Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Politics

Kamala Harris Doesn’t Have to Run on Climate

The campaign is not the point.

Kamala Harris.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Two years ago this month, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which both his allies and adversaries agree is the most significant climate legislation in the country’s history. Yet despite this accomplishment, the urgency of the crisis, and the consensus within the Democratic Party on the need for aggressive climate action, you would have had to listen carefully to this week’s Democratic National Convention to catch much discussion of the issue.

It’s not that none of the speakers mentioned climate, but “mentioned” is about as far as most of them went. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an original sponsor of the Green New Deal, didn’t mention climate in her DNC speech. Nor did Tim Walz, who has been one of the most aggressive governors in the country on the issue; among other things, he signed a bill requiring utilities to provide 100% clean electricity by 2040. Barack Obama, whose Clean Power Plan so angered his opponents that they set out to destroy the entire U.S. regulatory state, said only that “America can be and must be a force for good, discouraging conflict, fighting disease, promoting human rights, protecting the planet from climate change, defending freedom, brokering peace.”

There were meetings on climate strategy that occurred around the convention, but it wasn’t until the convention’s final night that climate really took the stage, with presentations from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida, the youngest member of Congress. In Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech, it received only a single line, in which she said that Americans deserve “the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” That was all.

One might conclude (and some certainly have) that as a policy priority, climate has fallen a few rungs down on the Democratic agenda. But to my mind, that wouldn’t be quite correct. There has been an undeniable change in the party’s political calculus at moments like this one, but it needn’t cause those who care about the issue to panic.

Every activist would like their issue to be at the top of the political agenda, but especially in our current state of polarization, that usually means a big fight, with high stakes and the chance of both victory and defeat. At the moment, abortion is the issue Democrats want to elevate into that kind of fight, since they believe it can be used to pull voters from the middle and even the other major party into their camp. Republicans believe the same thing about immigration.

Democrats may not believe climate change has the same kind of power in voters’ minds. But that may not be such a bad thing.

After all, starting a big fight on an issue is only one path to policy change. Another is to place it within a broader agenda, keeping the part of your coalition that cares about it on board and ready to move forward should you win, without generating too much energetic opposition from your opponents. And that’s what climate wound up being at the Democratic convention: not a main course, not even a side dish, but rather an appealing political crouton tossed into a salad full of other policies and priorities.

That’s partially a product of Democrats’ legislative success: The passage of the IRA may have encouraged them to place the climate issue somewhat to the side. Many in the party feel that they got away with passing a sweeping law without the kind of knock-down, drag-out battle we saw around something like the Affordable Care Act, another important bill that squeaked by without a vote to spare. The debate within Congress over the IRA may have been intense — remember all the wrangling over whether Joe Manchin would give his assent? — but most Americans barely noticed. It was too complicated and too fraught with dull procedural details. That’s one reason that today, most voters say they haven’t heard much about the law (and some who claim they have are probably lying). Yet when its provisions are described to them, it garners overwhelming support.

In some ways, the IRA resembles the ACA, which Democrats correctly believed would grow more popular as its effects were felt. In climate as in health care, Democrats don’t have much appetite for another big battle; they’d rather make incremental additions in future legislation that build on what they managed to put into law. And they hope the Republicans who tried to defeat the bills won’t want to take the political risk of unwinding them.

Kamala Harris’ slogan may be “When we fight, we win,” but she doesn’t seem to want too much of a fight on climate. Likewise, environmental groups are pouring millions of dollars into ads supporting her candidacy, but many of them don’t actually focus on climate and mention “clean energy” only in passing. The people producing them have clearly calculated that what’s most important is not having their issue discussed in the campaign, but rather getting an administration that will allow the IRA and other laws with climate provisions such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to continue to unspool, while regulatory agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency keep working on reducing emissions. If those bills do what they’re supposed to, they’ll create their own constituencies and political armor.

And if most of the public takes only occasional notice at campaign time? There’s nothing wrong with that. Campaigns are almost always superficial, and this one isn’t any different. It’s what happens afterward that matters.

Blue

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
AM Briefing

Exxon Counterattacks

On China’s rare earths, Bill Gates’ nuclear dream, and Texas renewables

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa exploded in intensity over the warm Caribbean waters and has now strengthened into a major storm, potentially slamming into Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica as a Category 5 in the coming days • The Northeast is bracing for a potential nor’easter, which will be followed by a plunge in temperatures of as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit lower than average • The northern Australian town of Julia Creek saw temperatures soar as high as 106 degrees.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon sued California

Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California late Friday on the grounds that two landmark new climate laws violate the oil giant’s free speech rights, The New York Times reported. The two laws would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas pollution created by the use of their products, so-called Scope 3 emissions. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” Exxon complained through its lawyers. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the statutes “have already been upheld in court and we continue to have confidence in them.” He condemned the lawsuit, calling it “truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
The Aftermath

How to Live in a Fire-Scarred World

The question isn’t whether the flames will come — it’s when, and what it will take to recover.

Wildfire aftermath.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the two decades following the turn of the millennium, wildfires came within three miles of an estimated 21.8 million Americans’ homes. That number — which has no doubt grown substantially in the five years since — represents about 6% of the nation’s population, including the survivors of some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in the country’s history. But it also includes millions of stories that never made headlines.

For every Paradise, California, and Lahaina, Hawaii, there were also dozens of uneventful evacuations, in which regular people attempted to navigate the confusing jargon of government notices and warnings. Others lost their homes in fires that were too insignificant to meet the thresholds for federal aid. And there are countless others who have decided, after too many close calls, to move somewhere else.

By any metric, costly, catastrophic, and increasingly urban wildfires are on the rise. Nearly a third of the U.S. population, however, lives in a county with a high or very high risk of wildfire, including over 60% of the counties in the West. But the shape of the recovery from those disasters in the weeks and months that follow is often that of a maze, featuring heart-rending decisions and forced hands. Understanding wildfire recovery is critical, though, for when the next disaster follows — which is why we’ve set out to explore the topic in depth.

Keep reading...Show less
The Aftermath

The Surprisingly Tricky Problem of Ordering People to Leave

Wildfire evacuation notices are notoriously confusing, and the stakes are life or death. But how to make them better is far from obvious.

Wildfire evacuation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

How many different ways are there to say “go”? In the emergency management world, it can seem at times like there are dozens.

Does a “level 2” alert during a wildfire, for example, mean it’s time to get out? How about a “level II” alert? Most people understand that an “evacuation order” means “you better leave now,” but how is an “evacuation warning” any different? And does a text warning that “these zones should EVACUATE NOW: SIS-5111, SIS-5108, SIS-5117…” even apply to you?

Keep reading...Show less