The latest headline from The New York Times, “This Former G.O.P. Politician Wants to Take Politics Out of Climate Change,” signals a recurring theme in the climate debate: the allure of bipartisan, market-based solutions. While seemingly pragmatic, such proposals, often championed by groups like Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD) and the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), frequently serve to obfuscate the deep political and corporate interests at play, ultimately stalling meaningful, equitable climate action. As we navigate a summer of escalating climate impacts and continued fossil fuel industry obstruction in June 2026, the call to “take politics out of climate change” must be met with sharp progressive scrutiny.

The Current Reality

The initiative highlighted in the Times likely centers around the “Carbon Dividends Plan,” a proposal vigorously promoted by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) and its lobbying arm, Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD). This plan, endorsed by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz, advocates for a nationwide carbon fee, with all net revenue returned to American households as a “dividend”. Currently, former Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Costello leads AFCD, pushing this framework as a “bipartisan solution” to cut emissions by half by 2035. The plan’s four pillars include a gradually rising carbon fee, carbon dividends for all Americans (estimated at around $2,000 annually for a family of four in the first year), regulatory simplification, and a border carbon adjustment to encourage international participation. Crucially, the “regulatory simplification” aspect of this plan explicitly involves ending all EPA greenhouse gas regulation and protecting big oil companies from climate-related lawsuits.

This push for market-based solutions unfolds against a backdrop of intensified political polarization and climate inaction from significant segments of the Republican Party. As of June 2026, the Trump administration continues its “unprecedented” regulatory rollbacks, fueling a surge in protective climate litigation aimed at preserving existing environmental safeguards. Concurrently, House Republicans, led by Majority Leader Steve Scalise, are actively urging the Supreme Court to side with fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in a climate lawsuit, branding such accountability as a “war on American energy”. Meanwhile, even within Democratic circles, a concerning trend of “climate hushing” has emerged, where some strategists advocate downplaying climate action for electoral advantage, despite rising public awareness of climate change’s direct impact on affordability, such as utility bills and insurance costs.

A Progressive Critique

The notion of “taking politics out of climate change” is, at its core, a political maneuver designed to maintain the status quo and absolve powerful corporate interests of their responsibility. The Carbon Dividends Plan, while presenting a veneer of market efficiency and fairness, is deeply problematic from a progressive standpoint. Its proposal to “simplify regulations” by effectively ending the EPA’s authority over greenhouse gases and shielding fossil fuel companies from lawsuits is not a depoliticization, but a capitulation to polluters. It trades away essential governmental oversight and accountability for a carbon pricing mechanism that, without robust regulatory guardrails, risks becoming a license to pollute.

Furthermore, the financial ties underpinning such initiatives reveal their true alignment. ConocoPhillips has reportedly contributed $2 million to Americans for Carbon Dividends, and ExxonMobil was suspended from the organization only after a lobbyist was caught on tape admitting the company supported a carbon tax for “publicity purposes”. This stark reality exposes how “bipartisan” solutions can be co-opted by the very industries responsible for the crisis, allowing them to dictate the terms of their own “solution” while sidestepping genuine accountability.

The plan’s focus on a dividend, while offering some financial relief, can also be viewed as a distraction from the systemic changes required. It frames climate action as a consumer issue rather than a fundamental restructuring of our energy economy and corporate power. This stands in stark contrast to progressive efforts, such as New Jersey’s “Polluters Pay to Make New Jersey More Affordable Act” (also known as the Climate Superfund Act), which sought to directly compel fossil fuel companies to contribute $50 billion towards climate adaptation projects—a bill unfortunately stalled due to industry and some labor opposition. This highlights the ongoing battle to shift the burden from taxpayers and affected communities back to the corporations that profit from environmental degradation.

The Path Forward

True climate action cannot be stripped of its political dimensions; it demands a bold, progressive political agenda that confronts corporate power and prioritizes justice. We must reject the false premise that market-based mechanisms, especially those coupled with deregulation, offer an apolitical panacea. Instead, the path forward requires:

  1. Robust Regulation and Enforcement: We need to strengthen, not dismantle, environmental protections and the agencies tasked with enforcing them. This includes expanding the EPA’s authority and ensuring that polluters face genuine legal and financial consequences for their actions, echoing the intent of efforts like New Jersey’s Climate Superfund Act.
  2. Direct Public Investment in Green Infrastructure: Beyond carbon pricing, massive public investment is necessary for a rapid and equitable transition to renewable energy, resilient infrastructure, and green jobs. This means prioritizing community-led initiatives and ensuring that the benefits of the clean energy economy are widely distributed.
  3. Holding Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable: Aggressive legal and legislative action is needed to compel fossil fuel companies to pay for the damages caused by their products and their decades of disinformation. The ongoing climate lawsuits, such as those supported by House Republicans against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy, demonstrate the critical need for continued legal pressure.
  4. Challenging “Climate Hushing”: Progressives must actively reframe climate action as a core component of economic justice and affordability. As recent polling indicates, a majority of Americans recognize that global warming is increasing the cost of living, from utility bills to groceries and home insurance. Connecting climate solutions to tangible benefits for working families can counter the narrative that climate policy is an unaffordable luxury.
  5. Reforming Campaign Finance and Lobbying: To genuinely “take politics out” of the corporate capture of climate policy, we need fundamental reforms to limit the influence of fossil fuel money in our political system. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has repeatedly emphasized, the pervasive influence of fossil fuel interests and “dark money” undermines the ability of the Senate to focus on the public interest.

The climate crisis is a profound political challenge, and it demands profoundly political solutions that prioritize people and planet over corporate profits. Any attempt to “depoliticize” it, particularly by those with a history of obstructing climate action, should be seen for what it is: an attempt to depoliticize accountability.