Last week, a poll from Trump-aligned pollster Fabrizio, Lee & Associates shocked the chattering class by finding 70% of Republican voters support American-made, utility-scale solar—supposedly anathema to today’s conservative energy policy.
Color me unsurprised. When I served as Miami’s Republican mayor, elected by Republican voters, solar energy and environmental solutions weren’t just policy priorities—they were popular.
We embraced solar as part of our city plan, and we also invested in other energy and environmental needs: raising seawalls, upgrading stormwater systems, attracting tech companies with zero-carbon nuclear power, and building flood-resistant infrastructure. Why? Because my Republican voters understood you can’t have a strong economy and thriving society without stewarding the natural assets that make your city valuable in the first place.
The truth is, energy and environmental policy is not as starkly divided as the culture warriors on either side want to admit. This polling and the city I governed for eight years is living proof.
Not to state the obvious, but people like living in beautiful places. People and businesses come to Miami for the sunshine, parks, clear water, and pristine beaches. But that beauty can come with a cost. Storm damage has become costlier, flooding more common, and residential insurance rates have been skyrocketing. After Hurricane Irma devastated South Florida in 2017, we faced a choice: continue treating environmental protection and energy resilience as optional, or recognize that our economy depends on both. We chose the latter.
Citizens voted to tax themselves $400 million to build resilience against storm surges and flooding. While this may seem costly, it’s significantly less than the $50 billion of destruction Irma caused statewide. And no price can be put on the lives we lost during the storm.
We broke ground on our first resiliency project in 2019, a flood mitigation upgrade in the low-lying Fair Isle neighborhood that raised roadways, improved drainage, and constructed a new stormwater pump station. The year before, we launched the PACE program—Property Assessed Clean Energy—enabling homeowners to finance rooftop solar, energy efficiency upgrades, and storm-resiliency improvements like impact windows and reinforced roofs through their property tax bills.
To date, the bond has funded dozens of flood-prevention projects while PACE has empowered thousands of homeowners to take control of their energy independence and hurricane preparedness. Both programs are voluntary—citizens voted for the bond, and homeowners choose PACE—and both demonstrate that conservative, market-driven environmental policy works.
Thankfully, Miami has not been directly hit by a hurricane since Irma. But it’s only a matter of time before the next storm strikes, and we’re better off for getting ahead. Our proactive approach means we’re saving money at the household level, protecting natural assets, and genuinely prepared when storms do come. The west coast of Florida wasn’t as fortunate—their recent hurricanes spiked insurance costs and pushed down property values, exactly the outcome our investments were designed to prevent.
That contrast illustrates why Miami’s approach to environment and energy can and should be replicated in cities across America. Every corner of our country has natural assets that create value while also presenting risks: towering mountains with avalanches, river deltas that flood, or forests prone to wildfires. Preserving those assets isn’t a wasteful line item—it’s what gives our communities value in the first place.
Of course, this dual commitment to environmental protection and energy innovation isn’t always easy. The same ocean that makes Miami beautiful reminds us of our vulnerability. The same prosperity that makes environmental investments possible has also made Miami a magnet, driving up housing costs and straining infrastructure.
Yet these are good–and solvable–problems to have. Miami is booming in large part because it is beautiful and because we embrace pragmatic environmental reforms that mitigate the risks of natural disasters. And the best way to respond to these growing pains is through tried and true Republican principles: keeping taxes low, reducing government debt, investing in infrastructure, and committing to law and order.
These policies helped Miami transition in a time of unprecedented growth, while turning a $115 million deficit into a $200 million surplus, cutting murders by 40%, and attracting businesses from Citadel to Spotify. The infrastructure improvements that protect us from floods—raised seawalls, upgraded drainage, enhanced green spaces—also make commutes easier and communities stronger. Economic vitality and environmental stewardship weren’t mutually exclusive. They were complementary priorities.
Of course, truly mitigating environmental dangers and building a robust energy future will require federal, state, and private sector actions to address root causes, ideally through market signals that mobilize the whole of the American economy to drive innovation and reduce emissions. But cities still play a key role because cities don’t have the option to play politics or get dragged down in culture wars.
I’ve long believed America’s mayors are part of the solutions party, because we either fix problems or we fail. Miami’s journey demonstrates that cities can thrive by embracing both economic growth and environmental responsibility. By choosing pragmatism over ideology—treating our environment as a strategic asset and investing in resilient infrastructure—we created a safe, booming, and beautiful city all at the same time.
Francis Suarez was the 43rd Mayor of Miami (2017-2025) and the former President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
