You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Any household savings will barely make a dent in the added costs from Trump’s many tariffs.

Donald Trump’s tariffs — the “fentanyl” levies on Canada, China, and Mexico, the “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every country (and some uninhabited islands), and the global 10% tariff — will almost certainly cause consumer goods on average to get more expensive. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that in combination, the tariffs Trump has announced so far in his second term will cause prices to rise 2.3%, reducing purchasing power by $3,800 per year per household.
But there’s one very important consumer good that seems due to decline in price.
Trump administration officials — including the president himself — have touted cheaper oil to suggest that the economic response to the tariffs hasn’t been all bad. On Sunday, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told NBC, “Oil prices went down almost 15% in two days, which impacts working Americans much more than the stock market does.”
Trump picked up this line on Truth Social Monday morning. “Oil prices are down, interest rates are down (the slow moving Fed should cut rates!), food prices are down, there is NO INFLATION,” he wrote. He then spent the day posting quotes from Fox Business commentators echoing that idea, first Maria Bartiromo (“Rates are plummeting, oil prices are plummeting, deregulation is happening. President Trump is not going to bend”) then Charles Payne (“What we’re not talking about is, oil was $76, now it’s $65. Gasoline prices are going to plummet”).
But according to Neil Dutta, head of economic research at Renaissance Macro Research, pointing to falling oil prices as a stimulus is just another example of the “4D chess” theory, under which some market participants attribute motives to Trump’s trade policy beyond his stated goal of reducing trade deficits to as near zero (or surplus!) as possible.
Instead, oil markets are primarily “responding to the recession risk that comes from the tariff and the trade war,” Dutta told me. “That is the main story.” In short, oil markets see less global trade and less global production, and therefore falling demand for oil. The effect on household consumption, he said, was a “second order effect.”
It is true that falling oil prices will help “stabilize consumption,” Dutta told me (although they could also devastate America’s own oil industry). “It helps. It’ll provide some lift to real income growth for consumers, because they’re not spending as much on gasoline.” But “to fully offset the trade war effects, you basically need to get oil down to zero.”
That’s confirmed by some simple and extremely back of the envelope math. In 2023, households on average consumed about 700 gallons of gasoline per year, based on Energy Information Administration calculations that the average gasoline price in 2023 was $3.52, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics put average household gasoline expenditures at about $2,450.
Let’s generously assume that due to the tariffs and Trump’s regulatory and diplomatic efforts, gas prices drop from the $3.26 they were at on Monday, according to AAA, to $2.60, the average price in 2019. (GasBuddy petroleum analyst Patrick De Haan wrote Monday that the tariffs combined with OPEC+ production hikes could lead gas prices “to fall below $3 per gallon.”)
Let’s also assume that this drop in gas prices does not cause people to drive more or buy less fuel-efficient vehicles. In that case, those same 700 gallons cost the average American $1,820, which would generate annual savings of $630 on average per household. If we went to the lowest price since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, about $3 per gallon, total consumption of 700 gallons would cost a household about $2,100, saving $350 per household per year.
That being said, $1,820 is a pretty low level for annual gasoline consumption. In 2021, as the economy was recovering from the Covid recession and before gas prices popped, annual gasoline expenditures only got as low as $1,948; in 2020 — when oil prices dropped to literally negative dollars per barrel and gas prices got down to $1.85 a gallon — annual expenditures were just over $1,500.
In any case, if you remember the opening paragraphs of this story, even the most generous estimated savings would go nowhere near surmounting the overall rise in prices forecast by the Yale Budget Lab. $630 is less than $3,800! (JPMorgan has forecast a more mild increase in prices of 1% to 1.5%, but agrees that prices will likely rise and purchasing power will decline.)
But maybe look at it this way: You might be able to drive a little more than you expected to, even as your costs elsewhere are going up. Just please be careful! You don’t want to get into a bad accident and have to replace your car: New car prices are expected to rise by several thousand dollars due to Trump’s tariffs.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
‘It’s truly possible that a lot of people will wake up and realize that the spell is broken from Trump.’
