 What is net zero good for? Robert Jenrick, a former UK minister who is vying to become the next Conservative Party leader, landed in hot water this week after telling Politico that “there’s no prizes for being the first country in the world to decarbonize.” In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, US Sen. JD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, went even further, warning that “net zero will destroy the American dream for countless millions.” To be sure, Jenrick is right that there could be first-mover disadvantages — Germany, an early renewables pioneer, has faced some of Europe’s highest energy prices. And the free-rider problem is unavoidable: laggards like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other major fossil fuel exporters force early movers to bear more of the cost. But Vance’s and Jenrick’s framings miss the opportunities — political, geopolitical, and social — that leading the energy transition can bring, beyond avoiding the negative impacts of climate change. Clean energy is superior in multiple ways: Better public health, less volatile energy pricing, and perhaps most importantly an open field for lucrative new manufacturing and software opportunities. China epitomizes this dynamic: It may still use a lot of coal, but its dominant position in EV and renewable supply chains has made it an indispensable trading partner for every other country. Brian Deese, a former climate adviser to US President Joe Biden, argued in a Foreign Affairs article this week that America should use clean tech and climate finance not just to bolster its domestic economy but to increase its soft-power geopolitical leverage around the world. The prize for being first, in other words, is to dictate the terms of the world order for the next few decades. That’s a lesson for conservatives on both sides of the pond. |