The climate window is closing — but the clean energy transition is also the largest job-creation opportunity in American history. Clean energy already employs 3.2 million Americans. The US subsidizes fossil fuels by $29-35 billion per year. A $50/tonne carbon fee with 100% household dividend would cut emissions and put money in most families' pockets.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page breaks down our climate and energy plan — but there's much more to explore.
The scientific consensus is unambiguous: without rapid decarbonization, global temperatures will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within a decade, triggering irreversible damage to agriculture, coastal infrastructure, freshwater supply, and public health. The economic cost of inaction dwarfs the cost of action by a factor of 4 to 10.
Climate change is not a future problem. It is a present emergency with a price tag Americans are already paying. In 2023 alone, the United States experienced 28 billion-dollar weather disasters — the most in recorded history. Wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and droughts caused $93 billion in damages. Insurance markets in Florida, California, and Louisiana are collapsing as companies refuse to cover the escalating risk. The housing crisis and the climate crisis are converging: homes that can't be insured can't be mortgaged, and homes that can't be mortgaged lose their value — wiping out the primary asset of millions of American families.
But this is also the most significant economic opportunity since the post-war industrial boom. The global clean energy market is projected to reach $23 trillion by 2030. Countries that dominate clean energy technology will dominate the 21st-century economy the way oil-producing nations dominated the 20th. Right now, China manufactures 80% of the world's solar panels, 60% of its wind turbines, and 75% of its lithium-ion batteries. The United States can either compete for this market or cede it. The trade policy page explains how clean energy manufacturing connects to the broader trade strategy.
Clean energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels in most of the country. New solar costs roughly $30 per megawatt-hour. New wind costs roughly $35. New natural gas costs $45-$75. New coal costs $65-$150. The transition is not a sacrifice — it is an economic inevitability. The question is whether the US leads it or follows it, and whether the rural communities that currently depend on fossil fuels are abandoned or supported through the change.
Sources: NOAA, Department of Energy, EIA, Lazard LCOE Analysis, IPCC. See the full climate and energy issue page for complete sourcing.
The Common Good energy plan is built on five pillars: 100% clean electricity by 2035, a $50/tonne carbon fee with 100% household dividend, a $1 trillion Clean Energy Industrial Act, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and extension of existing nuclear plants. Together, they cut emissions, create millions of jobs, and lower household energy costs within a decade.
This is not a wish list. Every provision is modeled on policies that work in other countries or are already partially implemented in the United States. The total investment is offset by savings from eliminated subsidies, carbon fee revenue, and reduced climate damage costs. The plan is fully costed in the budget and fiscal responsibility page.
For the complete plan with legislative detail, cost projections, and sourcing, see the full climate and energy issue page and the infrastructure policy for grid and transportation details.
The United States is the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases in history and the second-largest current emitter behind China. Among wealthy democracies, the US has the weakest climate targets, the highest per-capita emissions, and the most generous fossil fuel subsidies. Other major economies are moving faster.
| Country/Region | CO2/Capita (tonnes) | Clean Energy % | Climate Spending | Net-Zero Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 14.4 | 22% | $370B (IRA) | 2050 |
| European Union | 6.2 | 44% | $270B/yr (Green Deal) | 2050 (law) |
| China | 8.0 | 33% | $546B (2023) | 2060 |
| India | 1.9 | 28% | $17B/yr | 2070 |
The United States emits more than twice as much CO2 per person as the European Union and more than seven times as much as India. The EU has legally binding net-zero legislation. China — despite being the largest total emitter — invested more in clean energy in 2023 than every other country combined. The US share of global clean energy manufacturing is shrinking, not growing. Without the investments in the Common Good plan, America risks falling permanently behind in the defining industry of the 21st century.
For a detailed side-by-side comparison of party positions on climate and energy, see the Compare Parties page. For how energy policy connects to trade, infrastructure, and the future of work, see those issue pages.
