May 28, 2025 • 40 mins
Discussions around climate change have become deeply politicized, but global warming’s impacts have no political affiliation, whether it’s hurricanes in deep red Texas or wildfires in deep blue California. On this episode of ESG Currents, BI senior ESG analyst Rob Du Boff is joined by Bob Inglis, executive director of republicEn.org and former US Congressman from South Carolina’s 4th district. They discuss why Republicans have traditionally shied away from the topic, and free-market solutions to addressing the climate crisis. And for more perspectives on tackling the climate crisis, be sure to register for BI’s virtual conference, COP 29.5.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
ESG has become established as a key business theme as
companies and investors seek to navigate the climate crisis, energy transition,
social mega trends, mounting regulatory attention and pressure from other stakeholders.
The rapidly evolving landscape has become inundated with acronyms, buzzwords
and lingo, and we aim to break these down with
industry experts. Welcome to ESG Currents, your guide to navigating
(00:34):
the evolving ESG space, one topic at a time, Brought
to you by Bloomberg Intelligence, part of Bloomberg's research department.
With five hundred analysts and strategists, we're heing across all
major world markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities
and credits, as well as outlooks on more than ninety
industries and one hundred market indices, currencies and commodities. I'm
(00:55):
Rob Duboff, Senior ESG analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Saying that
climate change has become deeply politicized these days is probably
a major understatement, but does it have to be that way?
After all, the physical damages of climate change have no
political affiliation, whether it's hurricanes in deep red Texas, wildfires
(01:15):
in Deep Blue California, are droughts creating havoc across the USA.
And on the flip side, innovations and climate solutions can
provide economic benefit to all American consumers, businesses, and investors.
So while climate is a core issue on the left,
we're also seeing growth on the so called eco right.
(01:36):
Today we're joined by one of the leaders of this movement,
Bob Ingliss, executive director of Republican dot Org. Bob was
a Republican congressman representing South Carolina's fourth district from nineteen
ninety three to nineteen ninety nine and again from two
thousand and five to twenty eleven. For his work in
climate change, Engliss was given the twenty fifteen John F.
(01:57):
Kennedy Profile and Courage Award. Thanks for joining the podcast.
Great to be with you, Rob, Thank you so. First
question here, we're publican congressman from South Carolina. How did
you get involved in climate action?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Well, yes, I'll answer that, but you know what, I
got to comment on your intro, which is so so important.
All that data that you're talking about really is important,
you know, to all those sources. That's that's what you're
that's what you're doing. And so I'm glad to be
a data point. But what a what an interesting thing
to have people that are actually committed to data gathering data,
(02:35):
which is what the rest of us need. So so
the work you're doing, hats off for that, because that's really,
really is important. And like you said, climate is just
a thing that's happening, and it's about data. And so
so how did I get to this, Well, my first
six years in Congress, I said climate change is nonsense.
(02:57):
I didn't know anything about it except that Al gore
for it. And since I represented a very conservative district
in South Carolina, Greenville Spartanburg, South Carolina, that was the
end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant, but that's the
way it was my first six years in Congress. Then
I was out of Congress for six years doing commercial
(03:18):
real estate law again in Greenville, South Carolina, and had
the opportune run for the same seat again in four
two thousand and four. That's the year that our son
had just turned eighteen, voting for the first time. So
he came to me and said, Dad, I'll vote for you,
but you're going to clean up your act on the environment.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Oh so there are there are a stipulation there.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yeah, yeah, he was so you know, of course my
son knew that we could lose by one vote. He
was going to vote for me, no matter what. Right.
It wasn't in his economic interest to vote against me.
And so because he knew we were mortgaging the far
met that we live on. You know, that's what with
farm mets, where you don't really not really farmers, but
you pretend to be sot green ape like. And so
(04:01):
he knew that we were mortgaging the farmat to run
for Congress. So he was going to vote for me,
no matter what I think. He's really saying, Dad, I
love you. You can be better than you were before.
So how about make this English two point zero the
new and improved version. So that step one, step two
of this three step metamorphosis for me was going to
(04:21):
Antarctica the Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the
ice core drillings. And then step three was another science
committee trip and something of a spiritual awakening, which seems
unlikely on a godless science committee trip, because we all
know that all scientists are godless. Well apparently not, because
(04:42):
this Aussie climate scientist who was showing me the glories
of the Great Barrier Reef. As we snorkeled together, I
could clearly see was worshiping God and what he was
showing me. It was in his eyes, was written all
over his face, it was in his excitement about what
he was showing me. So I knew we shared a worldview.
You know, Saint Francis of ASSISI is quoted as saying,
(05:05):
preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary, use words,
And so Scott Herron, who's now become a very dear friend,
the Aussie climate scientist, was doing just that, preaching the gospel.
And so later we had a chance to talk and
he told me about conservation changes he was making in
his life to love God and love people, people who
(05:27):
come after us. He rides his bike to work, does
without air conditioning as much as possible in Townsville, Australia
it's a pretty hot place, hangs the families clothes out
of the line, all to consciously love people coming after us.
So I got right inspired. I wanted to be like Scott,
loving God and loving people. So I came home and
(05:49):
introduced the Raised Wages, Cut Carbon Act of two thousand
and nine, and I could have used some of that
data and analysis rob back then, and Know nine had
to try to convince people maybe that really this is
the way to do it just and for the Bloomberg listener,
I can just say it, what we're all about is
internalizing negative externalities everywhere else I got to unpack that.
(06:11):
But probably with your listeners, I can just say that's
all we talk about at the publican dot org. And so,
but I could have used some data. See if you were,
if you were doing this podcast back then, maybe I
could have he could have come to my help with
some some data.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Data really goes a long way, absolutely, you know.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
It's like, I love Michelin. North American headquarters is in Greenville,
South Carolina, and that one of their core principles is
respect for the facts. And I remember a tour in Spartanburg,
South Carolina. One of the plants and the plant manager.
I asked him to explain that. He said, oh, at Michelin,
we're glad for you to have your opinions, but we
(06:53):
operate based on facts, which is that's back to that
data thing. That's so that's what I could have used,
and Know nine, it didn't I didn't have that. Maybe
what I had was a primary challenge, and I got
tossed out in Tea Party days, losing in a Republican
primary to a guy who got seventy one percent of
(07:15):
the vote and I got the other twenty nine percent
of the vote. Rather spectacular face plant in politics, you know,
don't you usually lose that badly unless you've been indicted
or something. But actually, nowadays, maybe indicting you do better.
But I wasn't going to say go for but back then,
you know, if you get indicted, your pretty much toast.
I hadn't been indicted. It's just on the wrong side
(07:37):
of Tea Party orthodoxy. Because it looked people, I think,
as they were really struggling with the Great Recession, that
I was focused on something decades away, and they were
focused on what was here and now you know, the
houses underwater, all the data that you would have, you know,
about what was wrong at that time, and it looked
(07:59):
like I was taught came out something way far away.
So at that point the Foundation came to me and said,
you know, english pretty unusual. You know, actual conservative ninety
three American conservative being writing one hundred percent Christian coalition
one hundred percent National Right to Life A with the NRA,
zero with the Americans or Democratic Action, the liberal group,
(08:20):
and twenty three by some mistake with the a fl
CIO the Labor Union. I was really hoping for zero.
I don't know how I got twenty three. And so
they said, actual conservative who says climate change is real? Well,
you speak and write for the proposition, and so I's
been known ever since since. Now Republican dot Org with
(08:40):
Ian for Energy, Entrepreneurship, the Environment, we're conservatives who care
about climate.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Interesting. So I guess that was my next question. I
mean you kind of touched on it with you know,
I think there's this political stigma. You just say, this
is Al Gore's baby. You know, us Democrats now we
hear the we have the boogeymat of the Green New
Deal or your scam, depending on who you are, tree huggers.