After Donald Trump won his second term two years ago, I wrote about “the death of climate tech” — or at least the death of the term. That largely held up. Climate-focused investors and startups increasingly dropped the label in favor of energy security, efficiency, and infrastructure resilience, often reframing their pitch to serve the booming data center industry along the way. Following the Democrats’ midterm sweep on Tuesday, I checked in with “climate tech” investors to see whether the industry might be ready for a rhetorical — and ideally literal — comeback.
On the rhetoric, they were largely unconvinced. On the substance, they were a bit more hopeful.
“This was not an election that was a referendum about climate or energy or anything even close to that,” Lara Pierpoint, managing director at the philanthropic climate tech firm Trellis Climate, told me. The consensus was that voters were far more concerned with affordability, Trump’s deep unpopularity, and, to some extent, the data center backlash. Sure, all of these issues touch on climate, but it was by no means anyone’s central message.
But that doesn’t mean Tuesday wasn’t still a win for the energy transition.
“This new Congress, controlled by Democrats, will focus mostly on energy affordability and access,” Gabriel Kra, managing director at Prelude Ventures, told me. That, he said, will likely encompass a push for more solar, wind, and batteries in energy planning — but “all in the name of affordability and reliability, not focused on climate.”
Susan Su, a climate investor and analyst, expects this El Niño cycle to bring climate back into the conversation, but “maybe more in the form of adaptation, extreme weather, and just resilience,” she told me.
“I don’t think we’re going to rush back to talk about climate this or that. I think we will rush back to acknowledging that this is the macro of all macros,” Andrew Beebe of Obvious Ventures told me, meaning climate remains one of the biggest forces shaping the global economy, whether or not investors and policymakers choose to call it that. “Maybe it’ll just get more attention in whatever name, I don’t really care.”
Still, investors aren’t expecting an immediate flood of federal climate action in the lame-duck session, although, of course, passing the permitting bill would ease the way for economy-wide electrification. And Kra told me it’s still too soon to know whether some of the Trump administration’s canceled or frozen grants for technologies like clean cement, steel, hydrogen, and carbon capture could be revived under a Democratic Congress. Restarting that funding would certainly offer a beacon of hope for clean industries that have yet to move down the cost curve and into the realm of true affordability.
Investors’ most realistic near-term hope is that Tuesday’s results mark the beginning of a more stable era for the clean energy ecosystem. “The Trump administration has just introduced so much chaos, and markets hate chaos. They love certainty,” Su told me. She pointed out that as the results rolled in, the 10-year Treasury yield dipped. Su read that as a sign that investors were rushing to lock in today’s higher rates, betting that a more stable political environment would lower borrowing costs down the road. That would both make first-of-a-kind projects cheaper to finance and push investors to chase riskier, higher-return bets in the venture market.
“Even just the perception of more certainty via a potential check on Trump — a legislative check on Trump — could bring cost of capital down, which is going to have a positive halo effect across our whole sector,” Su told me.
Kra expressed a similar hope: that the next two years will lay the groundwork for a more durable U.S. energy and industrial policy framework. “By durable, I mean guidelines and rules and laws that can survive a changed administration and a change of control of Congress,” he told me. “That will unlock affordable reshoring of American manufacturing. That will unlock an industrial and commercial response that will really catalyze growth in the economy, in clean electricity and energy, and in the innovation economy.”
I also heard some optimism that Republicans, battered by Tuesday’s results, might start to find their voice on clean energy as they begin to break free from Trump’s yoke. “My big hope would be that we finally enter a phase where Republicans can not be threatened to say what I think most of them already know, which is that the climate issues are real and need addressing,” Beebe told me. “It’s truly possible that a lot of people will wake up and realize that the spell is broken from Trump, and they will be able to, in the plain light of day, evaluate things at face value again.”
That could help depoliticize and expedite the rollout of technologies like electric vehicles and heat pumps, which have become partisan products in recent years. Meanwhile, Rajesh Swaminathan of Khosla Ventures told me via email that he sees lots of potential for bipartisan momentum behind superhot rock geothermal, fusion, critical minerals, and cost-competitive clean cement and steel.
Now, Su told me, it’s time for climate technologies that have talked a big game on affordability to prove it, giving investors and Republican skeptics no reason to dismiss them. “For years, founders have been talking about, ‘Oh, we’re not just cleaner, but we’re actually cheaper and better.’ Okay, so now it’s time to put your money where your mouth is,” she told me.
