We are witnessing the most devastating climate disasters on record: wildfires ravaging Los Angeles, deadly floods in North Carolina, and global temperature records shattered month after month. We have officially surpassed 1.5C of warming, a critical threshold scientists have long warned against. At the same time, the US is scaling back policies, freezing critical programs and shifting priorities away from climate action.
But now isn’t the time to give up on climate action. Instead, it is high time to rethink how it succeeds.
The reality is that the United States has never had a true, comprehensive climate policy. Unlike other countries that have enacted economy-wide regulations, the US approach has been fragmented, focused on supporting specific technologies rather than tackling climate change holistically. That has especially been true for carbon removal technologies and practices that remove existing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere and an essential tool for meeting global climate goals.
Instead, we have federal direct air capture policy, federal agriculture policy, and federal forestry and oceans policy. Each of these exists within distinct legislative and political frameworks, driven not by national political divides but by state-level economic interests, policy mechanisms like tax credits or R&D funding, and the coalitions that support them.
This distinction is crucial. Over the past few years, bipartisan support has helped unlock billions of dollars for carbon removal. But that does not mean carbon removal itself is bipartisan. Direct air capture has bipartisan support, as do soil carbon programs, reforestation efforts and ocean-based carbon removal. Almost every piece of legislation supporting a pillar of carbon removal has sponsors from both parties, but that is because they align with localized economic and political priorities – not because of broad bipartisan agreement on climate action.
So, how do we make progress over the next four years? By acknowledging that climate action is a key consideration in policy, but is never the sole driving force shaping decisions. Take California’s decision to implement cleaner car standards. Yes, the state acted because the climate was in a bad spot, but also because smog was choking cities, making it harder for people to breathe. The policy wasn’t just about the long-term benefits of reducing emissions; it was about protecting public health in the immediate term. People supported action because they could see the direct, personal consequences of pollution in their daily lives.
This is the lesson for carbon removal and broader climate solutions. Some climate advocates have suggested that, in order to navigate the shifting political landscape, we should build our political pitches around the economy rather than climate itself. But the path forward isn’t about removing climate from the conversation, because we will never build champions by pretending the world isn’t burning. Instead, it’s about “climate and … ” Climate and economic growth. Climate and public health. Climate and energy security. When we talk about and implement carbon removal, we need to prioritize the co-benefits beyond climate not because of who sits in the White House, but because these benefits are real and essential to securing long-term support from a broader bench of champions.
Long-term public policy requires durable political coalitions. That means we must stop pretending climate action is only about climate. We need to ensure that communities hosting projects see tangible benefits–because without that, these projects won’t happen.
I don’t say this only as someone who has worked in federal climate and energy policy for nearly 15 years, but as someone who grew up in the heart of West Virginia’s coal country. My community has lived through the rise and fall of a fossil fuel economy. We understand better than most the benefits and costs of an industry-dependent future. We also know that when economic transitions happen without real planning and investment in local communities, they leave devastation in their wake.
This is why focusing on co-benefits isn’t a concession; it’s the only viable path forward. We need to defend existing climate and carbon removal policies based on the real, tangible benefits they provide. And we must build coalitions that last beyond election cycles, ensuring that climate progress is not derailed by shifting political winds.
To those working on bipartisan climate solutions: now is not the time to water down our message or repackage our work for short-term political convenience, but to shore up our political capital for the long game. We need to secure immediate policy wins over the next four years, but we must also lay the groundwork for the next hundred. That means being honest about why we do this work, articulating both the benefits and trade-offs, and building trust – not just with policymakers, but with the communities that will host these projects.
The political landscape will shift, but our commitment to a just, sustainable future must remain unwavering.
