Americans Support a Carbon Border Adjustment

Leveraging Trade Policy to Cut Emissions and Strengthen US Manufacturing

As a follow up act to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Chips and Science Act, there is a burgeoning opportunity for Congress to advance another piece of bold, bipartisan legislation to mitigate climate pollution and strengthen US manufacturing industries in the process. Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed interest in leveraging trade policy to reward low-carbon products and incentivize manufacturers abroad to cut their emissions. Despite recent advancements in the US to address climate change, it remains a global problem, and US policymakers are coalescing around a policy to cut emissions outside our borders: a carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM.

CBAM is a trade policy that levies fees on certain imported goods based on their carbon intensities. Designed properly, a CBAM encourages cleaner production practices for carbon-intensive industries, like steel and aluminum, and prevents developed countries from outsourcing those industries to countries with weaker environmental standards, creating a “carbon loophole” that threatens to stall global climate efforts.¹ To address this loophole, countries can implement border tariffs that raise the cost of “dirty” imports and provide a competitive edge to products made using fewer carbon emissions. With some of the cleanest industrial production facilities based in the US, American manufacturers are well-positioned to benefit from a CBAM policy. This potential win-win for climate and the economy has certainly caught the attention of federal policymakers.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) Clean Competition Act was one of several Democratic-led CBAM bills introduced in the previous Congress, and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) will soon introduce his own proposal likely to garner support from several Republican colleagues. Legislators from both sides of the aisle recognize the value of a US CBAM in advancing our climate and economic goals. And according to our public opinion research, the American public recognizes its value as well. Third Way partnered with Global Strategy Group to conduct a nationwide quantitative survey to better understand voters’ priorities concerning climate legislation and whether they support trade policies that address climate pollution.

Bipartisan Support for a Carbon Border Adjustment Policy

Perhaps unsurprisingly, only a small percentage of respondents (37%) had even heard of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. However, despite their initial unfamiliarity, an overwhelming majority (74%) of registered voters in our nationwide sample support implementing a carbon border adjustment policy after learning more about it, including 87% of Democrats, 71% of political swing voters, and 61% of Republicans.

Notably, voters in Republican-leaning states from different regions of the country with distinct local economies – Indiana, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Utah – approve of a CBAM framework across the board. Republicans have generally resisted new regulations targeting carbon emissions, but several GOP members in the Senate have expressed interest in CBAM as a way to bolster US manufacturing given its carbon advantage over major global competitors in many industries.

Any proposal will need support from members of both parties to have a chance at becoming law. Fortunately, 43% of voters found the policy more attractive (compared to 4% less attractive) if they knew both Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported it, demonstrating the broader appeal of pursuing a bipartisan agreement.

Crafting a Compelling Narrative

As a complex and relatively unknown concept for most Americans, policymakers must build support for CBAM from the ground up by emphasizing its various benefits. Thankfully, we know where to start. Voters were quick to identify that a CBAM policy would positively impact the environment (72%), American manufacturing (67%), and workers (64%), and a majority view the policy as beneficial to the US economy (59%) and American families (54%). This trend persists across key states and with political swing voters.

Policymakers seeking to garner voter interest and support for a CBAM should highlight its potential to reduce air and water pollution and the positive economic impact on the American economy and local communities. Given that over a third of voters initially assumed that a CBAM policy would hurt the economy and American families, policymakers can dispel any concerns and galvanize public support by showcasing the advantages to American industries, workers, and communities.

When voters hear about the benefits of a CBAM framework, there is overwhelming support for the policy. By a 68-point margin, the most persuasive argument focused on how a carbon border can level the playing field and make American-made low-carbon goods more competitive, benefitting American companies and creating jobs. This message resonates particularly well with political swing voters – 84% found the focus on jobs and manufacturing persuasive, including 82% of swing voters.

…Raising prices for [more carbon-intensive] foreign products will make American-made goods more attractive, rewarding American companies and workers that produce low-carbon goods and supporting well-paying jobs across the country

Accountability also proved to be an effective messaging tactic–83% of voters, including 81% of political swing voters, found the argument that emphasized accountability for top global polluters convincing.