So you know, most Republicans still are, i'll say nicely,
(09:06):
climate skeptics. So how do you get registered Republicans and
conservatives to care about climate chain.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Well, it's a couple of things. First, help them overcome
their undeserved inferiority complex.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, Unfortunately, conservatives think they're no good when it comes
to energy and climate, so they change the subject when
the topic comes up. It's like, you know, if you
want to talk to me about golf and you're constantly
talking about, let's go play golf, I'm going to be
thinking I got to find something else to do because
I am no good at golf. My parents are very
(09:44):
good golfers, but that was awful. And so so that's
what happens in climate. Conservatives think they're no good, and
so what we live to do at republic ean dot
Org is to tell them no, you're the kid in
class for the answer, raise your hand. You know that
a regulatory solution isn't really going to work because you
(10:07):
can't regulate Chinese emissions from here in America. You know
that all the incentives are really somewhat clumsy and they
become lobbyists full employment acts when they get ready to expire,
and that they really don't if you look at the
analysis the data that I'm talking about, you would see
that they really don't produce much carbon reduction. You know,
(10:31):
conservatives that the answer is just to bring accountability for
all the cost of all the fuels put them on
the price of products and let the free enterprise system
deliver innovation at speed and scale as consumers in the
liberty of enlightened self interest see the price signal and say, oh,
(10:54):
I see that stuff. That product. Let's say it's paper
plates in the grocery store. Those paper plates produce less
emissions than the plastic plates right next to them on
the shelf, because now that they're the price, that that
negative externality has been internalized into the price of the
(11:16):
paper and the plastic plates. The typical consumer is going
to pick up the paper plates and take them home
with them, and they're going to leave the plastic to
draw dust on the shelf. And so it's a price signal.
And we think that Milton Friedman, if he was still alive,
would be very proud of what we say republicean dot org,
because he'd be saying, yeah, that's it. And I guess
(11:40):
there's this great clip we've got on our website of
doctor Friedman on the Phil Donahue Show in the nineteen eighties.
Donahue ask him, what do you do about pollution? Then,
doctor Friedman, if you don't want to regulate it, Friedman
says you tax it, you tax pollution, and then he
goes on to explain how if you let two people
get away with doing something dumping on a third party,
(12:03):
the government has to step in because otherwise you got
a market distortion. And of course in other audiences, what
I typically add to that economic analysis is it's also
a moral problem. You can't let those two people do
something that affects a third party that's under Biblical law,
English common law, American common law, that's recoverable in trespass,
(12:28):
you know, I mean, so you can't do that. You
can't let that go on. And that's what we do now.
We let people dump into the trash jump of this
guy for free. That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Yeah, I first of all, as a U Chicago lum
with an economics degree, you're speaking my language with Melton Freeman.
But you know, I would definitely agree with your take
on either a carbon tax or you know, some kind
of pricing adjustment. I do think that it's politically challenging though,
because again it's not like these are prices, are these
(13:00):
the costs are are necessarily self evident or certainly not.
You know, we were talking about before with the time horizon,
This is not something that you know, immediately impacts the consumer.
So so how do you get buying in that? I mean,
I've seen our current energy secretary talking about not putting
the thumb on the scale, and that's maybe why he's
not in favor of some of the renewable solutions. But
(13:22):
also seems to be that by not putting a price
on some of the externalities of the oil and gas industry,
that's also problematic as well.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Well. It is because that's the market distortion that doctor
Freedman is talking about, and like I say, it's also
a moral problem as well as a probably of economics.
But you know what, what what what we would we acknowledge.
It's a difficult political thing because it's like this English
(13:52):
for Congress. He wants the price of everything in your
life to go up. Oh yeah, that sounds like a
great campaign, you know. I mean because once you ternalize
that negative externality that bring a tipping fee or charge
a tipping fee for dumping into the trash jump of
the sky, the plastic plates go up in price, but
so do the paper plates because the paper plates, you know,
(14:13):
got chainsaw gas and you got some dry natural gas
drying the paper at the paper mill. So even those
who have gone up in price English for Congress, he
wants everything in your life to go up in the price.
But here's the thing. Trust me. Okay, now that's the problem.
But trust me, I'm going to simultaneously cut your payroll taxes,
(14:36):
your FICA taxes, so there's no growth of government. Do
you trust me? This is no. The answer is right now, no, don't.
And so that makes for a hard sell. But what
we live to do at Republican dot Org is go
into rock solid conservative constituencies and say, hey, listen, are
(15:00):
are we a free people? Can we decide what we're
going to tax? If the answer those questions are both yes,
then we should be able to trust ourselves to say, listen,
we are going to introduce a carbon tax. We're going
to apply it imports through a carbon border adjustment mechanism,
so it becomes in our trading partner's interest to collect
(15:22):
it at home rather than forking it over to us
when their goods hit our ports, and they would come
through without adjustment if they had their own back home.
And we're going to reduce taxes somewhere else so that
there's no growth of government and what we say to
(15:43):
conservatives is is if that's if we can't do that,
then let's call up King Charles and apologize. Let's say,
you know, listen, we're really sorry what happened back there
in seventeen seventy six. Please come back can rule over us,
because you know, the experience of self government has failed.
(16:06):
I'm not ready to make that call, and I usually
I usually get most most people in the audience agreed
that no, no, they're not ready to make that call
either that a free people can decide what they're going
to tax, and why can't we untax some form of income.
The one I would choose is a payroll tax, and
(16:27):
then tax tax the bad stuff, tax pollution. Do what
doctor Friedman would say. And the reason that I want
to untax payroll especially is it fixes the regressivity problem
of a carbon tax. If you a carbon tax hurts
poor people. If it's just a carbon tax by itself,
it hurts poor people. Thirty dollars a ton price on
(16:47):
carbon dioxide results in a thirty cent per gallon increase
in the price of gasoline nationwide pretty much, and in
the average home an eleven dollars per month increasing the
price of electricity. That's not bad for a lot of
your listeners, but for some people, a lot of people,
that's a real big hit, and so you got to
(17:09):
help them. And the way to help them is to
untax their income, particularly the payroll. Congressional Budget Office says,
if you do that, swap off payroll taxes on pollution tax,
carbon tax, the bottom seventy percent of Americans do better
because you can do something about the carbon tax. You
(17:30):
can drive last year, can turn down the thermostatic, can
put plastic on the windows in the winter. You can
do things to avoid energy cost. But you can't do
anything to avoid that payroll tax unless you become an
illegal employee of an illegal employer. And so we think
that it's rock solid conservatism that makes this work. But
(17:55):
I should say Rob though that just in case some
of your listeners think, Wow, these guys it on about
being so conservative. But I think I've heard that solution before.
If they're progressives, they have. It's the same thing that
Al Gore has been for for about thirty years. And
I asked him several years ago if I could keep
on saying that. He said, hold up, Bob, if you're
talking to Low. I said, no, sir, I'm talking a
(18:17):
substantial carbon tax that's steadily rising, applied to imports and
paired with the reduction and payroll taxes. He said, yeah, fine,
then you can tell people what you're for. Republicean dot
org is the same thing I've been for for about
thirty years.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Interesting. So, you know, certainly pricing mechanisms and a carbon
tax are there, but you know, how do you feel
about some of the incentives. So you know, we've talked
in past episodes about the Inflation Production Act. We had
Jean McCarthy on an episode last year and her perspective
was that, you know, this was really a transformational opportunity
to scale up manufacturing and innovation in the US will
(18:53):
also mitigating climate change. Now, from your perspective, what did
the IRA get right and what did it get wrong?
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I think Gena is right about that, and she's a wonderful,
straight shooting gal, by the way, and I think that
I think it is an opportunity to transform, and it
is a way to deal with it. I mean, as
I said, my preferred way would be eliminate all the subsidies.