The cost of climate inaction is 4 to 10 times greater than the cost of action. Every dollar spent on clean energy transition saves $4-10 in avoided climate damage, disaster recovery, health costs, and infrastructure replacement. Inaction is not the fiscally conservative position — it is the most expensive option available.
| Category | Cost of Inaction | Cost of Action (CGP Plan) |
|---|---|---|
| Weather disaster damages | $150-250B/year by 2050 | $60-80B/year (reduced) |
| Health costs (air pollution) | $820B/year | Reduced 70-80% |
| Agricultural losses | $50-100B/year by 2050 | Significantly reduced |
| Coastal infrastructure | $1T+ (sea level rise) | Slowed with adaptation |
| Clean energy investment | $0 (no transition) | $1T over 10 years |
| Jobs created | Net job losses (fossil decline) | 5-8 million new jobs |
| Household energy cost (2035) | Rising (fossil price volatility) | Lower (clean is cheaper) |
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that climate change will cost the federal government $2 trillion per year by 2100 in increased disaster response, infrastructure repair, crop insurance payouts, and military readiness. The $1 trillion Clean Energy Industrial Act is not an expense — it is the most cost-effective investment the federal government can make. For the complete fiscal analysis, see the budget page and the taxation policy.
Sources: OMB Climate Risk Report, EPA, NOAA, Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, Princeton Net-Zero America Project.
The fossil fuel industry has spent decades funding disinformation campaigns designed to delay climate action — the same playbook the tobacco industry used to delay smoking regulations. Here are the four most persistent myths about climate policy and what the evidence actually shows.
Myth: "Climate action will destroy the economy."
Reality: Climate inaction is destroying the economy. The US spent $93 billion on weather disasters in 2023 alone. Insurance markets are collapsing in multiple states. Agriculture losses are mounting. Meanwhile, the Inflation Reduction Act has already triggered $370 billion in private clean energy investment and created hundreds of thousands of jobs — predominantly in red states and rural communities. The clean energy sector grew jobs 2.5 times faster than the overall economy in 2023. Climate action is not an economic risk. Climate inaction is. The affordability page details the household-level impact.
Myth: "Renewables can't power the grid reliably."
Reality: This was a legitimate concern a decade ago. It is no longer. Battery storage costs have fallen 90% since 2010. Utility-scale batteries now provide 4-8 hours of backup power. Combined with nuclear baseload, pumped hydro, and a modernized transmission grid, a 100% clean electricity system is technically feasible — as confirmed by Princeton, MIT, the National Renewable Energy Lab, and multiple independent analyses. The grid that failed in Texas during Winter Storm Uri in 2021 failed because of poorly winterized natural gas infrastructure, not because of renewables. The infrastructure page covers grid modernization in detail.
Myth: "It doesn't matter what the US does — China is the problem."
Reality: The United States is the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases in history and emits roughly twice as much per person as China. Meanwhile, China invested $546 billion in clean energy in 2023 — more than every other country combined. China now manufactures 80% of the world's solar panels and dominates battery and EV production. The argument that "China is the problem" is both factually misleading and strategically self- defeating: if the US doesn't invest in clean energy, it cedes the largest industrial market of the 21st century to its primary economic competitor. The trade policy addresses clean energy competition directly.
Myth: "A carbon tax hurts working families."
Reality: A carbon fee without a dividend would indeed be regressive. That's why the Common Good plan returns 100% of carbon fee revenue directly to households. Because wealthy households consume far more carbon-intensive goods and services, they pay more into the fund than they receive. For roughly 60% of American households, the dividend exceeds the increased costs — meaning they come out ahead financially. This isn't theoretical: Canada's carbon pricing with rebate system has been operating since 2019 and delivers net benefits to the majority of households. See the taxation policy for the full distributional analysis.
Click any question to expand the answer.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full climate and energy issue page or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Check back soon for policy analysis of climate and energy news.
3.2 million Americans already work in clean energy. The global market will reach $23 trillion by 2030. Read the full plan to see how America leads the transition — with jobs, dividends, and lower energy costs.
Paid for by the Common Good Party. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Privacy Policy · Contact Us