Post New

Politico has an interesting column on Democrats' changing approach to what has been one of their signature issues for the last two decades: climate change.

Climate policy is decidedly unfashionable in 2025 — among Democrats.

The party isn’t embracing climate change denialism like many in the GOP, nor is it endorsing the Trump administration’s attacks on clean energy. But as Democrats continue groping for a way forward after their 2024 defeat, they’ve clearly decided they need to change how they talk about climate and energy issues. And in some cases, it goes beyond rhetoric to the actual policies they’re promoting. The bottom line for Democrats: Climate is out, affordability is in.

With Donald Trump having won back the presidency amid broad frustration with high prices, it’s perhaps no surprise that Democrats are trying to make gains in the affordability debate. But it’s still striking to see longtime climate champions in the party shift gears, and it speaks to concern among Democrats that their focus on climate change has weighed them down.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/16/...

I think this is long overdue. I think even more than any cultural issue, the Democrats' choice to center climate change as such an important priority has cost them dearly with the electorate. I think it is the main reason why they're having so much trouble with their efforts to pivot back to the working class - a big swatch of the electorate just doesn't trust Democrats on the economy, and I think climate change is the main reason. This quote exemplifies how and why:

“Sometimes our messaging in the Democratic Party — not great,” Sherrill said in a March interview. “For years we’ve said, ‘We need to move into clean power.’ And there’s almost been this understanding, ‘It’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, but if you’re a good person, you’ll do it.’ So now that we’re actually in that place that we promised — it was going to be cheaper than any other source of power — people are skeptical.”

I think Sherrill precisely diagnosed the problem (though not the solution). Because Democrats kept talking so much about fighting climate change as being necessary to save the world, I think Democrats are perceived as elevating climate change above all other priorities. I think voters perceived that if there was ever a conflict between climate change policy and their own near-term (or even long-term) economic needs of voters, Democrats would prioritize fighting climate change. That's certainly not where voters are - and if that's not where Democrats actually were, they sure acted like it. On its way from the Build Back Better plan to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats were forced to actually set their priorities - which items on their wish list of things that they (and their voters!) wanted them to do would make the cut, and which ones wouldn't. At the end of the day, of about $891 billion in topline spending, around $783 billion went to energy and climate programs.

On the biggest economic measure that came out of the Biden years, climate was the number one priority, and the others weren't even close. That's probably not what working class voters would have chosen. It's very much what college-educated progressives would have chosen, though.

Which is why I think Sherrill's comment hits the problem but not the solution. I think Democrats need to pivot away from climate if they have any hope of winning pocketbook issues with big chunks of the working class voters again....but I don't think voters are going to be persuaded if the Democrats just change their rhetoric from "green energy is needed to save the world" to "green energy will lower your bills." They need a message that says, "we care about your economic position more than we care about climate change." Because that's where voters are (and have always been), and Democrats have spent almost two decades acting as though that wasn't the case.

I think Democrats need to pivot away from climate if they have any hope of winning pocketbook issues with big chunks of the working class voters again....but I don't think voters are going to be persuaded if the Democrats just change their rhetoric from "green energy is needed to save the world" to "green energy will lower your bills." They need a message that says, "we care about your economic position more than we care about climate change." Because that's where voters are (and have always been), and Democrats have spent almost two decades acting as though that wasn't the case.

The dems didn't just go along with climate change as (bad) policy, they went along with the apocalyptic rhetoric that went along with it:

Polar bears will drown!
Anarctica is melting!
Earth's temperatures are a hockey stick!
We're all going to die from hurricanes!
We're all going to die from wild fires!

etc. etc.

The reason for that was that they thought they could relate to younger voters -and- appeal to the WEF set at the same time.

It won't be easy for them to walk all this back:

Joe Biden
“Climate change is the existential threat to humanity,” the former vice president said. “Unchecked, it is going to actually bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It’s real. And we have a moral obligation.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-...

Then there's their opposition to energy infrastructure programs like Keystone. Woof.

Climate is out, affordability is in.