(19:21):
Don't give my wife and I the seventy five hundred
dollars credit that we got for buying a Chevy Vault,
the v Volt, not the new Bolt. You know, because
in terms of tax equity, why did my wife and I,
who do fine get a seventy five dollars or seventy
(19:41):
five hundred dollars credit? Does ZIP pass some poor person
who's driving a conquer It just sort of it just
sort of offends me in a way that But but
I can concede that these subsidies are what Gina says
is they they become an opportunity to transfer, to transform industry,
(20:04):
to make it so that the ev can work. And
and so there's a case to be made for it,
you know. And frankly, if I were still in Congress
and the and and uh, you know, the Inflation Reduction
Act were offered as a freestanding bill with individual incentives
(20:25):
like that, I'd probably vote for some are a number
of them, why because well why not if you're a conservative.
Most of those are tax credits. Tax credits are a
way of reducing taxes. What conservatives has never has ever
met a because credit they didn't like, so why not
(20:46):
vote for it? So, but I think there is a
more elegant solution in a in a pricing mechanism, because
I think that it really causes, particularly because of the
carbon border adjustment mechanism. That's the thing that's mostly missing.
So I answer your question. The thing's mostly missing in
the Inflation Reduction Act would be that ability to impose
(21:09):
this on our trading partners. And I shouldn't say impose.
That's a bad word, strike thattuch. What I should say
is to make it in their interest to also charge
a tipping fee for dumping into the trash nup of
the sky. Because you know, if there's a sheet of
flat steel coming to the support of Los Angeles right
(21:30):
now from China, we apply our carbon tax a China
Jackson World Trade Organization. They're going to say it's an
impermissible tariff, but we think they lose that case based
on chemical industry precedents. That's say, you can have a
carbon you can have a content tax based on the
content stuff coming into the country, and this would be
a carbon content tax if we're right twenty four hours later.
(21:55):
Because China does have an amazing way reaching consensus. They're
not very fair government, not a very nice government, but
dog one efficient dictatorships are that way. They're an efficient
way to run government. It's just not one you want
to live under. But they would twenty four hours later
have the same carbon price because they just had paid
(22:16):
in Los Angeles a carbon tax. It's now being sent
to Washington that they could have collected themselves, in which
case the money would be in Beijing and the Sheeta
flat steel would be coming through the port of Seattle
with no adjustment. And then if you're doing business anywhere
in the world, you're doing business with America and China,
and so the whole world finds it in their interest
(22:39):
to charge the carbon tax internally to their own country.
And then you get eight billion people seeing the true
cost of burning fossil fuels because it's built into the
price of everything. The paper plates and the plastic plates
at the grocery store and every other shelf of the
store has the same thing going on. Some greener, cleaner,
(23:01):
renewable thing is now cheaper relative to the dirty that's
now been made accountable and having to pay the carbon
tax for its for its emissions. And so the result
is innovation takes off. And so while I can see
that the Ira inflation Reduction Act does have helpful steps
(23:25):
towards that. The real winner is when we make it
so that we get the whole world in and so
that's that's what I think needs to be improved upon.
About the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Yeah, I think there were rumblings a couple of years ago.
I might have even been one, say Graham, about trying
to do some kind of carbon border tax. And you know,
it seems to be that that would be, you know,
a solution that kind of made both sides happy. You know,
you have the greens, you know, basically putting a penalty
on carbon, but also it's a I don't know if
excuse is the right word, but it's definitely an opportunity
(23:58):
to add tariffs to China, which clearly has some very
high carbon content material.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yes, in fact it is. It's that bill has been
introduced by a Senator Cassidy of Louisiana and Lindsey Graham,
or the two of them have have introduced the bill,
the Foreign Pollution Fee Act, And what it would do
is exactly what you just said. It would make it
so that there is a tariff applied to high emitting products.
(24:27):
And so I think that Senator Cassidy believes that, you know,
give it a go. See if the wt O is
okay with that. I would hope so. But but I
think the safer way is to make sure you've got
a domestic price. Then then it's pretty clear that you
can do that what they're talking about doing. But hey,
we're a green light as far as we're concerned. Give
(24:48):
it a go. See what happens. See apply a tariff
to high emitting products. You'd think it might fit the moment,
except that, you know, as a guy that you know,
I'm a Reagan Republican, and I just saw a great
clip of the Gipper talking about tariffs and how they
(25:11):
are not the way to go and so and that
wonderful voice of his, and so I'm thinking it's sort
of hard for to talk about tariffs in that way.
But it does seem to fit the moment, except that
I think the moment may become quite sour on tariffs
as we find out that yo, that's what you call inflation.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Taking a quick break here to invite you to Bloomberg
Intelligences Mid Year Virtual Conference COP twenty nine point five
Innovation Accountability in the Path to Brazil This online only
event will be held Wednesday, June fourth, at eight thirty
am Eastern Time. Tune in to hear from leading experts
in public and private sectors, such as former Secretary of
State and US Climate and Boy John Kerry as we
discuss progress made in tackling the climate crisis, the challenges
(25:54):
in the current geopolitical moment, and he look ahead at
COP thirty and Bella in Brazil. The event has opened
all on the linked register or will be in our
show description.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
I guess kind of that brings us to you know,
it sounds like there's some buy in on the legislative brands,
but from the executive branch, you know, we have a
president who continues to call out the so called green
new scam. You know, what would you say to President
Trump to to kind of maybe turn his opinion around.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
I don't I don't know what what what I guess
what I would just implore him to look at is
just just look at the look at the facts with
the data without and understand that Hey, really, if you
believe in free enterprise, let's venture on that belief. Let's
let's say that really people should be accountable and and uh,
(26:46):
and if you. If you do that, then you get
this innovation in the free enterprise system faster than government
regulations or mandates or fickle tax incentives could ever imagine.
So I think that's you know, and I would also say,
I think to President Trump that this is this is
an opportunity for America to really lead the whole world
(27:12):
to solutions. This is this is what would make America great,
you know, is to really show leadership here. And so
but I do believe Rob that this is going to
be the inevitable position of conservatives. You know. It's you know,
(27:32):
I was getting tossed out in the midst of the
Great Recession because of the financial the global financial crisis.
As somebody said at that time, and who knows, might
have been a Bloomberg writer, I don't know, but who said,
it's amazing how the impossible went to the inevitable without
ever passing through the probable. And that was true of
(27:55):
that eight hundred billion dollar rescue of the banks. And
I think it's going to be true of this border
justable revenue neutral CARBONAX. It is the obvious answer, it
will become. It's amazing how the impossible went to the inevitable.
Without ever passing through probable. I think it will become
(28:18):
the inevitable. And the thing is it will be. But
here's the thing that is important to say, especially to
anybody that might be listening from the left of center,
is when Donald Trump calls it the green scam, there
is something to be heard there, and that is if
(28:40):
your left of center is I just implore people left
of center, do not, please do not see climate as
too good of a crisis to waste. Do not load
that wagon with everything that you want, ever wanted by
way of your fondest dreams. You know, I don't know.
(29:01):
Addressing the sins of colonialism, put that on the wagon.
Minimum wages, put that on the wagon. Additional regulation put
that on the way. No, no, the wagon is sinking
in the muck. Please take some weight off the wagon.
We got to get across the finish line with this
wagon quickly. The best way to do it is a
(29:24):
tipping fee on dumping into the trash dump of the sky.
And there are people left of center and right of
center that can agree on that. And that being the case,
please lighten the load on the wagon, because otherwise you
leave yourself open to Donald Trump during up his bass
by calling it the green new scam and all that stuff.
