Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Politics

Republicans Weave a Climate Conspiracy at the Final Debate of 2023

Who “did the ESG”?

Ron Desantis.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Who, or what, was the biggest villain of the fourth Republican debate? Vivek “The Most Obnoxious Blowhard in America” Ramaswamy would, of course, be an easy pick. So too would “the three previous Republican debates,” which were all so painfully boring that most Americans probably didn’t bother to investigate if Wednesday’s host network, News Nation, was actually a real channel. (Whadda you know, it is!).

But there was another villain, too: a shadowy threat that, you’d think from the tone on stage, imperils nothing less than American freedom, our values, and everything we love. And no, it wasn’t Donald Trump. It was, shudder, the woke climate agenda.

The topic first lurched on stage in the form of Republicans’ favorite three-letter boogeyman, ESG. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took an opportunity to brag that he pulled $2 billion in Floridian pensions from Blackrock “when they did the ESG.”

“This ESG,” he went on, “they call it ‘environment, social, governance’ … they want to use economic power to impose a left-wing agenda on this country. They want basically to change society without having to go through the constitutional process.”

But that boogeyman doesn’t look quite as scary when you turn the lights on. While it’s true that DeSantis targeted ESG as part of his crusade against “woke capitalism,” Bloomberg noted in January that

…[t]he Florida State Board of Administration — which oversees roughly $180 billion in pension money — didn’t hold investments labeled as ESG when DeSantis ramped up his campaign last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Even after the state’s treasury said it would pull $2 billion from BlackRock amid DeSantis’s criticism, the world’s largest asset manager still oversees $12.9 billion for the state’s retirement funds.

Okay, well, the nefarious climate agenda must be hiding elsewhere? Sure enough, a little later in the debate, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley alleged that DeSantis is beholden to Chinese companies like “JinkoSolar,” which he supposedly gave “$2 million in subsidies.”

Sounds ominous! But a closer look also revealed the facts to be a little less exciting: “JinkoSolar predates DeSantis,” PolitiFact explained after Haley tried a similar line of attack during a November appearance on Fox & Friends. Besides, “state governments typically lack the authority to bar an established business from making operational decisions, unless those businesses are breaking the law” and “JinkoSolar hasn’t been charged with a crime.” PolitiFact rated the whole attack as “false.”

Reference to the dark conspiracy of the climate agenda surfaced a third and final time during the debate in the form of Ramaswamy’s closing remarks. Ramaswamy has long railed against what he calls the “climate change agenda,” presumably climate policy, calling it a “hoax.” But he used his final minutes on the mic before a national audience on Wednesday to warn that it’s also a false idol. “If you thought COVID was bad, what’s coming next with this climate agenda is far worse!” he insisted. “We should not be bending the knee to this new religion! That’s what it is, a substitute for a modern religion! We are flogging ourselves! And losing our modern way of life! Bowing to this new god of climate! And that will end on my watch!”

“Thank you. Ambassador Haley?” Megyn Kelly transitioned, evidently unruffled.

Admittedly, it’s hard to take Ramaswamy’s alarm (or, well, Ramaswamy himself) seriously. But for those watching closely — which, again, it’s more than understandable if you’re not! — a clear pattern is beginning to emerge. Republican candidates are attempting to divorce the actual climate agenda from the “cLiMAte AgENda,” a made-up specter they can scare their base with, the same way they previously weaponized and rendered meaningless words like “critical race theory” and “woke.”

But if that doesn’t frighten you, you know what is really spooky? The Iowa caucuses are less than six weeks away.

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
A destroyed house and a blueprint.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Recovering from the Los Angeles wildfires will be expensive. Really expensive. Insurance analysts and banks have already produced a wide range of estimates of both what insurance companies will pay out and overall economic loss. AccuWeatherhas put out an eye-catching preliminary figure of $52 billion to $57 billion for economic losses, with the service’s chief meteorologist saying that the fires have the potential to “become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss.” On Thursday, J.P. Morgan doubled its previous estimate for insured losses to $20 billion, with an economic loss figure of $50 billion — about the gross domestic product of the country of Jordan.

The startlingly high loss figures from a fire that has only lasted a few days and is (relatively) limited in scope show just how distinctly devastating an urban fire can be. Enormous wildfires thatcover millions of acres like the 2023 Canadian wildfires can spew ash and particulate matter all over the globe and burn for months, darkening skies and clogging airways in other countries. And smaller — and far deadlier fires — than those still do not produce the same financial roll.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Climate

Why the L.A. Fires Are Exceptionally Hard to Fight

Suburban streets, exploding pipes, and those Santa Ana winds, for starters.

Firefighters on Sunset Boulevard.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A fire needs three things to burn: heat, fuel, and oxygen. The first is important: At some point this week, for a reason we have yet to discover and may never will, a piece of flammable material in Los Angeles County got hot enough to ignite. The last is essential: The resulting fires, which have now burned nearly 29,000 acres, are fanned by exceptionally powerful and dry Santa Ana winds.

But in the critical days ahead, it is that central ingredient that will preoccupy fire managers, emergency responders, and the public, who are watching their homes — wood-framed containers full of memories, primary documents, material wealth, sentimental heirlooms — transformed into raw fuel. “Grass is one fuel model; timber is another fuel model; brushes are another — there are dozens of fuel models,” Bobbie Scopa, a veteran firefighter and author of the memoir Both Sides of the Fire Line, told me. “But when a fire goes from the wildland into the urban interface, you’re now burning houses.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate

What Started the Fires in Los Angeles?

Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.

Los Angeles.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Thursday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?

Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.

Keep reading...Show less
Green