I agree. I have an IC car, and all I do is change oil, rotate the tires, and check the brakes.

So...let all the oil subsidies go away (as the clean energy subsidies are going away), and compete on a level playing field. Gas is only cheap because government subsidizes it (as I recall, in numerous ways). Let the true price of fuel show itself, and see where things fall. I've read estimates between $5 and $10 per gallon, depending on whether you include military expenses in securing the supply chain.

So...let all the oil subsidies go away (as the clean energy subsidies are going away), and compete on a level playing field. Gas is only cheap because government subsidizes it (as I recall, in numerous ways). Let the true price of fuel show itself, and see where things fall. I've read estimates between $5 and $10 per gallon, depending on whether you include military expenses in securing the supply chain.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you not see the irony here? The OP is about how working class voters don't trust Democrats on the economy, because they think Democrats care more about fighting climate change than workers' economic well-being. Yet this response is a suggestion that would impose incredibly burdensome costs on working class voters (double the price of gas!) because that would fight climate change.

I don't think working class voters want the price of gas to double. I'm pretty sure they absolutely don't want elected officials who think that having the price of gas double is ever a good idea.

I agree. I have an IC car, and all I do is change oil, rotate the tires, and check the brakes.

And put gas in it, of course.

I don't think working class voters want the price of gas to double. I'm pretty sure they absolutely don't want elected officials who think that having the price of gas double is ever a good idea.

One way or another, the cost of 'fillin' er up' is born by the schlub standing at the pump with the nozzle in his hands.

Whether it's government paying the cost of protecting the oil industry or the schlub, that money will get into the mitts of the petrochemical industry.

It's classic TANSTAAFL.

One way or another, the cost of 'fillin' er up' is born by the schlub standing at the pump with the nozzle in his hands.

That's probably not the case. As has been pointed out by Democrats repeatedly in criticizing Trump's tariff policies, consumers bear a larger proportion of costs when they are imposed on consumer products.

This is why subsidies are usually very popular, and excise taxes and other product-specific charges are very unpopular. The U.S. federal income tax is fairly progressive, and the "schlub" standing at the pump bears a relatively low proportion of the cost of things like the military budget - or green energy subsidies. Efforts to internalize the externalities of fossil fuels, however, are more directly borne by the consumers of those fossil fuels (which is entirely the point). As would be the economic burdens of removing whatever direct subsidies exist for fossil fuels, though those are much smaller - you don't get to $5-10 gas by taking out tax code bennies, which only amount to $10-20 billion per year in the U.S. for oil.

So if the uncharged extra "cost" of fillin' er up is an additional $5 per gallon, that's going to be mostly borne by the people other than the schlub at the pump; if you move the cost to the 'schlub' at the pump, he's going to end up paying a vastly higher proportion of it. The same is true of subsidies - the reason why subsidies actually end up spurring consumption is because a smaller proportion of the cost is borne by the consumer than the public at large.

The OP is about how working class voters don't trust Democrats on the economy, because they think Democrats care more about fighting climate change than workers' economic well-being.

First, I've always been against oil subsidies. They make tremendous profits. They don't need help. I think you could probably sell the removal of subsidies on that basis. (Also, working class people don't want the price of anything to double...ICEs, EVs, electricity, or anything else. I remember when gas was $.35/gal. It's now 10x that. Working class people didn't have a choice.)

Also, climate change is going to affect the well-being of everyone. The estimated costs of climate change are truly staggering (trillions USD). Who do they think is going to pay for that? Not the fat cats. They'll somehow get government subsidies for something. It's us little people who will end up paying.

I think you could probably sell the removal of subsidies on that basis.

The direct subsidies, sure - because that's tiny, relative to the cost of gas. The U.S. consumes about 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year, and direct subsidies are about $10-20 billion. So you're looking at maybe $2 per barrel or about four cents per gallon. You don't get up to the real money unless you start charging for externalities, which most consumers won't view as removing a subsidy, but as imposing a tax.

Also, climate change is going to affect the well-being of everyone. The estimated costs of climate change are truly staggering (trillions USD). Who do they think is going to pay for that? Not the fat cats. They'll somehow get government subsidies for something. It's us little people who will end up paying.

