By: Jacob Kim
The policies that candidates choose to endorse and propose to the American public are extremely crucial leading up to November. Prior to accepting the nomination to be the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Kamala Harris was a major component in passing the largest climate-change mitigating bill this past year. However, since receiving her election Harris has failed to address the issue of climate change and renewable energy to prevent losing votes from key swing states that could decide the election such as Pennsylvania: a state fueled by oil fracking.
Advocating for reduced fossil fuel production to combat climate change could alienate voters who deny the existence of human-caused climate change. In contrast, highlighting record U.S. oil output and its role in lowering energy prices risks disappointing young voters, a demographic essential to Democratic success. This dilemma forces the party to carefully navigate between environmental concerns and economic realities.
Additionally, polls have found climate issues to rank lower in importance to issues such as cost of living, abortion, taxes, etc. Several environmental advocacy groups have supported the Democratic method of avoiding the heated topic but younger groups such as the Sunrise Movement claim that the party should directly address the topic.
This predicament highlights the complex interplay between climate action, economic interests, and political strategy. Democrats must navigate these competing concerns carefully to maintain broad electoral appeal while staying true to their environmental commitments.
Sources
Energy Outlook 
Leave a comment