Harris Stops Talking About Climate Change

As the high costs of green policies hit, it’s becoming a lose-lose issue for politicians of the left. I respect Lomborg, who is about data and will not be bullied.

By 

Bjorn Lomborg

Oct. 24, 2024 3:48 pm ET

Wall Street Journal: Harris Stops Talking About Climate Change - WSJ

In an election characterized by bitter clashes, it’s notable that one typically divisive topic has gone almost unmentioned: climate change. President Trump doesn’t have much to say on the subject. But Vice President Harris’s silence is revealing—not only about American voters, but also the fundamental problem of climate policy today.

Opinion: Potomac Watch

Donald Trump Goes on Offense as Kamala Harris Presses Fears About Fascism

You might think Ms. Harris could use the partisan divide on climate policy to her advantage. If she hammered Mr. Trump’s frequent recitations of “drill baby, drill,” it could drive turnout from liberal voters who fear the Republican would increase fossil fuel production. She has hardly been neutral on this issue in the past. The vice president personally made the most expensive U.S. climate policy in history into law when she cast the deciding vote for President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

Yet Ms. Harris mentioned climate just once in her acceptance speech. The environment hardly figured in her debate with Mr. Trump. Ms. Harris used her time to champion domestic gas production and make it “very clear” she won’t ban fracking.

One reason for her silence is that, despite a media and elite fixation on climate, the issue can easily become a vote loser. Cutting emissions is a particular problem in swing states like Pennsylvania where such policies would lead to sweeping layoffs of energy workers. Across the country, Americans rank climate change far down among their priorities—below the availability and cost of energy.

As climate policy turns from distant, grandiose promises of future carbon cuts into the very real prospect of present-day energy price hikes, U.S. voters are asking whether it’s worth it. This is the first presidential election in which the economic consequences of green ideals have become real with less reliable power and higher total energy costs. A new YouGov survey shows that less than a quarter of the electorate supports a rapid transition to renewables. Among Democrats, the idea only gets about a third of respondents’ support. Only 47% of voters said they would support spending even $1 more each month on their electricity bill to fight climate change.

Underlying this electoral problem for Ms. Harris is a tricky policy one: The climate policies she would offer promise huge costs for negligible benefits. It’d be one thing to ask for sacrifices that could save the planet. But even at a whopping official price tag of $369 billion over 10 years, the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate measures as written were likely to lower the projected global temperature in 2100 by less than 0.03 degree Fahrenheit. In reality, the IRA has turned out to be an even rawer deal. The cost has rapidly ballooned to somewhere north of $3 trillion over 30 to 40 years, even as emission cuts have been slower and smaller than predicted. No wonder Ms. Harris isn’t trumpeting it.

The truth of the matter is that nothing Ms. Harris does to cut carbon can stop climate change. It’s developing nations that are driving emissions in this century. Even if the U.S. achieved net-zero carbon emissions overnight and stayed that way for the rest of the century—basically destroying its economy and much of American quality of life—the 2100 projected global temperature would only drop 0.3 degree Fahrenheit based on the United Nations’ climate model.

Climate policy has increasingly become a lose-lose for progressive politicians. Mentioning climate policies alienates moderate voters who worry about their tremendous cost. But acknowledging these downsides alienates the young voters who are enthusiastic about green ideals. If you admit net zero could be a bit unrealistic, they feel betrayed.

Cynically though, the same green activist groups that urged the Biden administration to spend trillions of dollars on climate policies have publicly supported Ms. Harris’s decision to stay quiet about climate. They worry that being too green in the campaign could turn off voters. But if Ms. Harris wins, they’ll be right back at the White House, lobbying for even more expensive policies.

A far more honest approach from advocates and politicians would be to abandon unrealistically expensive carbon cuts for cheap investments in green energy research and development. American ingenuity could hasten the day the world finds a clean energy source that is genuinely cheaper than current fossil fuels—whether that be much cheaper solar and wind energy with massive storage, fourth generation nuclear, or another technology altogether. Countries would then voluntarily transition to green energy because it is cheaper. Not only would American voters get on board, but so would this century’s biggest emitters, India, China and Africa.

For politicians, climate policy was much easier to sell when it involved far-off, monumental promises. This is the first U.S. election in which it has become evident that though benefits remain distant, the costs are increasingly large and immediate. Voters see that—and by staying silent, it’s clear that Ms. Harris does too.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”