Environmentalists need to help us reduce demand for fossil fuels. Restricting supply can raise fuel prices and just lead to right wing populism.

I've heard of supply side economics as well as demand side economics. I got to thinking, is there supply and demand side environmentalism? Yes. I looked up on Google.

I believe that the emphasis on supply side environmentalism has been a mistake, for the most part. That is trying to reduce climate change by restricting oil drilling, for instance, thus restricting supply. It leads to populist rebellion against higher fuel prices.

Demand side environmentalism works better. Trying to figure out how to reduce the need for fossil fuels in people's lives and in the economy. Public transit, for instance. Encouraging residential and business use of rooftop solar energy, for instance. Heat pumps, electrification, lifestyles and cultures of less consumption and so forth are dealing with the demand side.

Taxes on supply, such as carbon taxes or Washington State's Cap and Trade rules are demand side restrictions as well. I tend to support these, but things on the demand side do run the risk of political pushback.

In our liberal state (Washington) our cap and trade law did survive a repeal attempt in 2024 in spite of people complaining about this state's higher gas prices than in other states.

I'm glad that law survived. Washington tends to be a more liberal state than most. Still, it seems like working on the demand side is a safer way to go. Restricting supply, while people are still dependent on a product, is politically dangerous.