[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now our climate story of the week, which we're doing every Tuesday on the show all this year. Ahead of the elections, you would have thought the Democrats were in pole position to boast about at least one big achievement on climate, the passage of the largest climate bill in US history, the one called the Inflation Reduction Act, but in recent stump speeches and even at the Democratic convention, that hasn't materialized all that much. Instead, there was little significant mention of climate at the DNC.

With us now, Maxine Joselow, Washington Post reporter focusing on climate change and the environment. She has a recent piece in The Post. Did you see it? Why Democrats are so quiet about climate change right now. Today she's got a new piece about the Sunrise Movement, the climate action group. The headline for that one is, They're knocking on doors for Harris. But they still won't endorse her.

Maxine, welcome back to WNYC. Glad to have you with us.

Maxine Joselow: Thank you for having me again, and thank you for devoting a segment to climate change.

Brian Lehrer: Let's establish the premise first. How quiet does your reporting indicate that the Democrats are being on climate?

Maxine Joselow: You mentioned this piece I had published last week. That was prior to Vice President Kamala Harris actually delivering her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Thursday evening. I thought that the speeches preceding her own were pretty light on climate. They touched on a number of other issues, notably abortion access and reproductive rights more broadly, but were largely absent of any significant climate mentions. Harris, when she took the stage in Chicago on Thursday, I thought it was more of the same. She only mentioned climate change once in her entire speech, and it was just to connect her broader theme of freedom back to the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and then she quickly moved on to other aspects of that freedom message and other issues.

Brian Lehrer: That's interesting, among other ways, in that that's what Trump likes to emphasize about the environment, right? He won't talk about climate. He'll mostly talk about drill, baby, drill, but he says, I'm the most pro-environment president. How does he back that up? He claims, I'm very much for crystal-clear air and crystal-clear water. It sounds like you're saying that's exactly where, in her style, Kamala Harris went in her acceptance speech.

Maxine Joselow: That's a really interesting point, and I think you're right. When you hear Trump talk about the environment, it's largely to mention a few of the same refrains that he keeps coming back to. One is drill, baby, drill. He talks about oil and gas as "liquid gold under our feet." He also talks often about how under his administration, he says, we had some of the cleanest air and the cleanest water. Which of course, if you actually want to understand why that was, the clean air is largely due to the ongoing switch in the power sector from coal to natural gas-fired power plants which produce less air pollution and climate-warming pollution overall, which is not a trend that his policies helped, but rather is spurred by market forces, but I digress. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: Yes. We talked in the previous hour of the show about the Harris campaign's decision not to have a Palestinian speaker from the stage. Now we have your reporting that indicates they wanted to marginalize climate as an issue. Did they think that climate is a losing issue when they're trying to convince undecided Americans?

Maxine Joselow: Well, my story really grappled with this question, and I think there are a couple of really interesting data and polling points to highlight from the piece that might help explain why Democrats didn't mention climate that much at the convention. One really illuminating statistic in my mind is there was a recent survey by Yale and George Mason universities that surveyed registered voters on the issues that they would rank as very important. Of 28 issues, global warming or climate change ranked 19th in importance. The issues that ranked above it included abortion, border security, the economy, inflation, gun control. There was another recent Gallup survey that also similarly found inflation and immigration rank among Americans' top concerns. I think those statistics help explain Democrats' silence on this issue.

The other dynamic that I explored in the piece is this idea that Democrats might see talking about climate change as a lose-lose proposition because if they call for curbing fossil fuel production to fight climate change, which the science says we need to do, then they could risk alienating more moderate voters in Pennsylvania, where natural gas is a huge driver of the economy and fracking has emerged as a sort of third rail in Pennsylvania politics. On the other hand, if Democrats tout record US oil production under Biden, which has helped lower energy costs, then they could anger or alienate younger voters; another crucial constituency for Democrats.

They might see this as a lose-lose proposition. Although, I do think it's important to note, there were a couple of speakers at the DNC on Thursday, prior to Harris's acceptance speech, who did mention climate. That included Deb Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior Department, and Congressman Maxwell Frost, who's the youngest member of Congress from Florida.

Brian Lehrer: Right. We played a clip on the show on Friday morning after the Thursday night acceptance speech by Harris and other things that took place Thursday night. We played a clip of Frost about climate, and so I was going to be curious to hear your take on that bit of programming because it was certainly in prime time. If I recall, it was after eight o'clock, so they certainly gave Congressman Frost, 27 years old, youngest member of Congress, a spot where people were going to see him. I guess they were hoping to have some demographic identification with him, but also issue identification as he brought up climate. I don't know. Where does that fit in? How do you put together this marginalization at other times with making sure to give it at least one prime time moment?

