Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Biden’s Climate Messaging Problem


He’s got the best climate record of any president in history. Few voters have any idea.

President Biden.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The presidential election next year is, alas, already kicking off. Several Republicans are trying, and thus far totally failing, to oust Donald Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee. President Biden is laying the groundwork for his campaign.

As far as subjects for campaign discussion, it’s a decent bet that climate change might be a major one for the first time. Scientists say it’s highly likely that 2023 will be measured as the hottest year ever recorded, and America is no exception. Practically the entire summer has seen a brutal heat wave across the South, and extreme weather has hammered many states. Most recently a sudden devastating firestorm in Hawaii, likely fueled by climate change, burned much of the city of Lahaina to ashes and killed a reported 53 people. And hurricane season has barely started.

But Biden is struggling to sell his climate record. A recent Washington Post poll found that 57 percent of Americans disapproved of his record on climate change. At the same time, large majorities both favored the core elements of his major climate achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, yet also had no idea what it was. This fits with a Heatmap poll conducted earlier this year.

Convincing Americans Biden has done something big about the biggest problem facing America and the world is vitally important. But it won’t be easy.

On first glance, this is rather strange. After all, one of the biggest political dramas of the 21st century centered around the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. Indeed, much of the 117th Congress was taken up with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia slowly and agonizingly tearing out each piece of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, and then seemingly killing the entire thing. Democratic officials, climate activists, and liberal voters alike fell into despair.

Then out of nowhere Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Manchin came back with a last-minute climate bill. And despite Manchin insisting on a few distasteful handouts to fossil fuel companies, overall the IRA was a huge success. It included for the first time a full 10 years of subsidies for renewable power construction and production, giving industry the confidence to invest. It made nonprofit utilities and government entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority eligible for subsidies as well, also for the first time, along with dozens of smaller initiatives.

That, together with the CHIPS Act and the infrastructure bill, plus interlocking IRA rules requiring investment and raw materials be sourced from the U.S. or certain friendly countries, has fueled a massive boom in domestic construction. Solar and wind farms, battery factories, and other installations are shooting up across the country. Much remains to be figured out, but overall the IRA is arguably the greatest accomplishment of a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.

But voter ignorance probably shouldn’t be surprising. While political junkies were obsessed with the drama in Congress, such people make up a tiny minority of the population. For average people, this was just one more inscrutable political drama out of hundreds that seemed to have little bearing on their lives, if they noticed it at all.

That confusion is made worse by the deliberately misleading title of the bill. The IRA might actually have eroded inflation on the margin by encouraging more energy investment, but let’s be real: This is a climate bill. It was so named because inflation was the obsession of the moment, and pretending that it would cool prices helped get it over the finish line.

The problem is made worse still by the dire state of local journalism across the country. A core political element of the IRA structure is that it spreads green investment out all over the place, so as to build broad support. (Indeed, more investment is going into conservative states than the administration apparently expected.) Before Google and Facebook devoured the advertising industry that used to support journalism, there would have been detailed local coverage of each new project, but now only the largest cities have extensive local coverage, and even there publications have suffered.

This wouldn’t be a problem for Republicans, because they have a vast propaganda apparatus that blasts party messaging across the country through Fox News, local news channels owned by right-wing oligarchs, tabloids, and so on. But the Democratic Party establishment failed to build something comparable. (In fact, it did the opposite when it shut down ThinkProgress in 2019, apparently because CAP executives were irritated by the unionized lefty staff.)

As Alex Pareene writes, “The Democratic Party, by and large, relies on corporate mainstream media to do its messaging work and is then constantly furious when this strategy fails or backfires.” It’s a dubious strategy when it comes to, say, The New York Times, but it is completely impossible when it comes to local publications that don’t even exist anymore.

The 2022 midterm election cost almost $9 billion — or nearly half the value of the entire newspaper industry — split roughly equally between the parties. The 2020 election cost $14.4 billion, and in that one Democrats outspent Republicans by about half. Kentucky Democrat Amy McGrath alone raised $88 million for that state’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, only to lose by almost 20 points.

If I were a wealthy liberal who donates ungodly sums to the Democrats, or someone running their PACs that raise billions in small-dollar donations, I would consider spending some of that money buying or setting up journalism publications in strategic locations— not to provide vulgar shrieking propaganda a la Fox News, but straightforward liberal-leaning coverage. Another option would be to conduct consistent messaging operations around the IRA in general, rather than a sudden blast of ads keyed to specific races when election day comes around.

It’s the kind of thing that doesn’t pay off immediately, but the strategic value would be immense, especially given the low marginal value of a dollar spent on traditional campaign efforts. Again, just think of the political power of Fox News. President Biden has a strong climate record, but to get any credit, voters must first hear about it.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

The EPA’s Backdoor Move to Hobble the Carbon Capture Industry

Why killing a government climate database could essentially gut a tax credit

Lee Zeldin.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s bid to end an Environmental Protection Agency program may essentially block any company — even an oil firm — from accessing federal subsidies for capturing carbon or producing hydrogen fuel.

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that it would stop collecting and publishing greenhouse gas emissions data from thousands of refineries, power plants, and factories across the country.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Adaptation

The ‘Buffer’ That Can Protect a Town from Wildfires

Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.

Homes as a wildfire buffer.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.

More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

How the Tax Bill Is Empowering Anti-Renewables Activists

A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.

Massachusetts and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, Getty Images

A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow