Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Politics

There’s No Working Class Backlash to Biden’s Climate Law

Despite lots of fretting, the evidence for one is incredibly flimsy.

A man and clean energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Is the Inflation Reduction Act hurting President Biden’s hopes for re-election?

As Biden celebrates the first anniversary of his historic climate law, there’s handwringing in some Democratic circles about exactly that. According to Axios’ Josh Kraushaar, one of the reasons that Biden is struggling in head-to-head polls with leading Republicans is that “Democrats are pushing the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy too quickly,” something that he identifies as “a consistent theme with working class voters of all backgrounds.”

The evidence for this broad claim is incredibly flimsy. Kraushaar points to one poll which finds that respondents favor a mix of energy sources moving forward over phasing out “the use of oil, coal and natural gas completely,” by a margin of 72-26. And that’s about it. That’s odd, because when voters are asked about the individual provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, including EV subsidies, tax incentives to install solar panels and industry subsidies for wind and solar power generation, they support them by double-digit margins. A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, for example, found that voters approved of the EV tax credit by a margin of 50-22.

It is only when respondents are presented with the stark, all-or-nothing language beloved by the fossil fuel industry that they tend to balk, activating fears that AOC is going to personally repossess your gas-powered truck tomorrow morning or that Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is going to shut off your natural gas lines and starve you out until you install an electric stove. It’s the thinking pushed by former Democratic strategist Ruy Texeira, now with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, who attributes to Democrats the position that “We need a rapid green transition to end the use of fossil fuels and replace them with fully renewable energy sources” and then identifies this position as Biden’s chief vulnerability.

Because the overwhelming majority of Americans still drive rides powered by internal combustion engines and rely on fossil fuels every day, it should not be surprising that sudden, dramatic change polls poorly. Americans, after all, have a very well-known status quo bias that must be worked around if meaningful social change is to be successfully pursued. But leading Democrats, including the president, aren’t pushing for that kind of dizzying change anyway. The administration has set a goal of having 50 percent of new vehicle sales by all-electric by 2030 – seven years from now.

Even that timeline means that the infrastructure for gas-powered vehicles will have to remain in place for decades, and that’s assuming future presidents don’t reverse course. But making electric vehicles a growing component of America’s long-term transportation plan requires some up-front investment and subsidies and that is exactly what the Biden administration has done. To paraphrase former President Obama, if you like your gas-guzzling Canyonero, you can keep it.

It’s worth noting that the Biden administration does not anticipate generating all of America’s electricity with “wind and solar,” as the poll that Texeira cites suggests, which would indeed be hard to pull off. That’s because the administration’s lofty goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2035 relies heavily on massive new investments in next-generation nuclear power plants, not just the $6 billion band-aid that has been placed on propping up the country’s existing atomic generators. And while the administration has not released plans, or publicly pushed for, big new investments in nuclear power, they should consider it. If anything, it is generally liberal Democrats, not working class voters, who oppose nuclear energy, which polls well with Americans, and Biden and his team would be wise to unveil more specific ideas about how they plan to fill the gap between renewable capacity and dead dinosaur juice.

But Kraushaar, Texeira, and other centrist fretters are also missing a huge and consequential aspect of status quo bias in our politics — in another year, the Inflation Reduction Act and its provisions will be the status quo, as Republicans found out the hard way when they tried to overturn what they thought was the hated Affordable Care Act in 2017. It turns out that, while people had and still have mixed feelings about Obama’s signature health care reform, they also didn’t want to return to a world in which you could be denied insurance for “pre-existing conditions.” The law went from consistently unpopular to a third rail virtually overnight when Trump was elected.

Not only that, but the green initiatives in the IRA are already very well-liked, at least when they’re spelled out. As the percentage of Americans with EVs or plug-in hybrids grows, so will the appreciation for the tax credits, the expanding charging infrastructure, and more. Yes, there is still some dissatisfaction with aspects of the economy, but that has much more to do with Biden’s inability to wave a magic wand and conjure 2019 prices back into being than it does with tax discounts at the local Chevy dealership.

There’s also more to holding power than strictly hewing to a public opinion consensus.

Nowhere in the ruminations of people worried about the electoral blowback of green energy initiatives is there much concern about climate change itself, a particularly galling blind spot given this summer’s relentless, record-breaking heat waves, the deadly blazes that consumed the Hawaiian island of Maui, and the wildfire smoke repeatedly blanketing parts of the U.S. in a choking, sun-blotting haze. Democrats aren’t pushing for green energy because they are consumed with woke ideology – they are trying to do their part to arrest the planet-wide catastrophe that fossil fuel burning has set into motion. And they have already done the most important thing they can do with power – using it instead of cowering in fear of the electoral consequences.

Read more about the politics of the energy transition:

Biden’s Climate Messaging Problem

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