Climate politics: what would Donald Trump do?

Recent scientific data shows that global temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial levels) for the first time. Dr. James Hansen, the godfather of the modern-day climate movement, believes the global rise is already at 2.0 degrees Celsius.

Beyond this degree range, scientists predict that multi-billion-dollar weather-related disasters will become commonplace, and the extinction of plant and animal species will speed up. The data shows something else as well.

Years of climate action messaging hasn’t jumped the aisle. Until it does, US policy will continue to be a whiplash affair.

The next four years will find the climate collective playing defense in the corridors of Congress and offense in the halls of justice to keep the Trump administration and the Republicans on Capitol Hill from completely dismantling federal clean energy, environmental, and other climate-related programs, e.g., scientific and health research, and policies, e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act.

But what of winning in the court of public opinion?

Defending against the second Trump administration running roughshod over duly enacted legislative programs and regulations is essential. But it shouldn't cloud the critical need for the climate collective to rethink its messaging.

It's hardly coincidental that both the climate collective and the Democratic Party are at a loss for how to convince the half of Americans who vote Republican to understand the causes, consequences, and culprits of Earth's heating. More importantly, what message will move them to action?

Jonathan Chait, writing in The Atlantic, believes that the Democratic Party “has largely ceded it to a collection of progressive activist groups.” Chait suggests these groups are funded by liberal donors but fail individually to have broad support. He highlights climate groups as prime examples.

Climate groups, for instance, define what good climate policy means, and then they judge candidates based on how well they affirm those positions.

Chait's complaint about the takeover by the collection of progressive interests is that they don't reflect the priority of the larger population of voters. He supports his argument by referencing a recent New York Times poll that asked respondents two questions. What are your priorities? What do you think are the priorities of the Democrats?

Like two trains passing in the night, two very different sets of answers were given. Respondent priorities were “the economy, health care, immigration, taxes, and crime.” The perceived priorities of the Democratic Party were “abortion, LGBTQ policy, climate change, the state of democracy, and health care.”

Chait recognizes – I think accurately – that the priority of elected officials may be closer to those of respondent priorities but believes the perception of the party's priorities is correct. That the accomplishments of the officials weren't better communicated was a messaging failure.

Trump’s political genius is having defined the Democrats—whether conservative Blue Dog or socialist—as the establishment. It was a feat far more remarkable than getting doubters to admit that the 2020 election was stolen or that those who overran the US Capitol were everyday tourists out for a stroll.

How did big tech, fossil fuel interests, utilities, and insurance companies escape identification as leading lights of the establishment out to make a profit off the backs of average Americans? What has ExxonMobil done lately to lower gas prices?

Is there such a thing as too much profit—especially windfall profits from war? Can oil companies be directed to turn some of the billions in profits into lower prices at the gas pump? For that matter, what has Elon Musk done to help lower inflationary prices?

Trump is going to be found out as the alternative truth teller he is — not because of the inane things he says but because his promised economic benefits of tariffs and energy prices being halved within months of his taking office aren’t coming to bear.

When it comes to energy, why does Trump think more drilling is something the oil and gas companies want to do? The US is already the world’s largest oil and gas producer. Efforts to expand export facilities will take years. Trump believes that increasing supply will bring down prices.

We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill. I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months - Donald J. Trump

But why would oil companies go along with it? Profit levels are at record highs. Why, too, would Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations continue to produce at current levels in the face of declining prices? Trump doesn't control the global market enough to force price drops based on supply.

The real growth is in the clean energy and storage markets. Trump's efforts to completely rescind the Inflation Reduction Act and impound federal dollars will result in significant pushback from red states profiting from the Democratic-only legislation.

The New York Times reports that Georgia State Representative Beth Camp (R) fears that the loss of IRA investments could destroy hundreds of jobs related to green manufacturing plants and the loss of billions in private investments. Camp is justifiably concerned that this could leave factories in Georgia “sitting empty.”

Georgia is hardly the only red state suffering from IRA anxiety under a second Trump administration.

We are an angry nation. Trump is popular now, but when he doesn't produce, the anger is going to be directed at him and the Republican congressional majority. For all the touting of "promises made, promises kept" by press agents in these first weeks of his second administration, he has accomplished little except chaos and myriad court cases.

His inevitable “promises made, promises missed” are chances— not to say “gotcha’” and gloat – but to engage the half of the nation that has yet to see combating climate change and increasing the resilience of communities to weather-related disasters as a national priority.

Democrats and the climate collective do themselves a disservice by failing to learn from Trump. The community has zero standing with Republicans – all of whom are not MAGA-minded. Although Trump's new mantra, "common sense," doesn't make much sense when applied to him, it reflects what voters seek.

So, what would Donald Trump do to convince his voters of the need for a low-carbon economy?

He would keep it simple and all about the economy.

Those are words to advocate by.

This article is also published on the author's blog. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.