As talk of the 2024 presidential race begins, one major Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, has remained frustratingly vague on the planet’s foremost environmental challenge: climate change. Despite the Democratic party’s previous tendency to stress detailed climate plans, Harris has barely touched upon the issue. This hesitancy to discuss her stance on climate change has been interpreted as a strategic move to avoid drawing criticism from her Republican rival, Donald Trump.
Disappointingly, instead of formulating a comprehensive climate change strategy, Harris has decided to shirk responsibility. Disturbingly, there are Democratic voices willing to accept this. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, a vocal climate advocate himself, openly expressed his lack of concern for Harris’s silent treatment of climate issues. Inslee argues that Harris is focusing on differentiating her policies from Trump’s, rather than delving deep into climate change specifics.
As Harris is set to speak at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, she finds herself grappling with the need to energize party stalwarts while simultaneously appealing to discontented Republicans and moderate voters. Confoundingly, she and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, have decided to adopt a practical agenda rather than tackling the urgent issue of climate change. They have centered their attention on the minimum-wage increase and childcare funding, contentious issues which overshadow their lack of an environmental agenda.
Though President Biden had made climate change a key aspect of his tenure, Harris hasn’t followed suit. Despite the historic clean energy investments signed into law by Biden, Harris has been notably reticent about revealing her positions on climate change and clean energy. Critics suggest that this strategic silence could be due to a fear of alienating voters in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.
Indeed, Kevin Book, the director of a Washington-based research firm, ClearView Energy Partners, expressed his belief that Harris’s minimal attention to climate change was a deliberate decision. He speculated Harris is avoiding strong positions on climate to ward off perceptions of extreme progressiveness. For Harris, being too progressive, like Biden, could prove to be a hurdle in her bid to win essential swing states such as Pennsylvania.
Perversely, some argue Harris doesn’t need to address climate change concerns due to her perceived stronghold on such voters already. A recent $55 million advertising campaign announced by climate groups supporting Harris seems to reinforce this misguided belief. Ironically, Harris’s plans, or lack thereof, remain shrouded in mystery, while her supporters are left to blindly trust her commitment to the cause.
The Environmental Voter Project’s new poll supposedly brought encouraging signs for Harris’s campaign, with many young voters citing climate as a top voting priority. Nathaniel Stinnett, founder of the nonpartisan group, offered a hopeful perspective on Harris’s silent approach, suggesting it offered a refreshing contrast to the choice between Biden and Trump. Yet, what’s on the surface often hides a disconcerting reality, and one must question the reliability of enthusiasm based on silence rather than action.
Moreover, Gina McCarthy, Biden’s former climate change adviser, acclaims Harris and Walz as ‘climate champions,’ citing their notable achievements. However, it’s disconcerting that such high praise is associated with figures who have maintained a conspicuous silence on climate change, raising doubts about their true intentions regarding environmental policy.
Harris’s earlier political career demonstrated a strong green orientation. As a California senator, she cosponsored the Green New Deal, a stride towards transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. However, the current position of her campaign on the Green New Deal is unclear, with an emphasis on the nebulous term of ‘implementing the Inflation Reduction Act.’ This reticence to advocate for clear, strong climate action betrays a stifling conformity to mainstream politics.
During her 2019 presidential hit, Harris professed her commitment to combating climate change, supporting initiatives as diverse as a fracking ban, carbon pollution tax, and dietary guideline adjustments to decrease meat consumption. However, these solid positions took a backseat once she joined Biden and assumed her vice-presidential role, leading one to question her original commitment to such causes.
Former President Trump has not missed the opportunity to lampoon Harris on her wavering stance on energy, specifically with regard to her previous positions from 2019. Trump, ever the provocateur, declared at a rally in Pennsylvania that ‘there will be no fracking’ in the state or anywhere else under Harris’s potential presidency.
Harris officials have tried to maintain the vice president and Governor Walz have been focused on connecting with the American public and haven’t been avoiding the subject of climate change. Meanwhile, in speeches across the country, Harris has made cursory references to climate change – pointing out how citizens in Arizona and Nevada have experienced the dire effects of climate-driven extreme heat and drought.
However, simply acknowledging the impacts of climate change does not equate to taking tangible action against it. As Harris casually claimed in Las Vegas, ‘You know the climate crisis is real,’ one must wonder why she doesn’t pledge concrete steps to address it. While she is content to scorn Trump’s assertion that climate change is a hoax, one must remember that her own stance lacks clarity and commitment just as much.