Some climate questions for the DNC

Issue #6: DNC Edition

In this edition

• A few climate questions for the DNC

• Inflation Reduction Act turns 2

• Plus: Slight Republican pushback on IRA repeal

The big picture

The Democratic National Convention in Chicago is now on its final day, with only a handful of nods to US climate ambition over the first few days. According to NPR, today is climate day on the main stage, but the party platform’s climate section (pg. 31) gives some clues.

We covered the Republican Party platform’s mostly anti-climate planks in Climate Stakes #4.

The new Dem platform hails the Biden administration’s climate and jobs achievements, primarily in the Inflation Reduction Act, and promises more climate justice and climate action during another term. Looking forward, it promises to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas subsidies, to scale up transmission and permitting for clean energy, and to stay engaged in international climate diplomacy. 

Clean Technica mostly praises the climate agenda, but dings the Democrats for pledging to lower gasoline prices, leaving room for blue hydrogen and other polluting energy sources through vagueness about renewable energy, rehashing climate points that were relevant in 2020 but are much more stark in 2024, and not doing a final proofread to replace Biden mentions with Harris mentions. 

Exxon Knews asks why the Democrats don’t address chronic disinformation from the fossil fuel industry — which prominent members of Congress and even nominee Kamala Harris have promised to address — and also has a rundown of fossil fuel industry presence at the convention.

A few more points on the Democratic climate agenda that reporters might consider: 

1. The platform acknowledges the $11 billion US annual pledge for international climate finance, but does not bring the U.S. to a fair level of climate finance as the world’s historically biggest polluter. The world needs at least a trillion dollars annually to take urgently-needed climate action, and the US is barely contributing its fair share. 

2. At COP28 in Dubai, the US agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels,” and yet US fossil fuel production remains at record levels under the Biden-Harris administration. The platform takes some credit for the COP28 pledge but does not suggest steps to fully phase out oil, gas, and coal — including oil and gas subsidies — at the rapid speed that scientists have recommended. 

3. Beyond the Disaster Relief Tax Credit mentioned in the platform document, how are Democrats helping the millions of Americans driven from their homes by fires, floods, and storms — unnatural disasters made worse by continued fossil fuel pollution every year? What is the plan for insurance coverage in climate vulnerable regions, for example? 

4. How will Harris build on the Inflation Reduction Act, for example incorporating policies from the Green New Deal and Build Back Better Act that were left out of the IRA, on housing, public education and healthcare? 

5. The platform does not mention climate-driven migration or safe pathways for people on the move, driven from their homes by climate disasters, though this has been a small focus on Harris’ tenure as vice president.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign spent the week reiterating pledges to rescind Biden-era power plant pollution rules and to institute even larger tariffs on clean energy supply chains (Reuters). GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance penned a largely ignored op-ed in the Wall Street Journal attacking the Biden-Harris energy policies, and attempting to reframe net-zero goals, a widely accepted framework in both corporate and national climate planning, as somehow harmful.

But what’s really happening across the U.S. and how is climate change shaping this critical election? These are the questions this newsletter asks, fortnightly, through the election in November and beyond. So please subscribe and forward this email along if you find it useful.

The week before the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, President Biden (and VP Harris’) Inflation Reduction Act turned 2 years old, earning fairly positive reviews in most media outlets. Except, Fox News, rather predictably, which has Texas Rep. Jodey Arrington saying, “It's been two miserable years since the Biden-Harris Inflation Reduction Act. And it's worse than you think.”

Still, the benefits of the IRA continue to accrue. New data from the Internal Revenue Service showed that more than 3.4 million American families claimed more than $8 billion in residential clean energy and home energy efficiency credits against their 2023 federal income taxes. New York Times’ Nadja Popovich mapped the most popular tax credits and where Americans took advantage of them. And Heatmap News has a deep dive on labor provisions of the IRA that are proving popular among energy workers in transition.

The EPA is disbursing $27 billion more in climate funds, targeting solar and technical assistance in low-income or disadvantaged communities and affordable green bank financing, money that some Republicans in Congress have already targeted for investigation and repeal (The Hill). Funds that are already in the hands of communities are much harder to repeal — but one rough estimate from April is that the Biden administration had only spent about 17% of IRA funding (Politico).

As Harris distills her own climate agenda from Biden’s, she has tapped Biden alum Brian Deese on economic policy, per CNBC. Deese led the National Economic Council at the White House through passage of the IRA, and had a big hand in the IRA’s green industrial policy, intended to “bring manufacturing jobs back” — as politicians promise every four years. But according to the charts and links from Jessie Jenkins on Twitter, it’s happening, and Harris is embracing it. You can listen to this conversation between Jenkins and Deese from March, following the State of the Union Speech (and Part 2 of the Shift Keys podcast from Heatmap News as well). Catch Deese’s new essay in Foreign Affairs.

Meanwhile, in Congress, 18 Republicans spoke up against Trump’s pledges to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, warning Speaker Mike Johnson that repealing the law would put investments at risk in their states, per Politico’s E&E News: “Prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing”. They said that a “full repeal would create a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and received next to nothing in return.”

While Trump suddenly hedged a bit on his years-long attacks on electric cars, in order to win a full endorsement from Elon Musk, according to Fortune, his disinformation on climate change has not faltered. For example, he told Musk in a much heralded and technologically challenged X (Twitter) livestream that sea rise means more oceanside property (The Hill), ignoring the immense challenges that rising sea levels are already causing globally. Meanwhile, Musk, who has had his own fair share of climate change flip flopping, said on a recent earnings call that repeal of IRA tax credits for EVs might actually benefit Tesla in the long run as the most established U.S. EV-maker (Politico).

Another billionaire climate solutions investor and former presidential candidate (2020), Tom Steyer, reflected on the energy transition via Barron’s: Texas sees that solar and wind are cheaper, better, and faster. China sees it too. Will the U.S. miss an economic revolution?

According to FWIW, the Harris campaign is now massively outspending Trump on digital, with Harris dropping $6 million on Meta ads to Trump’s $700,000. Perhaps even more surprising, GOP Senate candidates are also getting massively outspent in key states.

Information integrity (disinfo)

We are monitoring a story about a hack at the Trump campaign, which the campaign blames on Iran, though that has not been independently verified. Politico, The New York Times and The Washington Post all got leaked documents, including JD Vance vetting documents, but none have reported on those documents (AP). The FBI is investigating.

The Guardian has been covering Musk’s personal involvement in inciting recent racist riots in the UK, and is now asking whether that incitement is a trial balloon for the upcoming US election. Truthout has a good overview. 

This seems bad: Meta is sponsoring a Canadian conference featuring climate deniers, Koch Industries and Chris Rufo, architect of the moral panic on critical race theory, according to DeSmog. 

Finally, is “weird-checking” the new fact-checking? 

Voters’ climate game (polling) 

A late July AP/NORC poll showed that most Americans (81%) are experiencing extreme weather events and at least 46% are attributing it to human-caused climate change. AP did not ask how many people attribute their personal climate disasters to polluting fossil fuel companies. A more recent AP/NORC poll showed that voters trust Harris slightly more than Biden on climate (AP).

An interesting University of Maryland poll in which respondents are briefed on policy choices prior to the polling found that, in six swing states, Republican support for maintaining or increasing clean energy tax credits (EVs and charging stations) ranged from 57% to 73% in the swing states, while Democrats’ support ranged from 84% to 94%. 

A CATO survey of US public opinion on global trade found that three-quarters of Americans are concerned about global poverty but are split 50/50 on the solutions  –- specifically trade and capitalism vs. government investment and aid, not that those are mutually exclusive. Alas, per the libertarian think tank’s survey, only 1% of Americans said global trade was a top 3 election issue for them (21% said climate change was a top 3 issue).

Trailing thoughts

Question for you: As you watch American politics unfold this year, what is the climate issue that holds the highest stakes for you? Are you worried about extreme weather and our ability to rebound? Are you an EV or electric bus person? Are you worried about U.S. climate finance commitments? Are you just worried? Let us know! 

Why stakes? We are calling this newsletter Climate Stakes U.S. because the stakes are, indeed, too high. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has urged reporters to consider the stakes of elections, and not just the odds of winning them, and we aim to do that for the climate. As the year develops, we will look for high stakes moments and show where they do — or where they should — overlap with American politics. 

GSCC is a global network of communications professionals in the field of climate and energy. The views expressed in quotes in this newsletter are those of the people making the comments and not necessarily those of GSCC, and they are presented as a service in the interest of informing the public. GSCC does not endorse candidates.

This edition was written by Nate.