Does Kamala Harris Assume the Climate Vote is Locked Up?

Search through the transcript of Minnesota Governor and VP nominee Tim Walz’s speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday for the word “climate,” and you’ll come up empty. Try the same thing for Kamala Harris’s nomination acceptance speech at the DNC on Thursday, and you’ll land on one mention — part of a list of “freedoms” that includes “the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.”

For a ticket supposedly drafting off Joe Biden’s stint as the “climate president,” with signature achievements like the Inflation Reduction Act and a general rhetorical approach to the topic that centered it as a fundamental and critical challenge, this felt… a bit light. It certainly felt intentional — and so, the logical conclusion might be that Harris and her campaign saw no particular upside in harping on emissions reductions, transitions to electric vehicles and wind and solar power, and, in particular, a crackdown on the absolutely thriving oil and gas industry.

Instead, perhaps, they think the climate vote is more or less settled. This probably isn’t wrong: it seems hard to imagine that any voter putting climate at the top of their issues list would see Trump as a better option than Harris, with his promises to open up even more drilling opportunities, disdain for EV and clean power policies, and the general warming-is-a-hoax of it all. But there’s always a chance that truly disillusioned climate voters opt to stay home, in general a much bigger threat to Harris’s electoral prospects than some mythical person who can’t decide between the two candidates.

To be clear, climate was not entirely absent from the DNC; after NPR reported that Thursday night would finally feature the issue, speakers did include Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost, both of whom centered climate in their speeches.

“An American president must lead the world in tackling climate change,” Haaland said, hitting Trump for never having “learned [the] lesson” about responsibility to care for the planet we live on. “We need a president who understands that assignment. That’s Kamala Harris.” Frost exhorted the crowd: “Fighting the climate crisis is patriotic!”

Still, shunting an issue many voters, in particular young ones considered critical to a Harris victory, off to the side is at very least a gamble. As the youth-led Sunrise Movement’s co-founder and communications director Stevie O’Hanlon told Mother Jones this week, the group is holding off on an official endorsement for the moment, waiting for a member vote to determine the best path. “I think right now, most of our members are looking for specifics for Harris on what she will do to tackle the climate crisis,” she said.

President Biden has walked something of a tightrope on climate policy, shepherding the IRA through Congress and launching executive branch initiatives aimed at cutting emissions in various ways while still approving big oil projects and continuing to grant public lands drilling permits — theoretically in response to existing policies and laws that tie his hands, though advocates think he could have done more to push back. Voters currently see Harris as the far better option on climate; but she isn’t exactly taking advantage of the situation.

“[S]he’s missing an opportunity to talk about one of the issues where voters trust her the most over Trump,” O’Hanlon said. “And if she wants to capitalize on that advantage and build on it, she needs to talk about it.”

Clearly, there is still time — 74 days, good god — for the Harris campaign to tout her climate bona fides, both on her existing record and on plans and policy proposals. And other environmental groups are making no secret of their preference — earlier this week a coalition of such groups’ political arms, including those associated with the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund, and others, launched a $55 million advertising campaign in support of Harris.

With support like that, and the decade of planet-killing evidence Trump has left in his wake, the gamble may well be a sure thing.