Climate Stakes U.S. 2

Issue #2: State of the climate election ⚡

The big picture

In the last two weeks, the Biden-Trump rematch became almost certain. Trump’s last-standing opponent, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, dropped out of the race following the Super Tuesday primary contests (of which she won only Vermont). And Biden delivered his annual State of the Union address to Congress, promising more green jobs and energy transition economic wins to come (Scientific American), though still failing to deliver a full-throated defense of his own climate policies — much less address fossil fuel phaseout in the face of record U.S. fossil fuel production (EOS).

• A new Carbon Brief analysis suggests a Trump win could add 4 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere by 2030, similar to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan.

• Rana Foroohar at the FT asks if Europe has a plan for a second Biden admin: “ask any Big Tech executive or multinational chief executive in private, and they’ll say that US policymakers pose a much bigger threat to concentrated power than Europeans do… Few people in big business are wringing their hands about Brussels these days.”

• Bloomberg ($) offers a comparison of U.S., EU and other far-right gains, i.e. using climate denial to win votes, with a caveat that voter sentiment is tempering some outright climate denial: “Speaking about Trump, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore told Bloomberg Television last month that even if he wins, ‘we would see a continuation of this progress toward zero carbon.’”

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

You may have read about Project 2025 by now, an umbrella of right-wing and far-right groups assembled by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, which is putting out detailed plans for a future Trump administration policy agenda, though without official endorsement from the Trump campaign. We will look at various under-covered planks of this plan in future issues of U.S. Climate Stakes, starting this week with the suggestion to quash science across the federal government.

Among the 900+ page laundry list that Project 2025 has published are multiple mentions along the lines of “resetting science advisory boards to expand opportunities for a diversity of scientific viewpoints free of potential conflicts of interest.” More specific suggestions include: 

• Call for public inquiries into Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use of science.

• Eliminate the use of emissions tools like the social cost of carbon, and IPCC greenhouse gas pathways.

• Appoint new EPA science administrators and overseers who are political appointees and selected for their administrative — not scientific — experience.

• Roll back most EPA Office of Research and Development scientific activities that Project 2025 claims are unauthorized, including the Office of Scientific Integrity.

• Eliminate “climate change interference” in LNG export decisions at the Department of Energy (DOE), retooling scientific activities to benefit national security, reigning in National Science Foundation activities and prioritizing nuclear energy and weapons technology. 

• In addition, the document makes suggestions for improving electrical grid reliability, narrowing agency activities to those explicitly mandated by Congress, and eliminating carbon capture and storage (CCS) subsidies, letting private companies work out the economics of it on their own. 

For a look at some of the key advisors on the Trump team who span the campaign and Project 2025, including former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division during the first Trump administration, Media Matters has lots of links.

In Biden’s corner, the recent SEC mandate requiring public companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks to investors is a watered-down version of the original proposal that would have required companies to disclose Scope 3 emissions. According to the NYT, the approved version provides some leeway, because “the biggest companies will have to report the emissions they directly produce, but only if the companies themselves consider the emissions ‘material.’” More stringent guidelines are needed in the U.S. to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, but even a whiff of climate-disclosure rules is sending some lawmakers into a spiral. Republican and some Democratic lawmakers have spoken out against the SEC’s new rule (which is already facing a few lawsuits).  

Arizona primary

In Arizona, while progressives continue to push Democrat voters to protest the administration’s handling of Gaza with a “#VoteCeasefireAZ” campaign, even more attention is likely to be paid to the race for the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema. A Democrat until 2022, when her transition from progressive star to a moderate protecting the filibuster resulted in Arizona Democrats censuring Sinema, her seat is unlikely to remain moderate (ABC). The race to succeed Sinema will now likely pit progressive Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego against Kari Lake, a Republican close to Trump who narrowly lost Arizona's 2022 gubernatorial election. We will know for sure after next Tuesday.

Information integrity (disinfo)

Check out a new tool for spotting corporate greenwashing, from Zero Carbon Analytics. Some of the 11 criteria to check could also be applied to candidate statements; for example, what do they consider to be renewable energy, what is their position on hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, and how do they talk about gas policy?

Outgoing U.S. climate envoy John Kerry told The Guardian in an interview in London that disinformation is being used as a tool to derail global climate progress: “They’re procrastinating and they’re part of the disinformation crowd that are willing to put the whole world at risk for whatever political motivations may be behind their choices here.”

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. 

A word about us: This newsletter comes from the Global Strategic Communications Council. 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.