Maxine Joselow: I did think that was a really interesting decision. I do think it was significant that Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Congressman Frost did have those speaking slots in prime time on Thursday prior to Harris's speech, when we know viewership was higher and a lot of people were tuning in. On the other hand, I think it would have been much more significant if Harris herself had said some of those things about climate and not delegated it or left those things unsaid because those earlier speakers had already said them.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take your calls on climate as an issue in the post-convention campaign season. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Call or text with a comment or a question for Maxine Joselow from The Washington Post, who focuses on climate change and the environment. Her piece from last week, Why Democrats are so quiet about climate change right now. Her new one today called, They're knocking on doors for Harris. But they still won't endorse her, about the climate action group the Sunrise Movement. 212-433-WNYC, on our climate story of the week. 212-433-9692.

I guess we should say that so much of the tone from Republicans on climate policy at the RNC and elsewhere come in the form of attacks over gasoline prices, but gasoline prices are kind of back to pre-pandemic normal, I think it's accurate to say, and under Biden, there's been record domestic oil production, which has helped keep energy costs relatively low. Is Kamala Harris caught in a dilemma here?

Maxine Joselow: You're absolutely right that when Trump and other Republicans did talk about environmental issues at the Republican convention, it was largely in the context of energy and gas prices and not so much about climate change explicitly. They seem to feel that hammering Harris and the Biden-Harris administration for higher gas prices right now-- I just looked it up as you were talking, Brian. It's about $3.35 a gallon, today's national average according to AAA, so it's on the higher end.

At the same time, you're right that that attack somewhat rings hollow because the truth of the matter is that there is record oil and gas production under the Biden-Harris administration right now that is helping to tame energy prices and gas prices. That's not a talking point that you often hear Biden or Harris themselves touting because it does run counter to their climate agenda. It's also not something that you hear Trump and Republicans touting because it runs counter to their attacks on gas prices. That's another really fascinating dynamic that I've been watching.

Brian Lehrer: Your article today about the Sunrise Movement, they're knocking on doors for Harris, but they're not ready to endorse her right now. How do those even fit together? How could they be knocking on doors if they don't even endorse her?

Maxine Joselow: The Sunrise Movement, for listeners unfamiliar, is a climate group led by young people. They were pretty influential in- I think it was 2019, or don't quote me on the year, but a few years ago in helping to craft and then get many progressive Democrats to endorse the Green New Deal, that broad set of progressive climate policies aimed at weaning the nation off fossil fuels.

Today, as my story notes, they came out with a new strategy for the election, now that Harris is the nominee and Biden has ended his own reelection bid. The strategy essentially calls for reaching 1.5 million Americans about why they should vote for Harris through door knocking, through ad campaigns, through phone banking. That's up from a goal of only 1 million when Biden was the nominee.

At the same time, they are not endorsing Harris yet. They say they want to wait and see what her climate plan looks like. Because thus far, we have not seen that many details from her on any policies, really, but that includes policies to address climate change. We've only seen her plan from 2019, the last time she ran for president, and she's disavowed some of the policies in that plan. You might remember, back in 2019 at a town hall, she said that she was in favor of a national ban on fracking. Her campaign has since walked that back, but has not offered in its place a more robust plan of its own.

Brian Lehrer: Although, when we talk about her policies, here is maybe a central and important text from a listener. Listener writes, "Harris has in the past supported big climate initiatives and even wrote a climate equity plan with AOC in 2019. If we only judge her position based on her acceptance speech instead of waiting for her policies or looking at her history, is it really a fair criticism?" Good question and fair question from that listener, right?

Maxine Joselow: I think that's definitely a fair question. To the listener, I would say, 2019 may not feel like that long ago, but it's a long time in politics and politicians' positions can change. I think Sunrise just wants to see where Harris's positions are today as opposed to five years ago and whether she's changed any of them or not. At the same time, it's fair to look back at what she said in 2019 and, if she hasn't disavowed those, then to assume that those positions are still ones that she holds or at least held five years ago.

Brian Lehrer: I think a similar critique or point of view on how to think about Harris and climate relative to Trump is coming from John in Ocean County. John, you're on WNYC. Hello. John, you there?

John: Yes. Thanks for taking my call, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: We got you. Hi.