(29:46):
Just say no, no, we're talking about a very light
touch here. It's going to be very simple and we're
going to get across the finish line quickly. That I
believe what would be good A good political move and
a good policy move.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
I guess in terms of loading too much on the wagon,
I think one of the other areas, this idea of
the just transition that maybe you have or climate justices
they'll call it, where you know, maybe you'll have certain
plants or pollutants and certain underprivileged areas. Is that something
that you think needs to be addressed.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Yeah, it is. It remains a problem, this thing that
I'm talking about. A revenue neutral border jestible crabin tax
won't solve all the problems of the world. You still
have that problem of dumping onto poor people that are
right next to the English Industry's plant or whatever, that
are fouling their lungs. You still have that problem. But
(30:46):
if you do this carbon tax with a reduction in
payroll tax, is you address the regressivity. So you're helping
those neighbors near my English Industries plant, but you're also
causing me at English Industries to probably want I must
be burning something if I'm fouling their lungs. Probably there there,
there's more likely than not I'm burning something. And so
(31:10):
if if that's it becomes a proxy for reducing those things,
it doesn't solve the whole problem. Now, let me not
over overseell my product here. There's still going to be
a need for trying to deal with the fact that
Engless Industries is fouling my neighbor's lungs. But this would
be a step toward that and helping helping those those
(31:34):
poor people that live next for my plant with the
addressing regressivity, but also actually reducing emissions. And some of
the small particulates have probably be associated with those carbon emissions.
And so you're you are helping, You're just not solving
the whole problem. But like I say, we can't, we
(31:55):
can't hope for it to be just perfect, because we
got to start with what we can do, get it worldwide,
get a tipping fee for dumping into the trash dump
of the sky worldwide, and then come back later and
figure out how to deal with say, fugitive methane emissions.
That's not going to be a dressed so well with
(32:17):
what I'm talking about, figure out a way to get
Maybe you need higher cafe standards for cars as well,
because maybe it's two weeks of a price signal in
the transportation sector. You know, you have to do some
other stuff too, but let's get the main thing done fast.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
And what about adaptation.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I think that adaptation plays an important role here because if,
for example, in my state of South Carolina, I think
what we should do is go to the battery in
Charleston and start putting up a seawall to accommodate future
sea level rise. And I think once we start putting
(32:58):
up that seawall, people are going to say, time out,
wait a minute, this just doesn't that. We don't want
that tall of a sea wall. We're not gonna be
able to see. We're gonna if you we're gonna be
able to see over the sea wall. And if you
fill the land behind it so that we can walk
up there, we're going to kill all these beautiful two
(33:18):
hundred year old for three hundred year old live oak trees.
So hey, hey, let's stop the water from rising. So
I think that uh, or do what we can some
of it is, of course baked in. We can't avoid
some of the sea level rise that we're going to experience.
We can't avoid some of the baked in damage, but
we can avoid the worst of it if we get
busy and so and get active. And here's the thing,
(33:43):
key thing too, is for us at republic Kean dot org,
we go around saying, listen, this is not a crisis
that we're all going to die from next Tuesday. We
do not need to walk and eat bugs. We can
thrive as a society. In fact, we can make a
lot of money at this if we play it right.
(34:04):
We can create wealth and jobs here in America and
light up the world with more energy, more mobility, more freedom.
This is a this is a solvable problem. Again, some
of it is baked in, and that's gonna We're gonna
suffer some of the consequences. That's that's that's uh, that's
the reality. But but but doing good here, we can
(34:29):
do very well if we if we play it right.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
I mean, that's that's certainly one of the messages we
talked about here on our team. You know, in terms
of it, it's not just about you know, feeling the
warm and fuzzies. It's about, you know, how there's a
great opportunity here and how do we capitalize on that?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yeah, yeah, because that's and of course that's where the
smart money is already going. And that's that's the thing
that we hope to communicate. And that's what back to
your question about what I would say to Donald Trump
is is just President Trump, look at where the smart
money is going. The smart money is looking to invest
in places, are companies firms that can show them a
(35:09):
declining carbon footprint because the smart money understands that it
is inevitable that there's going to be some sort of
mechanism by which we price in this negative externality. And
if you have a business that can't take that, in
other words, that can't show a continuing profit once that
is that cost is attributed to you, the smart money
(35:31):
doesn't want to invest in you. And so so it's
just if we could accelerate the point at which people
start seeing that and they say, oh, well, I see this.
There's a business case for this. And that's why I'm
excited about talking with Bloomberg. You know, it's just so
it is really a compelling business case that really that
(35:54):
will turn some cranks right of center.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
Yeah, it's interesting you hear about, you know, a lot
of the kind of deals for rare earth, and you know,
I think about, well, rare earth that's kind of the
biggest consumer or one of the biggest consumers is on
you know, is in the clean power sector. So it's
kind of funny that even talking about the green new scam,
he's at least trying to move the country to prepare
for that demand.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Yeah, exactly, Yeah, and yeah, and this innovation really is
it's best done in the free enterprise system. It's it's
you know, speaking of Reagan kind of terminology. In Reagan years,
you know, the Soviets had five year plans and they
you know, they had clunky elevators, you know, I mean,
(36:38):
so you come to America and we didn't have a
five year plan.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
We got zippy.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Elevators, and we got you know, in other words, we
got we got things at work. When the government tries
to plan things, wow, that's sort of a disaster. Leave
it to the free enterprise system. Once you make everybody accountable,
put him on a level playing field, and now watch
the creativity of human beings deliver innovation. And when you
(37:08):
deliver innovation, you get sales, you make profit, and then
you can do more. And so we think that capitalism
is that system where you know, people serve people and
make money by being good servants, and that's the way
(37:30):
to go, rather than a central planned, bureaucratic system that
tries to come up with a five year plan.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
I mean, the world's richest man is unpopular as he
may be these days, he made a lot of that
money from ev So it just goes to show there's
path there.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
And in fairness to what we were saying earlier about
Jane McCarthy and anybody listening saying remembering that, is that
that his sales probably were affected by that same seventy
five hundred dollars credit than my wife and I got
for the Chevy Vault that he was other consumers were
getting them for his Tesla. So there, there's surely that's
(38:06):
also true that I was driving innovation.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
There.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Last question for me, I mean you kind of started
off talking about your son. You know, there is definitely
a generational divide. I'm wondering if you're seeing that on
the right as well, you know, between kind of boomers
as we'll call them in kind of maybe millennial or
Gen Z conservatives. I mean, is there more buying on
climate action and the younger generations on the right.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
That is what we find. Yes, you know, when I
speak to young Republican clubs, they're looking for a solution.
So I remember last fall before the election, I was
at the Treasure Coast, Florida Young Republican Club. We had
an event with them, and Donald Trump was having a
(38:52):
rally about fifty miles south at mar A Lago, And
here I was fifty miles north, and I was a
little that worried that maybe, you know, I'd be sort
of seen as a guy that's sort of reigning on
Donald Trump's parade or something, or and that I was
going to Trump rally, you know, Pepper rally. But these people,
(39:13):
the young Republicans there, they wanted an answer. They wanted
they want their party to be relevant to their future.
And particularly if you live in Florida, you know the
water is coming up and and you're concerned, and uh,
and so you want you want to you want to
(39:34):
feel that your party has a solution and and and
so we think there is a solution that fits with
conservative values.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
Got it all, right? That's great. Thank you so much
for your time today. Involve really enjoyed the discussion.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Well, great to be with you, Rob, Thanks so much.
