Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Politics

What You Didn’t Hear at the Second GOP Debate

Despite appearing in a building damaged by a brush fire, the candidates weren’t asked a single question about climate change.

•
Republican debate participants.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The second Republican presidential debate was defined more by what it lacked than by what it had. Undoubtedly the biggest absence was former President Donald Trump, who skipped the debate entirely and campaigned in Michigan instead. (Despite media reports that he would address the striking United Autoworkers, he spoke at a non-union auto-parts company, where he trashed electric vehicles at length.)

The second biggest absence was any question about climate change. Although moderators at the first Republican presidential debate asked about climate change within the first 20 minutes, this debate all but pretended it didn’t exist.

When Vivek Ramaswamy said that he joined TikTok in order to reach young people and win the election, Danielle Butcher Franz, the conservative CEO of the American Conservation Coalition, tweeted: “If Vivek wants to reach young Americans, he doesn't need to make TikToks with cringe influencers. He could simply address the issues they care about. Climate is a good place to start.”

It was only towards the end of the debate that the moderators even addressed a climate change-adjacent topic that Republicans of all stripes should be very comfortable asking: How are you going to ramp up oil drilling even, as Stuart Varney said, you would run into opposition from the courts?

Vivek Ramaswamy, who in the last debate said the “climate change agenda is a hoax,” instead launched into a familiar litany of his grab bag of economic policy ideas: He would “run through” the courts and the administrative state; he would end the scourge of “using taxpayer money to pay more people to stay at home than to go work,”; scrap regulations; and reform the Federal Reserve to give it a mandate of maintaining the value of the dollar.

Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

Pence counterposed the achievements of the Trump administration — namely an energy export boom — against the “war on energy” that he accused the Biden administration of waging (tell it to the climate activists outraged at the administration’s approval of the Alaskan Willow drilling project). “We’re going to open up federal lands, we’re going to unleash American energy, we’re going to have an all-of-the-above-energy strategy,” Pence said.

Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis proceeded to fight over DeSantis’ energy record in Florida.

There were two odd things about this whole portion of the debate.

The first was that it was a discussion of energy policy with no mention of climate change. The debate was being held at the Reagan Library in the scrubby hills of Simi Valley in Ventura County. In 2019, the library suffered half a million dollars worth of damage thanks to a brush fire. The next Republican debate will be held in Miami, Florida, perhaps the major city most exposed to sea level rise. Fires, floods, energy policy, and no climate change?

Even Donald Trump, in his hour-plus rant against electric cars and the Biden White House, at least had an explanation for why Democrats in power implemented environmental and energy policies he disagrees with. He even tried to argue that actually he’s better on the environment because of his opposition to electric car subsidies and attendant rare earth mining and, of course, the threat wind turbines pose to birds (and whales).

For the Republicans debating each other on stage, it was just a hurried recital of talking points that have been barely updated since the days of “drill, baby, drill.”

And none of the major candidates seemed particularly comfortable with the details of energy policy. Doug Burgum, governor of the state that’s sixth in the nation in total energy production and third in oil production, had to insist on his right to talk about oil production “as the only person leading an energy state,” but the moderator redirected the question to Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, a state that ranks 26th in energy production and has no hydrocarbon industry to speak of.

This stands in contrast to past Republican contests, which have featured candidates like George W. Bush, who worked in the oil industry, or John McCain, who supported cap-and-trade, or Bush’s successor in serving as governor of America’s major energy producer, Rick Perry.

Now, it appears, climate change is at best an afterthought in Republican politics, while energy policy is either an issue of sleepy consensus within the party or an adjunct to the culture war against the Democratic Party.

Read more about the debate:

DeSantis Actually Did Want to Ban Fracking in Florida

Yellow
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
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
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue