Select and Research a Climate Solution

At minimum, the policy should further the mitigation of climate change by meaningfully contributing to decarbonization within any sector of the economy. Alternatively, the policy can progress toward net zero by removing barriers to climate change mitigation, such as:

• Increasing political will among policymakers, enfranchising historically excluded populations, reducing corruption, or otherwise strengthening democratic institutions.

• “Greening” the financial system, as through regulation or financial incentives.

• Influencing key stakeholders to act at scale, e.g. shifting a company’s campaign or lobbying dollars toward climate action.

• Repealing harmful policies already in place.

With respect to maximizing decarbonization, policies are worth advocating against when the resulting net greenhouse gas emissions are positive (whether or not this is the intended effect of the policy). Defeating any provision that exceeds the IEA’s carbon budget by increasing fossil fuel production, sales, combustion/generation, financial incentives, or political power can be a good use of advocates’ time. Policy that adds indirect political or financial barriers to achieving decarbonization may also qualify.

At minimum, the predicted outcomes of the policy should not contribute to inequitable socioeconomic systems. The most equitable policies will take additional steps to redress harms and reduce inequities in accordance with the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative (delivering 40% of a policy’s benefits to underserved, marginalized, or energy-burdened populations), or a similar metric. The best policies will target sacrifice zones as identified by the U.S. government’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and seek to correct injustices caused by climate-related loss of infrastructure or livelihood, adverse health effects from pollution, proximity to physical hazards related to fossil fuels, hazardous waste, and related infrastructure, or energy/healthcare cost burdens.

An equitable policy may instead remove barriers to progress on climate and environmental justice and equity, such as a policy that increases political will among policymakers, enfranchises historically excluded populations, reduces corruption, or otherwise strengthens democratic institutions. It can also remove barriers by repealing existing harmful policy.

With respect to equity, policies are worth advocating against when the expected effect worsens inequality, such as regressive taxation, creating pollution “hot zones,” or exclusion of marginalized populations from receipt of benefits (tax credits, grants, loan guarantees, etc.) whether intentionally or not. Policies that add indirect political or financial barriers to achieving equitable outcomes may also qualify.

At minimum, there must be a clear policy ask (either a proposed vehicle for adoption or a specific request to draft a new bill or regulation), the policy should not significantly alienate Climate Changemakers from the mainstream climate advocacy ecosystem (this is a judgment call), and you should be able to identify target policymakers and stakeholders who could reasonably support the policy.

The most politically feasible bills have identifiable supporters both in government and among the public. They have room for negotiation on science and equity because they comfortably fit both those criteria. They are also well-timed to generate political traction and correlate with the political climate and exogenous factors. Some signals of political feasibility include public statements by policymakers or stakeholders, published modeling or analysis, media attention, bipartisan support, public discourse or social media trends, successful case studies of the policy in other jurisdictions, and large numbers of cosponsors on bills.

This one is unfortunately quite subjective and may take some trial and error! Use your best judgment on when to switch up existing policy priorities based on engagement and feedback from your attendees. If people stop showing up because they’ve been on the treadmill for too long, we’re no longer being effective advocates—no matter how impactful or cool the policy solution might be.