And keep that data coming because that's gonna really if
people start seeing the where the smart money is going,
will the general public all the rest of us will
sort of get it and we'll realize, Oh, they see
something and there is a way to make money and
(40:09):
do well.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah, thanks, great segue into our outre here. Maybe I
should have you read this, but if you're interested in
data on sustainability and environmental climate issues, you can check
it out at a BI ESG for terminal subscribers. And
if you have an ESG quandary you would like to
ask bi's expert analysts or learn more about our research
see some of that cool data, send us an email
(40:32):
at ESG Currents at Bloomberg dot net. And if you
liked this episode, please subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or your
favorite podcast platform,
ESG has become established as a key business theme as
companies and investors seek to navigate the climate crisis, energy transition,
social mega trends, mounting regulatory attention and pressure from other stakeholders.
The rapidly evolving landscape has become inundated with acronyms, buzzwords
and lingo, and we aim to break these down with
industry experts. Welcome to ESG Currents, your guide to navigating
(00:34):
the evolving ESG space, one topic at a time, Brought
to you by Bloomberg Intelligence, part of Bloomberg's research department.
With five hundred analysts and strategists, we're heing across all
major world markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities
and credits, as well as outlooks on more than ninety
industries and one hundred market indices, currencies and commodities. I'm
(00:55):
Rob Duboff, Senior ESG analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Saying that
climate change has become deeply politicized these days is probably
a major understatement, but does it have to be that way?
After all, the physical damages of climate change have no
political affiliation, whether it's hurricanes in deep red Texas, wildfires
(01:15):
in Deep Blue California, are droughts creating havoc across the USA.
And on the flip side, innovations and climate solutions can
provide economic benefit to all American consumers, businesses, and investors.
So while climate is a core issue on the left,
we're also seeing growth on the so called eco right.
(01:36):
Today we're joined by one of the leaders of this movement,
Bob Ingliss, executive director of Republican dot Org. Bob was
a Republican congressman representing South Carolina's fourth district from nineteen
ninety three to nineteen ninety nine and again from two
thousand and five to twenty eleven. For his work in
climate change, Engliss was given the twenty fifteen John F.
(01:57):
Kennedy Profile and Courage Award. Thanks for joining the podcast.
Great to be with you, Rob, Thank you so. First
question here, we're publican congressman from South Carolina. How did
you get involved in climate action?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Well, yes, I'll answer that, but you know what, I
got to comment on your intro, which is so so important.
All that data that you're talking about really is important,
you know, to all those sources. That's that's what you're
that's what you're doing. And so I'm glad to be
a data point. But what a what an interesting thing
to have people that are actually committed to data gathering data,
(02:35):
which is what the rest of us need. So so
the work you're doing, hats off for that, because that's really,
really is important. And like you said, climate is just
a thing that's happening, and it's about data. And so
so how did I get to this, Well, my first
six years in Congress, I said climate change is nonsense.
(02:57):
I didn't know anything about it except that Al gore
for it. And since I represented a very conservative district
in South Carolina, Greenville Spartanburg, South Carolina, that was the
end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant, but that's the
way it was my first six years in Congress. Then
I was out of Congress for six years doing commercial
(03:18):
real estate law again in Greenville, South Carolina, and had
the opportune run for the same seat again in four
two thousand and four. That's the year that our son
had just turned eighteen, voting for the first time. So
he came to me and said, Dad, I'll vote for you,
but you're going to clean up your act on the environment.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Oh so there are there are a stipulation there.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yeah, yeah, he was so you know, of course my
son knew that we could lose by one vote. He
was going to vote for me, no matter what. Right.
It wasn't in his economic interest to vote against me.
And so because he knew we were mortgaging the far
met that we live on. You know, that's what with
farm mets, where you don't really not really farmers, but
you pretend to be sot green ape like. And so
(04:01):
he knew that we were mortgaging the farmat to run
for Congress. So he was going to vote for me,
no matter what I think. He's really saying, Dad, I
love you. You can be better than you were before.
So how about make this English two point zero the
new and improved version. So that step one, step two
of this three step metamorphosis for me was going to
(04:21):
Antarctica the Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the
ice core drillings. And then step three was another science
committee trip and something of a spiritual awakening, which seems
unlikely on a godless science committee trip, because we all
know that all scientists are godless. Well apparently not, because
(04:42):
this Aussie climate scientist who was showing me the glories
of the Great Barrier Reef. As we snorkeled together, I
could clearly see was worshiping God and what he was
showing me. It was in his eyes, was written all
over his face, it was in his excitement about what
he was showing me. So I knew we shared a worldview.
You know, Saint Francis of ASSISI is quoted as saying,
(05:05):
preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary, use words,
And so Scott Herron, who's now become a very dear friend,
the Aussie climate scientist, was doing just that, preaching the gospel.
And so later we had a chance to talk and
he told me about conservation changes he was making in
his life to love God and love people, people who
(05:27):
come after us. He rides his bike to work, does
without air conditioning as much as possible in Townsville, Australia
it's a pretty hot place, hangs the families clothes out
of the line, all to consciously love people coming after us.
So I got right inspired. I wanted to be like Scott,
loving God and loving people. So I came home and
(05:49):
introduced the Raised Wages, Cut Carbon Act of two thousand
and nine, and I could have used some of that
data and analysis rob back then, and Know nine had
to try to convince people maybe that really this is
the way to do it just and for the Bloomberg listener,
I can just say it, what we're all about is
internalizing negative externalities everywhere else I got to unpack that.
(06:11):
But probably with your listeners, I can just say that's
all we talk about at the publican dot org. And so,
but I could have used some data. See if you were,
if you were doing this podcast back then, maybe I
could have he could have come to my help with
some some data.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Data really goes a long way, absolutely, you know.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
It's like, I love Michelin. North American headquarters is in Greenville,
South Carolina, and that one of their core principles is
respect for the facts. And I remember a tour in Spartanburg,
South Carolina. One of the plants and the plant manager.
I asked him to explain that. He said, oh, at Michelin,
we're glad for you to have your opinions, but we
(06:53):
operate based on facts, which is that's back to that
data thing. That's so that's what I could have used,
and Know nine, it didn't I didn't have that. Maybe
what I had was a primary challenge, and I got
tossed out in Tea Party days, losing in a Republican
primary to a guy who got seventy one percent of
(07:15):
the vote and I got the other twenty nine percent
of the vote. Rather spectacular face plant in politics, you know,
don't you usually lose that badly unless you've been indicted
or something. But actually, nowadays, maybe indicting you do better.
But I wasn't going to say go for but back then,
you know, if you get indicted, your pretty much toast.
I hadn't been indicted. It's just on the wrong side
(07:37):
of Tea Party orthodoxy. Because it looked people, I think,
as they were really struggling with the Great Recession, that
I was focused on something decades away, and they were
focused on what was here and now you know, the
houses underwater, all the data that you would have, you know,
about what was wrong at that time, and it looked
(07:59):
like I was taught came out something way far away.
So at that point the Foundation came to me and said,
you know, english pretty unusual. You know, actual conservative ninety
three American conservative being writing one hundred percent Christian coalition
one hundred percent National Right to Life A with the NRA,
zero with the Americans or Democratic Action, the liberal group,
(08:20):
and twenty three by some mistake with the a fl
CIO the Labor Union. I was really hoping for zero.
I don't know how I got twenty three. And so
they said, actual conservative who says climate change is real? Well,
you speak and write for the proposition, and so I's
been known ever since since. Now Republican dot Org with
(08:40):
Ian for Energy, Entrepreneurship, the Environment, we're conservatives who care
about climate.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Interesting. So I guess that was my next question. I
mean you kind of touched on it with you know,
I think there's this political stigma. You just say, this
is Al Gore's baby. You know, us Democrats now we
hear the we have the boogeymat of the Green New
Deal or your scam, depending on who you are, tree huggers.
So you know, most Republicans still are, i'll say nicely,
(09:06):
climate skeptics. So how do you get registered Republicans and
conservatives to care about climate chain.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Well, it's a couple of things. First, help them overcome
their undeserved inferiority complex.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, Unfortunately, conservatives think they're no good when it comes
to energy and climate, so they change the subject when
the topic comes up. It's like, you know, if you
want to talk to me about golf and you're constantly
talking about, let's go play golf, I'm going to be
thinking I got to find something else to do because
I am no good at golf. My parents are very
(09:44):
good golfers, but that was awful. And so so that's
what happens in climate. Conservatives think they're no good, and
so what we live to do at republic ean dot
Org is to tell them no, you're the kid in
class for the answer, raise your hand. You know that
a regulatory solution isn't really going to work because you
(10:07):
can't regulate Chinese emissions from here in America. You know
that all the incentives are really somewhat clumsy and they
become lobbyists full employment acts when they get ready to expire,
and that they really don't if you look at the
analysis the data that I'm talking about, you would see
that they really don't produce much carbon reduction. You know,
(10:31):
conservatives that the answer is just to bring accountability for
all the cost of all the fuels put them on
the price of products and let the free enterprise system
deliver innovation at speed and scale as consumers in the
liberty of enlightened self interest see the price signal and say, oh,
(10:54):
I see that stuff. That product. Let's say it's paper
plates in the grocery store. Those paper plates produce less
emissions than the plastic plates right next to them on
the shelf, because now that they're the price, that that
negative externality has been internalized into the price of the
(11:16):
paper and the plastic plates. The typical consumer is going
to pick up the paper plates and take them home
with them, and they're going to leave the plastic to
draw dust on the shelf. And so it's a price signal.
And we think that Milton Friedman, if he was still alive,
would be very proud of what we say republicean dot org,
because he'd be saying, yeah, that's it. And I guess
(11:40):
there's this great clip we've got on our website of
doctor Friedman on the Phil Donahue Show in the nineteen eighties.
Donahue ask him, what do you do about pollution? Then,
doctor Friedman, if you don't want to regulate it, Friedman
says you tax it, you tax pollution, and then he
goes on to explain how if you let two people
get away with doing something dumping on a third party,
(12:03):
the government has to step in because otherwise you got
a market distortion. And of course in other audiences, what
I typically add to that economic analysis is it's also
a moral problem. You can't let those two people do
something that affects a third party that's under Biblical law,
English common law, American common law, that's recoverable in trespass,
(12:28):
you know, I mean, so you can't do that. You
can't let that go on. And that's what we do now.
We let people dump into the trash jump of this
guy for free. That's the problem.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Yeah, I first of all, as a U Chicago lum
with an economics degree, you're speaking my language with Melton Freeman.
But you know, I would definitely agree with your take
on either a carbon tax or you know, some kind
of pricing adjustment. I do think that it's politically challenging though,
because again it's not like these are prices, are these
(13:00):
the costs are are necessarily self evident or certainly not.
You know, we were talking about before with the time horizon,
This is not something that you know, immediately impacts the consumer.
So so how do you get buying in that? I mean,
I've seen our current energy secretary talking about not putting
the thumb on the scale, and that's maybe why he's
not in favor of some of the renewable solutions. But
(13:22):
also seems to be that by not putting a price
on some of the externalities of the oil and gas industry,
that's also problematic as well.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Well. It is because that's the market distortion that doctor
Freedman is talking about, and like I say, it's also
a moral problem as well as a probably of economics.
But you know what, what what what we would we acknowledge.
It's a difficult political thing because it's like this English
(13:52):
for Congress. He wants the price of everything in your
life to go up. Oh yeah, that sounds like a
great campaign, you know. I mean because once you ternalize
that negative externality that bring a tipping fee or charge
a tipping fee for dumping into the trash jump of
the sky, the plastic plates go up in price, but
so do the paper plates because the paper plates, you know,
(14:13):
got chainsaw gas and you got some dry natural gas
drying the paper at the paper mill. So even those
who have gone up in price English for Congress, he
wants everything in your life to go up in the price.
But here's the thing. Trust me. Okay, now that's the problem.
But trust me, I'm going to simultaneously cut your payroll taxes,
(14:36):
your FICA taxes, so there's no growth of government. Do
you trust me? This is no. The answer is right now, no, don't.
And so that makes for a hard sell. But what
we live to do at Republican dot Org is go
into rock solid conservative constituencies and say, hey, listen, are
(15:00):
are we a free people? Can we decide what we're
going to tax? If the answer those questions are both yes,
then we should be able to trust ourselves to say, listen,
we are going to introduce a carbon tax. We're going
to apply it imports through a carbon border adjustment mechanism,
so it becomes in our trading partner's interest to collect
(15:22):
it at home rather than forking it over to us
when their goods hit our ports, and they would come
through without adjustment if they had their own back home.
And we're going to reduce taxes somewhere else so that
there's no growth of government and what we say to
(15:43):
conservatives is is if that's if we can't do that,
then let's call up King Charles and apologize. Let's say,
you know, listen, we're really sorry what happened back there
in seventeen seventy six. Please come back can rule over us,
because you know, the experience of self government has failed.
(16:06):
I'm not ready to make that call, and I usually
I usually get most most people in the audience agreed
that no, no, they're not ready to make that call
either that a free people can decide what they're going
to tax, and why can't we untax some form of income.
The one I would choose is a payroll tax, and
(16:27):
then tax tax the bad stuff, tax pollution. Do what
doctor Friedman would say. And the reason that I want
to untax payroll especially is it fixes the regressivity problem
of a carbon tax. If you a carbon tax hurts
poor people. If it's just a carbon tax by itself,
it hurts poor people. Thirty dollars a ton price on
(16:47):
carbon dioxide results in a thirty cent per gallon increase
in the price of gasoline nationwide pretty much, and in
the average home an eleven dollars per month increasing the
price of electricity. That's not bad for a lot of
your listeners, but for some people, a lot of people,
that's a real big hit, and so you got to
(17:09):
help them. And the way to help them is to
untax their income, particularly the payroll. Congressional Budget Office says,
if you do that, swap off payroll taxes on pollution tax,
carbon tax, the bottom seventy percent of Americans do better
because you can do something about the carbon tax. You
(17:30):
can drive last year, can turn down the thermostatic, can
put plastic on the windows in the winter. You can
do things to avoid energy cost. But you can't do
anything to avoid that payroll tax unless you become an
illegal employee of an illegal employer. And so we think
that it's rock solid conservatism that makes this work. But
(17:55):
I should say Rob though that just in case some
of your listeners think, Wow, these guys it on about
being so conservative. But I think I've heard that solution before.
If they're progressives, they have. It's the same thing that
Al Gore has been for for about thirty years. And
I asked him several years ago if I could keep
on saying that. He said, hold up, Bob, if you're
talking to Low. I said, no, sir, I'm talking a
(18:17):
substantial carbon tax that's steadily rising, applied to imports and
paired with the reduction and payroll taxes. He said, yeah, fine,
then you can tell people what you're for. Republicean dot
org is the same thing I've been for for about
thirty years.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Interesting. So, you know, certainly pricing mechanisms and a carbon
tax are there, but you know, how do you feel
about some of the incentives. So you know, we've talked
in past episodes about the Inflation Production Act. We had
Jean McCarthy on an episode last year and her perspective
was that, you know, this was really a transformational opportunity
to scale up manufacturing and innovation in the US will
(18:53):
also mitigating climate change. Now, from your perspective, what did
the IRA get right and what did it get wrong?
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I think Gena is right about that, and she's a wonderful,
straight shooting gal, by the way, and I think that
I think it is an opportunity to transform, and it
is a way to deal with it. I mean, as
I said, my preferred way would be eliminate all the subsidies.
