Balancing effectiveness and broad social appeal of climate policy is not straightforward. Integration of distributional considerations into both the substance and framing of policy is one way to pursue this elusive balance. Driesen et al.¹ provide helpful insight into the potential flow-on effects of the integration of climate and industrial policy. They highlight examples, particularly including the US Inflation Reduction Act, that incorporate protectionist industry interventions that the authors argue may paradoxically hinder coordinated efforts to mitigate climate change, for instance, by slowing the diffusion and availability of critical decarbonization technologies. Driesen et al. position these risks as stemming from a populist approach to climate policy.

In this brief Correspondence, I promote caution around the use of populism to describe substantive features of climate policy, separate to the political rhetoric that may be used to advance policy agendas.

平衡气候政策的有效性和广泛的社会吸引力并不简单。将分配考虑纳入政策的实质和框架是实现这种难以捉摸的平衡的一种方法。德里森等人。 ¹提供了对气候与产业政策整合的潜在连锁效应的有益见解。他们重点介绍了一些例子，特别是美国《通货膨胀削减法案》，其中纳入了保护主义行业干预措施，作者认为这些干预措施可能会自相矛盾地阻碍减缓气候变化的协调努力，例如，通过减缓关键脱碳技术的扩散和可用性。德里森等人。将这些风险归咎于气候政策的民粹主义做法。

在这篇简短的通信中，我主张谨慎使用民粹主义来描述气候政策的实质性特征，与可用于推进政策议程的政治言论分开。