Climate Goals Are Becoming More Realistic. That’s Good News.

Dr. Victor is a professor of innovation and public policy at the University of California, San Diego, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. On its face, 2025 looks like a year of relentless backsliding in the fight against climate change. President Trump signed a bill that will eliminate most federal funding for clean energy, and he is wind and solar projects and attacking climate science institutions. of the states most committed to action on climate change, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have scaled back or are contemplating ways to scale back their pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Europe, long the leader in global action, is softening many of its commitments, including its plan to replace all internal-combustion-engine cars with electric vehicles. So many banks have from their promises to make their lending practices greener that an alliance of bankers committed to reducing emissions in the fall. These shifts appear to be signs of a widespread weakening of resolve and a capitulation to lobbyists fighting action on climate change. But another, more important trend emerged this year as well: Policymakers and investors are pursuing whats feasible rather than promising the impossible. Policy debates on climate change have long been focused on abstract ideas. For investors, the obsession with bold, unachievable goals make it hard to know where to put their We need to recognize that many of our old climate goals, such as slashing global emissions to zero very soon or eliminating sales of gas-powered cars, were never attainable. Admitting that is the to a new, more mature phase of climate action one more anchored in reality and thus better equipped to focus debate on real trade-offs. Take Pennsylvania. Its governor, Josh Shapiro, he was abandoning an emission trading scheme that linked Pennsylvania to 11 other states and required modest limits on climate pollution. Most climate activists, attuned to any whiff of backsliding, sounded the alarm. In reality, the scheme was mired in legal troubles, and Republicans had convinced many voters it was a tax on already costly energy. It had little chance of working politically in Pennsylvania over the long haul. Mr. Shapiro is pushing a politically smarter that would focus on producing more energy in the state, lowering costs and using tax revenues to attract clean industries. Pennsylvania has continued to move away from conventional coal, the dirtiest way to make electricity, while encouraging competition among cleaner energy suppliers wind and solar but also nuclear power and natural gas plants fitted with pollution control equipment. More competition among them can drive down costs for consumers and benefit the environment. Forcing dirtier coal to compete with cleaner rivals is the main reason emissions from the U.S. power sector are going down. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and your Times account, or for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? . Want all of The Times? .