TL/DR –
The Democratic Party is experiencing a “climate hush,” as politicians focus less on climate change and more on the cost of living. This trend follows the loss of the 2024 presidential election, with some blaming the defeat on a perceived overemphasis on climate issues. However, a report from the 2035 Initiative, a research center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argues that talking about climate change could actually increase support for Democratic candidates, contradicting the current “climate hush” approach.
A Shift in Democratic Priorities: The “Climate Hush”
A noticeable dampening of discourse surrounding climate change, referred to as the “climate hush,” has arisen within the Democratic Party. The change manifests as a greater emphasis being placed on the current cost of living and a lesser focus on the environmental crisis. The approach is an attempt to rectify the perceived reasons for the party’s loss in the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump. Subsequently, there has been a decline in social media mentions and press releases about climate change by Democratic politicians. Moreover, it seems to be an infrequent occurrence for a candidate to campaign on this issue during the summer primaries.
Debunking the Risks of Climate Talk
A recent report by the 2035 Initiative, a research center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, disagrees with the notion that discussing climate change can cost Democrats votes. The research indicates that highlighting the issue might actually bolster support for Democratic candidates. The revelation comes ahead of key state primaries — including Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia — that could potentially tip the balance of Congress in favor of the Democrats.
Matto Mildenberger, a political science professor involved in the research, states that their data solidly shows that bringing climate change into the conversation is either neutral or advantageous from a political standpoint. The team carried out two surveys over the summer with approximately 3,500 participants, representing a varied mix of voters from across the political spectrum. Mildenberger notes that this is the first thorough evaluation of the “climate hush” hypothesis.
The Push Against Climate Hushing
Opposition to the climate hush phenomenon is growing, led by key climate advocate, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and a group of experts in political science and public opinion. Tré Easton, vice president for public affairs at the Democratic-aligned think tank, Searchlight Institute, believes that the strong effort to highlight the continued importance of climate change for Democrats is a reflection of the evolution of the conversation.
Last fall, Searchlight suggested the provocative notion that the “first rule about solving climate change” was to avoid mentioning climate change, which has been interpreted as an example of climate hush. Easton, however, denies this characterization and advises against completely avoiding the topic. Rather, he suggests discussing climate change within the context of energy policy, calling for a climate-conscious approach that ensures the United States can meet the rising demand for electricity.
The Politics of Climate Change
According to Mildenberger’s research, climate change is not as politically poisonous as often assumed. His study found that nearly two-thirds of survey participants supported a government investment in renewable energy, regardless of how the objective was framed. This included phrases such as “addressing climate change,” “developing new energy sources,” and “reducing pollution and protecting clean air.” Even among Republicans, 60% supported such a policy, and the use of the word “climate” did not diminish their support.
When asked to choose between pairs of candidates having randomly assigned priorities, respondents were more likely to favor those who prioritized climate change. Overall, this preference resulted in a 4.5 percentage point increase for the selected candidate, while making no difference among those considering voting Republican.
Differing Opinions
Despite these findings, organizations critiqued in the report for discouraging climate change discourse among Democrats remain unconvinced. Liam Kerr, co-founder of WelcomePAC — a political action committee that has contested Democrats’ heavy focus on climate change — cited examples from the 2024 election as evidence against the research findings. Representative Jared Golden from Maine, for instance, promoted his resistance to Biden’s electric car mandate and his support for increased oil and gas production during his campaign, and still managed to secure reelection.
Climate Change: A Low-Priority Issue?
One point all parties agree on is that climate change does not top the list of voters’ priorities. Mildenberger’s research found climate change ranking twelfth out of fifteen issues, far behind cost of living and health care, yet ahead of foreign policy and AI.
There is a fundamental discrepancy between opinions on how to catalyze climate action. One argument suggests working silently behind the scenes to avoid making climate change a partisan debate, while the other cautions that maintaining silence could undermine the perceived urgency of the issue, thereby eroding the political will to tackle it. Mildenberger supports the latter theory and warns that excluding climate change from political discussions risks missing the opportunity to act on it when Democrats regain power.
Quiet Climate Policy Making
Others argue for a “quiet” approach to climate policymaking, embedding small interventions into larger bills without attracting excessive media attention. Easton suggests that the more an issue is seen as a partisan project, the harder it becomes to achieve sustainable policy success.
Regardless of how often it is mentioned, Easton believes that climate change is so embedded in the Democratic Party that it is not going anywhere. He emphasizes that ultimate power to act on climate change rests with those voted into office.
—
Read More US Economic News