption, or growth, or that the West should force them to by using all our trade and economic levers, plus the threat of “military might.” Imposing green technology at the point of a bayonet? Subordinating all our other economic and security interests in service of this quixotic crusade? This green imperialism is both profoundly, irredeemably immoral and unrealistic.

Those failures are unfortunate, because other parts of the paper are indeed realistic:

▪ It is true that countries, especially lower-income ones, will not adopt green energy until it is more or less at price/performance parity (P3) with fossil fuels.

▪ It is true we won’t get to NetZero by 2050 (or any time soon after that, either).

▪ It is true that better and cheaper green technologies are the key to climate change.

▪ It is true that resilience in the face of climate change will become more important (obviously, given that we won’t be able to stop and reverse it).

▪ It is also true that at some point rich countries will have to bite the bullet and pay for at least some carbon capture when that technology becomes a realistic option. 

These are all useful statements of a reality that many (on both sides of the aisle) simply ignore. And better technologies will be the key for addressing climate change, while the Biden approach mistook limited progress at home for global decarbonization.

But these realities cannot justify policies that have long been discarded as immoral and unacceptable. It is fundamentally wrong to call for them, and it is ridiculous to propose them as a “realistic” pathway for climate and energy policy in the United States or elsewhere.