(19:21):
Don't give my wife and I the seventy five hundred
dollars credit that we got for buying a Chevy Vault,
the v Volt, not the new Bolt. You know, because
in terms of tax equity, why did my wife and I,
who do fine get a seventy five dollars or seventy
(19:41):
five hundred dollars credit? Does ZIP pass some poor person
who's driving a conquer It just sort of it just
sort of offends me in a way that But but
I can concede that these subsidies are what Gina says
is they they become an opportunity to transfer, to transform industry,
(20:04):
to make it so that the ev can work. And
and so there's a case to be made for it,
you know. And frankly, if I were still in Congress
and the and and uh, you know, the Inflation Reduction
Act were offered as a freestanding bill with individual incentives
(20:25):
like that, I'd probably vote for some are a number
of them, why because well why not if you're a conservative.
Most of those are tax credits. Tax credits are a
way of reducing taxes. What conservatives has never has ever
met a because credit they didn't like, so why not
(20:46):
vote for it? So, but I think there is a
more elegant solution in a in a pricing mechanism, because
I think that it really causes, particularly because of the
carbon border adjustment mechanism. That's the thing that's mostly missing.
So I answer your question. The thing's mostly missing in
the Inflation Reduction Act would be that ability to impose
(21:09):
this on our trading partners. And I shouldn't say impose.
That's a bad word, strike thattuch. What I should say
is to make it in their interest to also charge
a tipping fee for dumping into the trash nup of
the sky. Because you know, if there's a sheet of
flat steel coming to the support of Los Angeles right
(21:30):
now from China, we apply our carbon tax a China
Jackson World Trade Organization. They're going to say it's an
impermissible tariff, but we think they lose that case based
on chemical industry precedents. That's say, you can have a
carbon you can have a content tax based on the
content stuff coming into the country, and this would be
a carbon content tax if we're right twenty four hours later.
(21:55):
Because China does have an amazing way reaching consensus. They're
not very fair government, not a very nice government, but
dog one efficient dictatorships are that way. They're an efficient
way to run government. It's just not one you want
to live under. But they would twenty four hours later
have the same carbon price because they just had paid
(22:16):
in Los Angeles a carbon tax. It's now being sent
to Washington that they could have collected themselves, in which
case the money would be in Beijing and the Sheeta
flat steel would be coming through the port of Seattle
with no adjustment. And then if you're doing business anywhere
in the world, you're doing business with America and China,
and so the whole world finds it in their interest
(22:39):
to charge the carbon tax internally to their own country.
And then you get eight billion people seeing the true
cost of burning fossil fuels because it's built into the
price of everything. The paper plates and the plastic plates
at the grocery store and every other shelf of the
store has the same thing going on. Some greener, cleaner,
(23:01):
renewable thing is now cheaper relative to the dirty that's
now been made accountable and having to pay the carbon
tax for its for its emissions. And so the result
is innovation takes off. And so while I can see
that the Ira inflation Reduction Act does have helpful steps
(23:25):
towards that. The real winner is when we make it
so that we get the whole world in and so
that's that's what I think needs to be improved upon.
About the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Yeah, I think there were rumblings a couple of years ago.
I might have even been one, say Graham, about trying
to do some kind of carbon border tax. And you know,
it seems to be that that would be, you know,
a solution that kind of made both sides happy. You know,
you have the greens, you know, basically putting a penalty
on carbon, but also it's a I don't know if
excuse is the right word, but it's definitely an opportunity
(23:58):
to add tariffs to China, which clearly has some very
high carbon content material.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yes, in fact it is. It's that bill has been
introduced by a Senator Cassidy of Louisiana and Lindsey Graham,
or the two of them have have introduced the bill,
the Foreign Pollution Fee Act, And what it would do
is exactly what you just said. It would make it
so that there is a tariff applied to high emitting products.
(24:27):
And so I think that Senator Cassidy believes that, you know,
give it a go. See if the wt O is
okay with that. I would hope so. But but I
think the safer way is to make sure you've got
a domestic price. Then then it's pretty clear that you
can do that what they're talking about doing. But hey,
we're a green light as far as we're concerned. Give
(24:48):
it a go. See what happens. See apply a tariff
to high emitting products. You'd think it might fit the moment,
except that, you know, as a guy that you know,
I'm a Reagan Republican, and I just saw a great
clip of the Gipper talking about tariffs and how they
(25:11):
are not the way to go and so and that
wonderful voice of his, and so I'm thinking it's sort
of hard for to talk about tariffs in that way.
But it does seem to fit the moment, except that
I think the moment may become quite sour on tariffs
as we find out that yo, that's what you call inflation.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Taking a quick break here to invite you to Bloomberg
Intelligences Mid Year Virtual Conference COP twenty nine point five
Innovation Accountability in the Path to Brazil This online only
event will be held Wednesday, June fourth, at eight thirty
am Eastern Time. Tune in to hear from leading experts
in public and private sectors, such as former Secretary of
State and US Climate and Boy John Kerry as we
discuss progress made in tackling the climate crisis, the challenges
(25:54):
in the current geopolitical moment, and he look ahead at
COP thirty and Bella in Brazil. The event has opened
all on the linked register or will be in our
show description.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
I guess kind of that brings us to you know,
it sounds like there's some buy in on the legislative brands,
but from the executive branch, you know, we have a
president who continues to call out the so called green
new scam. You know, what would you say to President
Trump to to kind of maybe turn his opinion around.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
I don't I don't know what what what I guess
what I would just implore him to look at is
just just look at the look at the facts with
the data without and understand that Hey, really, if you
believe in free enterprise, let's venture on that belief. Let's
let's say that really people should be accountable and and uh,
(26:46):
and if you. If you do that, then you get
this innovation in the free enterprise system faster than government
regulations or mandates or fickle tax incentives could ever imagine.
So I think that's you know, and I would also say,
I think to President Trump that this is this is
an opportunity for America to really lead the whole world
(27:12):
to solutions. This is this is what would make America great,
you know, is to really show leadership here. And so
but I do believe Rob that this is going to
be the inevitable position of conservatives. You know. It's you know,
(27:32):
I was getting tossed out in the midst of the
Great Recession because of the financial the global financial crisis.
As somebody said at that time, and who knows, might
have been a Bloomberg writer, I don't know, but who said,
it's amazing how the impossible went to the inevitable without
ever passing through the probable. And that was true of
(27:55):
that eight hundred billion dollar rescue of the banks. And
I think it's going to be true of this border
justable revenue neutral CARBONAX. It is the obvious answer, it
will become. It's amazing how the impossible went to the inevitable.
Without ever passing through probable. I think it will become
(28:18):
the inevitable. And the thing is it will be. But
here's the thing that is important to say, especially to
anybody that might be listening from the left of center,
is when Donald Trump calls it the green scam, there
is something to be heard there, and that is if
(28:40):
your left of center is I just implore people left
of center, do not, please do not see climate as
too good of a crisis to waste. Do not load
that wagon with everything that you want, ever wanted by
way of your fondest dreams. You know, I don't know.
(29:01):
Addressing the sins of colonialism, put that on the wagon.
Minimum wages, put that on the wagon. Additional regulation put
that on the way. No, no, the wagon is sinking
in the muck. Please take some weight off the wagon.
We got to get across the finish line with this
wagon quickly. The best way to do it is a
(29:24):
tipping fee on dumping into the trash dump of the sky.
And there are people left of center and right of
center that can agree on that. And that being the case,
please lighten the load on the wagon, because otherwise you
leave yourself open to Donald Trump during up his bass
by calling it the green new scam and all that stuff.