John: Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

John: Hi. Yes, both on the environmental issues and on so many other issues, the asymmetrical aspect of the discussion is, of course, that Democrats have to be the adults in the room and the assumption-- I mean, it's just-- it's not even stated anymore. It's just taken as part of the environment that Republicans don't even come forward, Trump, of course, with anything resembling an actual valid discussion of this, of this issue [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: I guess the question is when that's the starting point, when Trump is, from a climate concern perspective, going to be so much worse from Harris, and that can be assumed, how much pressure does that keep on Harris to be as aggressive as possible on climate? That's the dilemma that I guess the activists are facing.

John: Absolutely. Obviously, you're talking about the environment, environmental issues and climate in this discussion, but when you do your election series on this issue and so many other issues, the asymmetrical element or aspect of this, it's just the-- and it's just now inculcated in the way all these issues are covered. No one expects anything resembling an adult conversation from the Republicans. Their perspective on climate is simply denial. That's it. Just straight denial and nothing else is even discussed.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Actually, I think we've talked about on the show before, and Maxine, it would be interesting to get your take on this, I think, that there's a sort of more nuanced position from a lot of Republicans on climate now than denial that human-made climate change is real. Though, it kind of winds up in the same place. Because they'll say, yes, human-made climate change is real, but then you can't find a policy to address it that they actually support.

Maxine Joselow: Absolutely. I think there's been an evolution in the discourse around climate denial to one of climate delay. The climate scientist, Michael Mann, who is famous for that hockey stick-shaped graph of global temperature rise, has written about this extensively, as have others. The basic premise is that if you go back even 10 years ago, 15 years ago, many Republicans were attacking the basic premise, scientifically, that burning fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases, was causing climate change. You had Senator Jim Inhofe- the late Senator Inhofe, one of the most vocal climate deniers in Congress, bring a snowball to the floor of the Senate to say, "Look, it's snowing. Global warming isn't real. Humans aren't causing this massive disruption."

You fast-forward to today and that's totally gone. You don't have that overt denial of the science anymore, but what you do have is in some ways more insidious. It's this climate delay tactic where many Republicans, many conservatives don't disagree with the science, but they vehemently attack the solutions that Democrats and environmentalists and climate activists put forth to address the problem. That's where we are right now. It's in some ways a harder battle.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. When you were talking before about climate as a youth issue, and thinking back to our earlier segment about the pro-Palestinian movement not having much place at the convention either, makes me also think that student loan debt forgiveness didn't come up very much, not in the prime time speeches I saw. I wonder if there's a decision on the part of the Harris campaign or maybe a dilemma that while youth vote enthusiasm is considered an important piece of getting her elected, that their data indicates that what's considered the core youth vote issues, student debt, climate, Gaza, don't actually move the needle very much in terms of total votes.

Maxine Joselow: That's interesting. I'm a climate reporter. I don't cover student loans, so I don't feel qualified to speculate on that aspect of your musings, Brian. I do think that there's some material I gathered in my reporting for the story out this morning on the Sunrise Movement that didn't make it into the story, but I can share with you now and with your listeners, which is that everyone I talked to for the story at the Sunrise Movement really made clear that there's a really palpable difference in enthusiasm right now among young people for Kamala Harris as the nominee compared to when Joe Biden was at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Sunrise told me, essentially, that it was really hard to motivate young people to vote for Joe Biden because they weren't excited about his candidacy. They weren't confident that he would beat Trump in November. Now when they knock on doors or phone bank and make calls, there's just a lot more enthusiasm among young people. I think it might be too early to see that reflected in polling, but I have seen, anecdotally, some early, small polling out there from the Environmental Voter Project, this nonprofit that tries to get environmentalists to vote, suggesting that young people are already enthused by Harris's candidacy, and so that may be part of their thinking.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. I will note that you've written about how no US president has slowed the US oil boom, and you have a piece on Harold Hamm, an oil tycoon who's helping to shape Trump's agenda. That's to the point of the previous caller who talked about the sort of asymmetrical shape of any curve. We know that Trump is like way over there on climate, and Harris is going to be better than that. How much better remains to be seen. Another listener points out in a text message that you can learn a lot about what Trump would do with respect to climate by reading the Project 2025 report.

Have you done that? This will be the last question for today as the campaign season enters its final stretch. Have you dug into Project 2025's climate sections?

Maxine Joselow: Yes. I have read all of Project 2025's climate sections. I've also interviewed several of the authors of those chapters, both about the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. I've also dug into the fact that this plan would essentially gut the EPA and give a lot more power to political appointees, as opposed to the career civil servants who are often the experts on climate science.

Brian Lehrer: There we leave it with Maxine Joselow, Washington Post reporter focusing on climate change and the environment. That's our climate story of the week. Thanks so much for joining us.

Maxine Joselow: Thanks so much.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.