China and Russia account for 34% of global emissions, and the products they manufacture and export around the world often cause more pollution than similar products manufactured in the U.S.. A carbon border adjustment policy will hold these polluters accountable by charging a fee for any imported goods that do not meet America's climate pollution standards. In addition to making U.S. goods more competitive at home, this policy will encourage other nations to cut their climate pollution.

Other messages we tested - including taking measures to mitigate the costs of climate change, preserve a livable climate for future generations and position the US as a global leader in the clean energy economy - performed nearly as well, suggesting that this policy has broad appeal among different audiences.

While some respondents expressed concern about disrupting trade partnerships in the pursuit of cutting global emissions, a larger number prioritized taking action to join our allies in holding major polluters like China and Russia to account.

A majority of respondents also favored taking action to bolster US manufacturing industries and cut global emissions, even if it increases the costs of goods for American families.

Despite the potential for trade disruptions and resulting price increases for certain goods, respondents prefer policies that advance climate goals and create manufacturing jobs at home.

Negative Messaging Does Not Dissuade Voters

Voters across Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Utah - rallied behind a CBAM policy once they learned more about it, with the majority of voters in each state supporting the policy. Even after voters read negative messaging that focused on potential cost increases, international retaliation, and burdens that the new regulations could add for American families and businesses, voters continued to back the policy, albeit with some diminished support.

Among the state samples, Louisiana experienced the heaviest dip in support after exposure to negative messaging, with a 6-point drop, from 66% to 60%. This could be due to the state’s heavy reliance on oil, which comprises a significant portion of the state’s economy.² This contrasts with Indiana³and Utah⁴, which have larger manufacturing presences and experienced virtually no decrease in support from voters who saw the negative messaging, with zero- and one-point drops, respectively. In the national sample, where respondents were exposed to positive messaging followed by negative messaging, support actually increased from an initial 74% to a final 80%.

CBAM on the Ballot

Voters wholeheartedly agree–by a 57-point margin–that the government should be doing more to reduce air and water pollution. And they’re no longer turning a blind eye to policymakers who refuse to act. Over half of voters (57%) would not vote for a candidate who opposes efforts to combat climate change. An even larger faction (60%) would not support a candidate who does not advocate for American manufacturing and work to prevent outsourcing.

Historically, a candidate’s position on climate and energy issues has not been a decisive factor in elections.⁵ But given that cleaner manufacturing practices are crucial to our decarbonization strategy, a border adjustment policy is as much about strengthening US manufacturing as it is about mitigating climate pollution. For example, a Third Way-commissioned study found that implementing a CBAM in the US would make domestic steel and aluminum more price competitive, reduce imports, and help American steel and aluminum producers capture an additional $8.5 billion and $6 billion of their markets, respectively, by 2030.⁶ Given the dual benefits to this policy, policymakers can tailor their support for CBAM in either a climate or economic frame - or ideally, both. The potential of this policy to onshore more American manufacturing jobs and punish major polluters in countries like China appeals to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Conclusion

A carbon border adjustment mechanism is a powerful tool that, if leveraged correctly, can cut industrial emissions, strengthen the economy, and elevate our status as a global climate leader. Imposing import fees on carbon-intensive goods would allow the US to hold global polluters accountable for their emissions while boosting the cost-competitiveness of cleaner, domestic products, supporting good-paying manufacturing jobs, and expanding economic growth at home. By addressing concerns and communicating these popular impacts to communities, policymakers can build lasting support for the policy across the political spectrum.

Methodology

Third Way partnered with Global Strategy Group to conduct a nationwide quantitative survey with 1,003 registered voters (margin of error is ± 3.1%) and an oversample of 405 registered voters in Indiana, 400 registered voters in Louisiana, 402 registered voters in South Carolina, and 400 registered voters in Utah (margin of error is ± 4.9%). Swing voters in this survey are defined as those who are not strong partisans who vote for a mix of Democrats and Republicans.