After voters soundly rejected it, electing Donald Trump, what’s next for the radical climate agenda?
Donald Trump’s resounding election victory marks not only the Obama-Biden era’s end but the beginning of the end of the radical climate agenda.
After all, one candidate promised to “drill, baby, drill” while the other had called climate change an “existential threat to who we are as a species.”
Voters had a clear choice, and they chose accordingly.
The climate movement’s future is cloudy at best.
The incoming Trump administration is promising government efficiency and accountability and fiscal restraint.
No policies are more wasteful with worse results than green policies.
Consider the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden finally admitted is “the most significant climate-change law ever” — even confessing, “We should have named it what it was.”
Where Kamala Harris at the presidential debate trumpeted the $1 trillion investment in the green economy, voters saw the sharp spike in electricity and food prices.
Where Harris boasted of investing in electric vehicles, with companies like Stellantis receiving more than $1 billion in federal grants, voters saw that same Stellantis closing plants in Michigan and Arizona.
And when Americans were told there actually isn’t an electric-vehicle mandate even as the Biden-Harris administration implemented mandates forcing manufacturers to transition to electric, voters saw through the phony doublespeak.
Democrats and their climate-change agenda were both overwhelming rejected by the voters, and as perennial political forces, they need new messages and messengers. The question is: Which way do they go?
One direction is the Josh Shapiro way. Once on the short list for Harris’ vice-presidential pick, the Pennsylvania governor has moderated considerably, especially on energy.
Keystone State workers felt particularly targeted by the Biden administration’s war on energy with punitive measures on coal and a nonsensical “pause” on natural-gas exports.
Shapiro walked the line well, neither caving completely and alienating Pennsylvania’s half-million energy workers nor surrendering the climate agenda enough to anger the wealthy white liberals in Philadelphia suburbs.
A question that’ll forever linger in the minds of political pundits and pollsters, as well as Democrat operatives: What if Harris had picked Shapiro?
Would he have prevented the blue wall from its shocking red turn? Would he have put Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes in Harris’ corner and propelled her to victory?
Is this more moderate approach the green agenda’s future, with the Democratic Party needing to connect with voters outside the coasts and cities?
The other direction is the Gavin Newsom way. Once on the short list for replacing Biden at the top of the ticket, the California governor has doubled down on the politics of climate change.
As Harris boasted of the nation’s record oil production in September, Newsom signed legislation further restricting it in California. As Harris flip-flopped on fracking in October, Newsom’s statewide fracking ban went into effect.
Even after the election with all the data and exit polls showing a very clear national sentiment, Newsom vowed to “Trump proof” California, offering the same tax credits on EVs at the state level if (and when) Trump eliminates the federal ones (except for on Teslas).
Despite California being the state with the most debt, the second-highest electricity rates, highest gas prices, most restrictive green mandates and the greatest population exodus, Newsom is not moderating in the slightest. Did the green agenda, and the Democratic Party, suffer from a lack of uncompromising fervor?
Those are very different paths, and again, voters will have a choice.
But the data are very clear. The American people do not care about the green agenda.
In Gallup’s pre-election polling, a full 26% of those surveyed ranked climate change as “not at all important,” with 50% giving it little overall importance. The only issue that polled worse: “transgender rights.”
Given the space both topics get in the news and liberal discourse, one would understandably think they’re national priorities.
It turns out voters are more concerned about the real rise in the price of eggs than a hypothetical rise in sea level. This surprises no one who lives in the real world.
As a political issue, climate change is going nowhere. Whether advocates moderate like Shapiro or double down like Newsom, one thing is certain: Starting in January, the days of federal subsidies and mandates are over.
As Trump’s energy policies take shape, coupled with the lack of federal support for green initiatives, climate hysteria may have run its course. That is great for America and the world.
Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs.
Twitter: @DanielTurnerPTF