She’s also optimistic that this younger generation of newly elected lawmakers will be more open to the full spectrum of climate solutions, from adaptation and carbon removal to more speculative and unconventional ideas like solar geoengineering. “It’s not going to be Al Gore anymore,” she told me. “I think younger people have a very different view on, let’s do what we need to do to make ourselves have a livable future versus sticking to older mental models.”
But perhaps the most liberating takeaway from Tuesday night for Su and her fellow investors? “We don’t have to pretend that we’re friends with Donald Trump anymore.”
The odds of BAAJA passing likely grew a few degrees worse.
In the lead-up to the midterm elections, the outlook for passing the Senate’s bipartisan permitting reform deal during the lame-duck session was already highly uncertain. While environmental and clean energy advocates praised the transmission sections of the deal, a growing chorus warned of negative consequences from its provisions to fend off politically motivated attacks on energy projects, as well as its changes to tribal consultation in the federal permitting process. Prominent clean energy Democrats John Podesta and Representative Sean Casten of Illinois also piled on. President Trump, meanwhile, was not holding up his end of the bargain to release proposed wind projects held captive by Department of Defense reviews.
Post-election, the odds of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act’s passage are likely a few degrees worse. Jared Huffman, the Democratic Representative from California who is next in line to lead the House Natural Resources Committee, reiterated his view that the Senate should hold off on a vote and take another pass at the bill in the next Congress, when Democrats have more leverage. Other Democrats who were sitting on the sidelines of the debate may also now feel emboldened by the party’s overwhelming win and agree that a better deal could be had by waiting.
Proponents of the bill view the election results as a clear endorsement of BAAJA. Energy bills were on the ballot, and “to reduce energy prices is to pass permitting reform,” Jason Grumet, the CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said during a call with reporters on Wednesday.
Jane Flegal, a senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute, argued on X that “most of the things” Democrats can do to address energy affordability at the federal level are in BAAJA, such as reforms to speed up the buildout of transmission lines, utility oversight, greater certainty for clean energy developers, and provisions to force data centers to cover their costs. “Dems shouldn’t wait on permitting. BAAJA is a good bill, and the filibuster and veto don’t go away in January,” she wrote. But the real reason not to wait, she added, is that if Democrats win the White House in 2028, they will need to “hit the ground running, especially on energy affordability,” and reform “takes years to implement.”
Joe Brazauskas, a partner at the government relations firm Bracewell, said during a post-election webinar on Wednesday that he’ll be watching for four indicators of how the permitting reform deal will fare in the coming days and weeks. First, will the senators who negotiated the deal come back with a major push for the bill?
So far, they don’t seem to be backing down from plans to put the package to a vote next Monday, November 9. “We don’t have more years to lose as clean energy projects sit on the sidelines, and there’s no guarantee Congress would ever find another compromise that would be able to pass the Senate,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of the bill’s authors, told me in a statement. “Democrats ran and won on affordability, and this bill lowers costs for families and will allow us to start delivering on our election promises. It’s a bird in the hand. We’d be fools not to take it.”
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the bill’s other Democrat author, provided similar comments to Politico. “We’ve been trying to pass permitting reform for the better part of a decade,” he said. “It doesn't necessarily get easier just because of who the chair is. This is the closest we have come to actually finding something that can get signed into law. I’m not going to wait.”
The second indicator is what Trump does next. Will he make any substantive wind farm approvals? Grumet said he doesn’t think the legislation will move forward unless a “significant number of those projects” being held up in the Department of Defense review process are released. With the Senate vote scheduled for Monday, the clock is ticking. Grumet was bullish that Trump would play ball, noting that “every interaction we’ve had with the administration affirms that they want to close this deal.”
There’s also the question of how hard the president will gun for the deal more generally. As I’ll explain, the bill could face steep hurdles with key Republicans in the House that may require the president’s cajoling to overcome. Several speakers in the Bracewell webinar suggested that Trump may want some legislative wins to cement his legacy. Whether that translates into a push in the lame duck, or a potential deal in the next Congress, remains to be seen.
The third indicator is whether and how the bill’s authors address the issues raised around tribal consultation and “project certainty” in an amendment before the vote. There are signs that these can be resolved. Before the election, Punchbowl News reported that the Coalition of Large Tribes, whose members control a large portion of tribal lands in the country, was negotiating to improve the bill with technical fixes rather than fighting it altogether. Several bill proponents also told me that fixes for project certainty were underway.
It’s still unclear, however, whether small technical fixes will be enough to rally more support for the bill in the House, or alternatively, if those changes turn out to be more substantive, whether they threaten the bill’s delicate bipartisan balance.
The last indicator is, will Democratic leadership support the bill? Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet shared his views. “The Democrats’ performance was so overwhelming last night that the outside groups that talk to Democrats, the ENGOs, have to be emboldened,” Brazauskas said. “They have very strong views on the Clean Water Act provisions, the Endangered Species Act provisions, Judicial Review, and I really think that that will impact how that’s viewed by Democrats on the Hill.”
If the bill does pass the Senate next week, it faces an uncertain road in the House, and not just because of opponents like Huffman. Republican leadership will have to make a strategic choice about where to send it.
The typical first step would be to refer it to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At least as of a few weeks ago, however, the committee chair, Representative Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, was looking for changes to the transmission section of the bill, which would have costly consequences for Southeast electric utilities, as it would support the construction of new interregional transmission lines that compete with their business models.
If House leadership wants to avoid Guthrie’s committee, they could send the bill to the House Rules Committee, which could tee it up for a simple majority vote. The Rules Committee is also controlled mostly by southern Republicans, however, who may have some of the same sympathies as Guthrie. This is where Trump’s commitment to getting the deal done would likely be crucial.
Another option is to move the bill through “suspension of the rules,” a procedural tactic that allows the House to consider legislation without a rule from the Rules Committee — although this would mean the bill would require a two-thirds majority to pass. It is typically reserved for bills with broad consensus, such as when Congress renames post offices.
One final potential pathway is to attach a Senate-passed version of the bill to must-pass legislation, such as a government funding package or the annual military authorization bill. Congress successfully enacted the Energy Act of 2020 by attaching it to a consolidated appropriations measure after Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. That bill was not as controversial as BAAJA, however, and so the approach may be too risky.
Hanging over all of this, and affecting how the numbers stack up for a vote, is another question the Democratic landslide has now raised. How many House Republicans will even show up for work in the lame duck?
Democrats finally trounced Trumpism at the ballot box. But it required liberals and progressives alike to articulate more moderate views on energy and climate policy.
I’ll admit that when the polling first came in, I didn’t believe it.
A few months ago, my editor showed me the newest result from the Heatmap Pro poll that we run with Embold Research. For more than a year, we had been asking Americans whether they would support a data center planned near their home; since then, we had been watching the “support” number steadily tick down.
But the newest result beggared belief: 75% of Americans now said they would oppose a data center in their town. Most would strongly oppose it. When was the last time, I thought, that 75% of Americans agreed about anything? Was this real?
Sure looks like it. As Michigan’s newest senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed said earlier this year: People really effing hate data centers. And they apparently really hate Donald Trump, too, and the Iran War, and higher gas prices.
On Tuesday night, Democrats … well, pick your synonym. They routed Republicans. Annihilated them. Crushed them, broke them, and heard the lamentations of their donors. Democrats captured at least 54 seats in the Senate and could take more than 260 seats in the House. The national House vote snapped more than 15 points in their favor, and key demographic groups whose preferences have defined the Trump era — such as Hispanics, young men, and white voters without a college degree — all swung in the double digits to Democrats.
For millennials like me, the wave elections par excellence have been 2006, when liberals took back Congress from a desperately unpopular George W. Bush, and 2010, when the Tea Party caroused against Barack Obama. This election was bigger than either, on par with the anti-Watergate tsunami of 1974 that shaped the Democratic Party for a generation and put a new class of professional-minded reformers at its helm. Unlike in 1974, though, the new Democratic majority will not rely on an old guard of state’s rights conservatives. The South turned indigo on Tuesday night, it’s true, but that was thanks to the normal politics of booming American cities and suburbs, not century-old polarization left over from the Civil War. This is a new kind of Democratic mega-majority.
