[Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.]

It fit a pattern, too. At the state level and in other countries, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs have often failed to pass. The political problem with them is that they focus people’s attention on the short-terms costs of moving away from dirty energy.

A more promising approach involves emphasizing the benefits of clean energy: less pollution, better health, jobs in new industries and, of course, less destruction from climate change. Inslee and O’Rourke are taking this approach. Their plans mandate a shift to clean energy, while leaving companies, local governments and federal officials to figure out many of the details later.

Cleaner cars, and much more

O’Rourke’s plan includes “a ‘legally enforceable standard’ that would force the United States to zero out its carbon emissions by 2050,” as Robinson Meyer of The Atlantic explains. Inslee “would require that, by 2030, 100 percent of new cars sold in the United States must be fully electric, 100 percent of U.S. electricity must come from carbon-neutral sources, and 100 percent of newly constructed buildings must emit no greenhouse gases from their kitchens, chimneys, or heating systems,” Meyer writes.

Would energy prices rise? Probably, at least in the short run. But the plans wouldn’t shine attention on these price increases to the exclusion of the larger benefits. And Inslee and O’Rourke don’t exclude the possibility of introducing a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program in the future. The Green New Deal takes the same approach.