(29:46):
Just say no, no, we're talking about a very light
touch here. It's going to be very simple and we're
going to get across the finish line quickly. That I
believe what would be good A good political move and
a good policy move.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
I guess in terms of loading too much on the wagon,
I think one of the other areas, this idea of
the just transition that maybe you have or climate justices
they'll call it, where you know, maybe you'll have certain
plants or pollutants and certain underprivileged areas. Is that something
that you think needs to be addressed.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Yeah, it is. It remains a problem, this thing that
I'm talking about. A revenue neutral border jestible crabin tax
won't solve all the problems of the world. You still
have that problem of dumping onto poor people that are
right next to the English Industry's plant or whatever, that
are fouling their lungs. You still have that problem. But
(30:46):
if you do this carbon tax with a reduction in
payroll tax, is you address the regressivity. So you're helping
those neighbors near my English Industries plant, but you're also
causing me at English Industries to probably want I must
be burning something if I'm fouling their lungs. Probably there there,
there's more likely than not I'm burning something. And so
(31:10):
if if that's it becomes a proxy for reducing those things,
it doesn't solve the whole problem. Now, let me not
over overseell my product here. There's still going to be
a need for trying to deal with the fact that
Engless Industries is fouling my neighbor's lungs. But this would
be a step toward that and helping helping those those
(31:34):
poor people that live next for my plant with the
addressing regressivity, but also actually reducing emissions. And some of
the small particulates have probably be associated with those carbon emissions.
And so you're you are helping, You're just not solving
the whole problem. But like I say, we can't, we
(31:55):
can't hope for it to be just perfect, because we
got to start with what we can do, get it worldwide,
get a tipping fee for dumping into the trash dump
of the sky worldwide, and then come back later and
figure out how to deal with say, fugitive methane emissions.
That's not going to be a dressed so well with
(32:17):
what I'm talking about, figure out a way to get
Maybe you need higher cafe standards for cars as well,
because maybe it's two weeks of a price signal in
the transportation sector. You know, you have to do some
other stuff too, but let's get the main thing done fast.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
And what about adaptation.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I think that adaptation plays an important role here because if,
for example, in my state of South Carolina, I think
what we should do is go to the battery in
Charleston and start putting up a seawall to accommodate future
sea level rise. And I think once we start putting
(32:58):
up that seawall, people are going to say, time out,
wait a minute, this just doesn't that. We don't want
that tall of a sea wall. We're not gonna be
able to see. We're gonna if you we're gonna be
able to see over the sea wall. And if you
fill the land behind it so that we can walk
up there, we're going to kill all these beautiful two
(33:18):
hundred year old for three hundred year old live oak trees.
So hey, hey, let's stop the water from rising. So
I think that uh, or do what we can some
of it is, of course baked in. We can't avoid
some of the sea level rise that we're going to experience.
We can't avoid some of the baked in damage, but
we can avoid the worst of it if we get
busy and so and get active. And here's the thing,
(33:43):
key thing too, is for us at republic Kean dot org,
we go around saying, listen, this is not a crisis
that we're all going to die from next Tuesday. We
do not need to walk and eat bugs. We can
thrive as a society. In fact, we can make a
lot of money at this if we play it right.
(34:04):
We can create wealth and jobs here in America and
light up the world with more energy, more mobility, more freedom.
This is a this is a solvable problem. Again, some
of it is baked in, and that's gonna We're gonna
suffer some of the consequences. That's that's that's uh, that's
the reality. But but but doing good here, we can
(34:29):
do very well if we if we play it right.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
I mean, that's that's certainly one of the messages we
talked about here on our team. You know, in terms
of it, it's not just about you know, feeling the
warm and fuzzies. It's about, you know, how there's a
great opportunity here and how do we capitalize on that?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yeah, yeah, because that's and of course that's where the
smart money is already going. And that's that's the thing
that we hope to communicate. And that's what back to
your question about what I would say to Donald Trump
is is just President Trump, look at where the smart
money is going. The smart money is looking to invest
in places, are companies firms that can show them a
(35:09):
declining carbon footprint because the smart money understands that it
is inevitable that there's going to be some sort of
mechanism by which we price in this negative externality. And
if you have a business that can't take that, in
other words, that can't show a continuing profit once that
is that cost is attributed to you, the smart money
(35:31):
doesn't want to invest in you. And so so it's
just if we could accelerate the point at which people
start seeing that and they say, oh, well, I see this.
There's a business case for this. And that's why I'm
excited about talking with Bloomberg. You know, it's just so
it is really a compelling business case that really that
(35:54):
will turn some cranks right of center.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
Yeah, it's interesting you hear about, you know, a lot
of the kind of deals for rare earth, and you know,
I think about, well, rare earth that's kind of the
biggest consumer or one of the biggest consumers is on
you know, is in the clean power sector. So it's
kind of funny that even talking about the green new scam,
he's at least trying to move the country to prepare
for that demand.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Yeah, exactly, Yeah, and yeah, and this innovation really is
it's best done in the free enterprise system. It's it's
you know, speaking of Reagan kind of terminology. In Reagan years,
you know, the Soviets had five year plans and they
you know, they had clunky elevators, you know, I mean,
(36:38):
so you come to America and we didn't have a
five year plan.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
We got zippy.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Elevators, and we got you know, in other words, we
got we got things at work. When the government tries
to plan things, wow, that's sort of a disaster. Leave
it to the free enterprise system. Once you make everybody accountable,
put him on a level playing field, and now watch
the creativity of human beings deliver innovation. And when you
(37:08):
deliver innovation, you get sales, you make profit, and then
you can do more. And so we think that capitalism
is that system where you know, people serve people and
make money by being good servants, and that's the way
(37:30):
to go, rather than a central planned, bureaucratic system that
tries to come up with a five year plan.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
I mean, the world's richest man is unpopular as he
may be these days, he made a lot of that
money from ev So it just goes to show there's
path there.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
And in fairness to what we were saying earlier about
Jane McCarthy and anybody listening saying remembering that, is that
that his sales probably were affected by that same seventy
five hundred dollars credit than my wife and I got
for the Chevy Vault that he was other consumers were
getting them for his Tesla. So there, there's surely that's
(38:06):
also true that I was driving innovation.
Speaker 3 (38:09):
There.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Last question for me, I mean you kind of started
off talking about your son. You know, there is definitely
a generational divide. I'm wondering if you're seeing that on
the right as well, you know, between kind of boomers
as we'll call them in kind of maybe millennial or
Gen Z conservatives. I mean, is there more buying on
climate action and the younger generations on the right.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
That is what we find. Yes, you know, when I
speak to young Republican clubs, they're looking for a solution.
So I remember last fall before the election, I was
at the Treasure Coast, Florida Young Republican Club. We had
an event with them, and Donald Trump was having a
(38:52):
rally about fifty miles south at mar A Lago, And
here I was fifty miles north, and I was a
little that worried that maybe, you know, I'd be sort
of seen as a guy that's sort of reigning on
Donald Trump's parade or something, or and that I was
going to Trump rally, you know, Pepper rally. But these people,
(39:13):
the young Republicans there, they wanted an answer. They wanted
they want their party to be relevant to their future.
And particularly if you live in Florida, you know the
water is coming up and and you're concerned, and uh,
and so you want you want to you want to
(39:34):
feel that your party has a solution and and and
so we think there is a solution that fits with
conservative values.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
Got it all, right? That's great. Thank you so much
for your time today. Involve really enjoyed the discussion.
Speaker 2 (39:48):
Well, great to be with you, Rob, Thanks so much.
And keep that data coming because that's gonna really if
people start seeing the where the smart money is going,
will the general public all the rest of us will
sort of get it and we'll realize, Oh, they see
something and there is a way to make money and
(40:09):
do well.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah, thanks, great segue into our outre here. Maybe I
should have you read this, but if you're interested in
data on sustainability and environmental climate issues, you can check
it out at a BI ESG for terminal subscribers. And
if you have an ESG quandary you would like to
ask bi's expert analysts or learn more about our research
see some of that cool data, send us an email
(40:32):
at ESG Currents at Bloomberg dot net. And if you
liked this episode, please subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or your
favorite podcast platform,
Host
Eric Kane
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.