Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, yet Americans remain deeply divided on how urgent it is and how to address it. A 2024 Nature study found that while 70% of Democrats believe climate change is a ‘top priority,’ only about 15% of Republicans share that view, underscoring how partisan identity shapes our perceptions of risk. Despite this divide, the risks themselves cut across party lines. Amid this polarization, concern about extreme weather and the economic costs of inaction is present across the political spectrum, creating space for cooperation. As Senator Edward Markey has put it during the 2024 Harvard Climate Action week, “voters in a red state like Florida are just as vulnerable to sea level rise as those in a blue state like Massachusetts.” At the very same conference, former Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo echoes this from the other side of the aisle: bipartisan climate cooperation “is not just something that would be nice, it’s something we need.” Their words highlight a central and universal truth: climate action can only be durable if it is bipartisan.
In this article, I explore the forms bipartisan climate solutions have taken, and what they suggest about the path forward. By bipartisan solutions, I mean solutions at both the federal and state level (legislation, incentives, and regulatory programs) that are marked by or involve cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two political parties
When it comes to climate change, Democrats and Republicans (at least those acting with a sense of climate urgency) often begin from different priorities and use different language. Democrats generally frame climate policy around emissions reductions, international commitments like the Paris Agreement, and creating clean energy jobs, often linking these efforts to environmental justice. Their legislative achievements, from the Inflation Reduction Act to the Biden administration’s 2025 budget proposals, center on large-scale public investment in decarbonization and electrification.
Republicans on the other end focus on energy security, economic competitiveness, and technological innovation, with nuclear power and resilience investments (although sometimes under a different label) as key examples. Their efforts are also more often pursued at the state level, while climate regulations at the federal level have increasingly been dismantled, depending on whether climate solutions align with economic growth and job creation.
These differences have fueled recent rollbacks of federal climate policies, but it is important to remember that not every politician fits neatly into party lines. Overlaps between the two approaches remain and could serve as the foundation for bipartisan progress.
Economics as the Main Common Ground
Despite the partisan rhetoric, bipartisan climate cooperation does not vanish entirely and simply takes different forms. One of the clearest areas of overlap is economics. Democrat-led policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are now delivering billions of dollars in investment to Republican-led states. When it comes to the carbon capture market, let’s not forget the 45Q tax credit was part of the almost unanimously passed Energy Improvement and Extension Act in 2008 and saw expansion both under red and blue years (2018 and 2022), proving how bipartisan efforts to tackle climate change can historically stabilize certain policies. Red states like Texas and Oklahoma have seen record growth in wind, solar, and battery storage, while carbon capture projects are gaining momentum in the Midwest and Appalachia. For example, Oklahoma boosted its clean electricity output by ~35% between 2018-2023 (more than twice the national average) and cut its power sector’s carbon intensity by about 20%.
In the Midwest, Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed 2,500-mile CO₂ pipeline (approved in states like North Dakota) would carry emissions for underground sequestration from 57 ethanol plants, representing one of the largest industrial-scale CCUS infrastructures in planning. What emerges is a pragmatic pattern: even when Congress deadlocks, market incentives designed with bipartisan roots can lock in durable progress, ensuring that clean energy investment continues to expand across the political spectrum.
States: Fill in the Climate Gap
Economic growth is not the only place where one can find bipartisan initiatives — state governments have also become important testing grounds for climate cooperation. Where federal action has faltered or simply disappeared, states have often stepped into the vacuum. Florida, led by Republicans who studiously avoid the language of climate change, has nonetheless invested $1.8 billion in its Resilient Florida initiative (one of the largest state-level adaptation and coastal‐defense programs in American history) alongside other resilience projects, a tacit acknowledgment that the risks of sea-level rise demand immediate attention. West Virginia, long a coal stronghold, has gone a different route: in early 2025, the state secured federal approval to manage its own permitting for underground carbon storage, carving out a pragmatic role in the transition. By granting West Virginia “primacy” under the Class VI Underground Injection program, the EPA effectively handed local authorities control over the permitting and regulation of carbon capture wells, cutting federal red tape and giving the state direct responsibility for charting its energy future.
These examples highlight an important aspect of today’s climate politics: words may diverge, but when physical impacts or economic opportunities are on the line, partisan boundaries blur, and state actions (yet most of the time driven by incentives) often become the real measure of climate responsibility.
Technology and Security: Shared Interests
Technology and security provide another channel for cooperation. Nuclear energy has enjoyed renewed bipartisan support, framed by Democrats as a decarbonization tool and by Republicans as a pillar of energy security and job creation, culminating in the overwhelmingly passed and approved 2024 ADVANCE Act, a legislation intended to support the development of next-generation (Gen IV) nuclear reactors and ensure the continued operation of current US nuclear plants.
Bipartisan investments in innovation also extend beyond climate-specific policy. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, framed around US-China competition, poured billions into semiconductor manufacturing and scientific research. While not designed as a climate bill, some of that funding supports clean-tech R&D and grid modernization. This indirect relevance shows how bipartisan coalitions can back climate-relevant innovation when it is linked to economic security. Innovation, in other words, functions as a safe political language for climate action: it promises progress without regulation, growth without sacrifice.
Caucuses and Alliances: Keeping the Dialogue Alive
Finally, caucuses and coalitions, although quieter, keep the climate dialogue alive. Groups like the House Climate Solutions Caucus may lack legislative fireworks and big acts, but they still matter by creating opportunities, building trust and continuity. They offer members of Congress a space to discuss ideas, compare regional needs, and build trust across party lines. At the state level, coalitions like the US Climate Alliance (which historically had more red states than it does today) similarly allow governors to coordinate responses regardless of political affiliations. While these institutions may not grab headlines, they show that bipartisan scaffolding still exists, fragile (especially recently), yes, but key if we want durable policies to take root.
Conclusion
Looking across these examples, it becomes clear that bipartisanship in US climate policy is less about grand gestures and more about what happens in the margins: where jobs, security, and local risks make cooperation unavoidable. The 45Q tax credit, state-led resilience programs, and bipartisan support for advanced nuclear all point in the same direction: when climate action aligns with economic growth or immediate threats, political affiliations don’t matter. These efforts are often incremental and fragile. They may be subject to partisan reversals, but they are enduring and long-lasting because they are based on common grounds and shared interests. The real test, moving forward, is whether these overlaps can evolve into something larger than the current piecemeal progress. Climate impacts are accelerating, and the current pattern of pragmatic, incentive-driven cooperation may not be enough on its own. Yet it remains the most realistic path to durable solutions. Bipartisanship, however limited, is probably the only durable way climate policy in the United States can outlast future election cycles.
Reader Question
Do you believe bipartisan cooperation can grow fast enough to meet the scale of the climate crisis?