Climate Policy Trade-offs

We're past the point where we can afford to discuss "balance." The IPCC is clear: we need 45% emissions reduction by 2030 to have any chance at 1.5°C. That requires immediate, aggressive action—economic disruption is a feature, not a bug.

Disruption without alternative industries destroys communities. You can't tell coal miners to "learn to code" while their towns hollow out. Political backlash from economic pain has already derailed climate policy in multiple countries.

This is a false binary. The Inflation Reduction Act shows you can drive massive clean energy investment while creating jobs. The question is whether we can scale that approach globally and fast enough.

But here's the uncomfortable truth: the real trade-off isn't economy versus environment—it's present convenience versus future habitability. And we're letting the present win by default because future generations don't vote.

Which is why we need policies that make the future tangible now. Carbon taxes that fund direct dividends. Extreme weather insurance costs that reflect actual risk. When climate change hits wallets, politics will follow.

The missing piece is international coordination. Even if one country decarbonizes aggressively, carbon leakage to less regulated economies undermines the effort. We need carbon border adjustments to create a level playing field.