It will usher in a new kind of energy and climate politics. From the moment he rode down the escalator 11 years ago, Donald Trump has defined himself by his climate change denial. His antipathy for decarbonization and clean energy reached new heights in his second term, as his administration waged a war on renewables and dismantled the government’s already-weak ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. At the same time, it embraced the artificial intelligence boom and gave some of the world’s wealthiest companies a blank check to pollute.
Now that is all over. Although Trump still has two years left in the White House, he will limp to 2029 without a pliant Congress, a supportive public, or an aura of invincibility. We should, to be sure, expect at least a few Cabinet resignations in the next few weeks, so the expiring GOP Senate can confirm their replacements; and federal agencies will still roll their regulatory agendas uphill in case the GOP wins the White House in 2028. Some Trump policies — like his nuclear plan — may even meet with Democratic approval. But the administration’s fossil fuel revolution is over. And everything that Trump has done on climate and energy since taking office, especially his family’s penetration of favored mining firms, will soon face scrutiny in the new year.
That will all be good for the fight against climate change. And yet it would be wrong to presume that this new era will look like the last one — or that these new congressional Democrats will be Green New Dealers or even ardent environmentalists. “We cannot change anything unless we accept it,” Jung wrote, and Democrats have finally overturned Trumpism in part by accepting its real force in American politics. I don’t mean their willingness to accept Trump’s conduct, to be clear: The No Kings rallies and the Minneapolis rebellion saw to that. But since Kamala Harris lost, Democrats have for the first time treated Trump as a normal Republican opponent — and their fight against him not as a “battle for the soul of the nation,” as President Biden liked to put it, but as a simple verdict on a powerful establishment politician.
That has meant learning from Trump, and from his energy and affordability politics in particular. Chief among those lessons: Voters really, really care about low prices; they especially really, really care about cheap energy; and they will reward politicians who share their concerns. Zohran Mamdani, Mikie Sherill, and Abigail Spanberger pioneered these appeals last year, playing down their respective climate goals and (in Sherill’s case) running on cheaper power bills. State and congressional Democrats in 2026 picked up that strategy and ran with it.
They had help. Inexplicably, Trump undercut his promises to start no new foreign wars and cut energy bills in half by launching a new Iran war that nearly doubled some energy prices. By one estimate, Americans have paid more than $100 billion in higher fuel costs since March. Trump’s compact with voters broke in that moment. Tuesday is the result.
Democrats know it. Look at Annie Andrews, for instance, the new Democratic senator from South Carolina (!). She wants to “suspend the gas tax, unleash American energy, and get gas prices down” — in other words, she seeks to cut taxes on fossil fuels. But Andrews also wants to restore the solar and wind tax credits and increase public transit spending. And she devotes an entire paragraph of her policy brochure to the need for bipartisan permitting reform.
What distinguishes Andrews isn’t her toughness on fossil fuels, but her opposition to data centers. She wants a two-year nationwide moratorium on the facilities, to end their tax breaks, and force them to stop passing on higher electricity costs to ratepayers. Almost every single Senate Democrat who won on Tuesday, in fact, promised to make data centers pay for their full cost of electricity service — it might be the caucus’s most unifying policy. (The bipartisan permitting bill, whose fate remains uncertain as of writing, would mandate it.)
Much like Andrews, this new class of congressional Democrats sought to embrace every kind of energy source except for coal. Senator-elect James Talarico, a Democrat of Texas — get used to saying that — promised voters that “we can add to our hundreds of thousands of oil, gas, wind, solar, and battery jobs by creating new jobs” in geothermal and hydrogen. Mary Peltola, who seems likely to clinch her Alaska Senate race, argued for oil and gas’s ongoing importance, too. Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Scott Colom of Mississippi, and Andrews of South Carolina all spoke of their “all of the above” energy policy. None of these candidates are climate deniers — they all want to restore the wind and solar tax credits, and many spoke of increasing climate resilience funding — but they all have vowed to grow the energy system, not revolutionize it. Even Abdul El-Sayed, who wrote a 2019 Guardian op-ed advocating for the Green New Deal, disavowed that policy and opposed a government EV mandate.
