Get the latest market trends in your inbox

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with the Axios Markets newsletter. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

In Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, America is gearing up to tussle over big climate-change policy for the first time in nearly a decade. But what this actually means is up for massive interpretation.

Why it matters: How Washington considers tackling this problem, whether through a tax, regulations and/or something else, would affect almost every swath of the country and reverberate around the world.

The big picture: Everything old is new again. Most ideas floating around are actually adapted versions of proposals Washington has pursued before. At the heart of any climate policy is this tough task: Make fossil fuels more expensive without hitting American pocketbooks too much, and/or making cleaner energy technologies cheaper.

Regulations and mandates

The popular-but-vague Green New Deal championed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez probably fits in best here, judging by what we know about it now.

A draft legislative document lists numerous lofty goals, including:

  • 100% renewable electricity within 10 years (up from 17% today).
  • Upgrading all buildings to be more energy efficient.
  • Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from sectors like manufacturing and agriculture.

But the document doesn’t say how they would occur. They would probably require, first and foremost, more regulations and mandates. That’s how Washington has conducted many of its biggest energy and environmental policies to date, including Energy Department efficiency standards and the renewable fuel standard.

Modeled after Franklin Roosevelt’s original New Deal, the Green New Deal is far larger in scope than what’s been done in recent history. It includes progressive policies as far-reaching as universal health care and a federal jobs guarantee.

Carbon tax and dividend

This is the other climate policy emerging in Washington in recent months. Economists, oil companies, Republicans and some environmental groups are getting on board, even as progressive politicians (and most of the media) focus on the Green New Deal.

Under this policy, the government would tax carbon dioxide emissions and send money back to Americans in the form of dividend checks.

  • At least three different bills featured this policy when Congress tackled climate policy a decade ago.
  • Today’s version and the earlier ones differ on important details, including how much money is rebated back and whether climate-change-related regulations are preempted.

But the basic idea is the same: Try to change business behavior by making fossil fuels more expensive while simultaneously shielding average Americans.

Subsidies

The opposite of a tax is a subsidy, where the federal government seeks to encourage behavior by giving money or providing specific tax deductions to projects or initiatives.

Because taxes are politically unpopular, politicians have often opted for subsidies, even though economists and many energy executives consider them less efficient than a tax.

Examples abound:

  • The massive stimulus law Washington passed in response to the 2008 economic crash included various kinds of subsidies for clean energy, totaling some $90 billion.
  • Temporary tax credits for wind and solar projects, as well as buyers of electric cars.
  • A slew of permanent tax breaks for oil companies.

While Congress passed legislation last year expanding tax credits for technologies capturing carbon dioxide emissions, I don’t anticipate a big appetite for lawmakers to create new subsidies.

Cap and trade

This is the policy the House passed a decade ago that died in the Senate a year later due to several factors, including lack of support from key Republicans and even some Democrats.

Cap and trade is a market-based system where the government caps the amount of emissions (in this case greenhouse gases) and creates a trading system.

  • Companies can buy and sell credits of emissions to comply, which often makes it more flexible than a tax.
  • The end result is the same though: lowering emissions while trying to minimize costs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she might revive the bill from a decade ago, but for now the least amount of momentum is behind this kind of policy.

All or some of the above

This is self-explanatory but important to mention. Debate is often black and white, but reality isn’t. Any policy, particularly the Green New Deal with its sweeping narrative, would likely combine a few of these different levers.

What’s next: While the basic policies addressing climate change haven’t changed much in the last decade, the underlying political environment is changing. It’s now more conducive to climate action for a few reasons:

The bottom line: Whether things have changed enough for any of these new old ideas to pass the legislative finish line amid deep political polarization is an open question.

What else do you want explained via an Axios primer? Email me at amy@axios.com.

Go deeper:

Democrats' left turn on climate change

Want to tax carbon emissions? Just don't call it a tax

Energy and climate glossary for Trump (and everyone)

Go deeper

Using apps to prevent deadly police encounters

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Mobile phone apps are evolving in ways that can stop rather than simply document deadly police encounters with people of color — including notifying family and lawyers about potential violations in real time.

Why it matters: As states and cities face pressure to reform excessive force policies, apps that monitor police are becoming more interactive, gathering evidence against rogue officers as well as posting social media videos to shame the agencies.

Dan Primack, author of Pro Rata
15 hours ago - Technology

TikTok gets more time (again)

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

The White House is again giving TikTok's Chinese parent company more to satisfy national security concerns, rather than initiating legal action, a source familiar with the situation tells Axios.

The state of play: China's ByteDance had until Friday to resolve issues raised by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), which is chaired by Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin. This was the company's third deadline, with CFIUS having provided two earlier extensions.

Federal judge orders Trump administration to restore DACA

DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18. Photo: Drew Angerer via Getty

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to fully restore the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, giving undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children a chance to petition for protection from deportation.

Why it matters: President Trump has sought to undo the Obama-era program since taking office. Friday’s ruling will require Department of Homeland Security officers to begin accepting new applications for DACA as soon as Monday.