Again, that's probably not true. The U.S. is a geographically large, mostly well-above sea-level, already developed rich western economy that is situated entirely outside of the tropics. The damages of climate change are going to be born disproportionately by poorer folks living in less-developed Southern and low-lying countries in the Tropics. The costs of actually preventing climate change would fall disproportionately on the developed countries, and almost not at all on developing countries. Plus, the costs of climate change will be born in the far- and intermediate-future, while the costs of trying to prevent climate change will be born primarily in the immediate present and the near-term.

Most of the "little people" in the U.S. are probably correct in intuiting that taking action to fight climate change imposes costs on them that are not outweighed by the benefits of avoiding the damages from climate change. They aren't in a position where they can get big costs imposed on them today, based on the idea that it will spare the population of coastal regions in India and Indonesia the large negative impacts of climate change.

I think the "little people" are incorrectly intuiting, primarily because a huge lobby is lined-up to shovel propaganda their way (similar to the tobacco industry for decades).

There are numerous costs. Here's just one example from a few years ago:

https://espp.fas.harvard.edu/news/managing-climate...

The Navy is moving bases so that as sea level rises, they don't get flooded. That alone is going to cost billions, and is not borne by the rest of the world (i.e. Americans will have to pay for it).

Yes, poorer countries, low-lying countries, will take the brunt of it. Islands will disappear. Bangladesh will lose a lot of territory (it's a very low elevation country). There will be an international costs associated with all those displaced persons (and I have no idea how much it will be). Wars are almost inevitable as displaced persons try to find someplace they can continue existing. Plus, the more intense storms and droughts that are predicted. Those won't be free, either.

Plus, the costs of climate change will be born in the far- and intermediate-future, while the costs of trying to prevent climate change will be born primarily in the immediate present and the near-term.

That is true. Though, I suspect, those costs will be less now (prevention) than in the future (remediation). This may be academic. Several scientific entities say we're already past the point of no return.

I, also, was trying to make the point -perhaps poorly- that we were canceling the wrong subsidies. Continue to subsidize EVs, and remove the subsidies on oil. People like and want EVs (I see a lot of them on the road these days), but it's still a young technology, and so a bit expensive. A baseline EV is maybe $5K more than a baseline ICE. That will come down eventually as the tech matures and evolves. And, per your argument, that won't cost the "shlubs" anything since they don't pay that much in taxes. It also won't cost the fat cats anything, because they'll just pile it onto the deficit. As Leona said "only little people pay taxes".

The Navy is moving bases so that as sea level rises, they don't get flooded. That alone is going to cost billions, and is not borne by the rest of the world (i.e. Americans will have to pay for it).

I mean - maybe? The thing about making changes over the course of decades is that you often can just make the change at a time when you would need to make a major investment in the facility anyway. You defer maintenance and wait until you were going to redo large portions of the base anyway - and then just move to the new base instead of investing in fixing the old base. So the actual marginal cost ends up being only a portion of the full cost. And the article you cite doesn't even affirmatively state that such measures will be necessary - and indeed focuses as much on the uncertainty (what if were to build new bases and end up not using/needing them?) as the cost.

I, also, was trying to make the point -perhaps poorly- that we were canceling the wrong subsidies. Continue to subsidize EVs, and remove the subsidies on oil.

Again - making things just a little bit harder for the working class in order to achieve progressive goals on climate.

Y'see, EV subsidies mostly benefit wealthier people. They tend to be bought by people who are significantly wealthier than average, for a few reasons. They're more expensive than typical cars. They are disproportionately newer cars than typical cars - which are more often bought by wealthier people than working class people (most car sales are used car sales, by like 3:1, and most working class folks will drive older cars). And while there are certainly some apartments with plugs, EV's are better suited for those who live in an owner-occupied single-family home than someone renting an apartment.

https://archive.is/OrHTm#selection-395.0-411.198

Wiping oil subsidies in favor of EV subsidies has a distributive effect, and one that works against the working class.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.