The new state-level Democrats will push the party even further in this direction. Had Talarico alone won in Texas, he might have been able to walk a careful line on fossil fuels, recognizing oil and gas as the status quo without seeking to expand their reach. But Gina Hinojosa will also be the state’s next governor, with a much more direct role in managing the Permian Basin. To keep her job, she will have to accept that Texans' livelihoods depend on oil and gas, in the same way that Mamdani has had to recognize the reality of Wall Street's centrality to the economy of New York City. Democrats will face tough trade-offs.
They also won’t be any more radical about the 10% of U.S. emissions that come from American agriculture. If the Democrat Scott Colom holds out and wins Mississippi’s senate seat, it will be in no small part thanks to a viral commercial chiding the Republican incumbent for telling voters to choose a cheaper protein than beef. “Pick another protein?” an everyman griller asked the camera. “I’d rather pick another senator instead.”
This is one reason why Tuesday’s victory might feel a smidge bittersweet for some climate defenders. Democrats have finally trounced Trumpism at the ballot box. Progressives like El-Sayed have shown they can win in battleground states, provided a favorable national environment, and moderates have stormed the heart of MAGA America.
But doing so required everyone, liberals and progressives alike, to articulate more moderate views on energy and climate policy. As recently as 2020, belief in the climate crisis unified the Biden coalition. Now, Democrats have tacitly accepted — as a price of winning big majorities — some cognitive dissonance between what they think the science says (that climate change is an urgent and worsening problem) and what domestic politics demands (that voters still care more about cheap energy).
In other words, more than just the Trump era ended on Tuesday. The old Obama dream finally died too. In the wake of the 2012 election, Democrats imagined a permanent progressive majority shorn of right-leaning white voters. That fantasy never materialized, and chasing it may have even led the party astray. Now they have built a new congressional coalition with energy moderates at its core.
Which is not to say that Democrats will give up on decarbonizing the economy. We can expect this new congressional class to expand clean energy, push for more transmission lines, and revive electric vehicle subsidies as a solution to high gas prices. Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who won one of the night’s most convincing victories, repeatedly mentioned microplastics and “forever chemicals” in his speeches, linking the contamination of human bodies to the corruption of the body politic. The fight against conventional air and water pollution, I suspect, will come back big.
The next era of American climate politics, in other words, will look different from the last one. Fossil fuel companies have long been climate advocates’ primary foil. At the national level, data centers and Big Tech could eclipse them. At least one former climate activist won on Tuesday by running against data centers and large-scale solar. Artificial intelligence, after all, is the country’s fastest growing form of industrial energy use, and it creates far fewer jobs than a chip fab or steel mill. For these reasons, you can imagine a kind of reformed normie environmentalism with anti-AI characteristics taking root in the next administration. Perhaps it already has.
Decarbonizing the economy is steady and long-term work, “a slow boring of hard boards,” to quote the political thinker Max Weber, and the politicians who next turn the screws hardest may not sit on Capitol Hill. The historic size of Tuesday’s swell means Democrats won key state offices that they haven’t held in a generation — on public utility commissions, fossil fuel regulators, and in state legislatures. They will be eager to wield their powers. With its new Democratic trifecta, for instance, Pennsylvania could allow community solar, mandate battery storage, and restrict utility profits. Decades of low-hanging climate policy will soon be plucked.
Amid all of this excitement, Democrats should keep failure in mind — the president’s and their own. Since 2020, Democrats have tried to revolutionize the energy system, reindustrialize the country, and overhaul the economy without recognizing the existence of any trade-offs between those goals. They failed, and voters hated it. President Trump and Republicans tried to reinthrone fossil fuels, give birth to a “superior intelligence,” and otherwise bring back a gloomy spoof of the midcentury American economy — without accepting any trade-offs. They failed too, and as we learned last night, voters hated them even more than they hated Biden.
The United States really does need to get better at commercializing batteries and making electric vehicles; it really must cut pollution, lower energy prices, and significantly boost its electricity generation. Both parties have failed to make progress on those goals so far. Democrats have shown they can learn from Donald Trump’s mistakes. Now we’ll see if they can learn from their own, too.