Seeing failure, some liberals are reshaping their global warming messaging

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Did the far left ever really believe its own rhetoric when it came to climate change? True, when it comes to the positions staked out by any politician on the issues of the day, the age-old question is constantly in the back of everyone’s minds: How much of what they claim to believe is based on heartfelt, core convictions, and how much is due to outside political pressure or geared toward generating contributions?

But nowhere is this question more pertinent than when it comes to politicians and their advocacy for climate change. Why? Because it’s difficult to think of anything that comes close to rivaling the number of government mandates implemented and the amount of taxpayer dollars allocated to reshape society as has happened in the name of climate change. Surely, it wasn’t all based on empty rhetoric and misdirection, was it?

Far-left environmental and climate change groups have significantly increased their political spending over the years. In turn, election after election features liberal politicians hammering away on the alleged damage done by the fossil fuel industry. In 2024 they were at it again, highlighting the latest scary predictions about the worst-case climate change scenarios, and fervently warning of the untold horrors that would happen if Donald Trump and Republicans won in 2024.

Guess what? Once more, it all fell flat with most voters. Trump won the presidency, Republicans kept control of both the House and Senate, and across the nation GOP dominance continued in state government.

There are some Democrats who finally seem to be getting the message that their climate narrative is not resonating. A recent story in Politico noted, “Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change.”

Apparently, the realization that Americans are no longer falling for the tired old global warming bogeyman is starting to sink in, at least for some – and a growing number seem ready to modify their rhetoric on the subject.

For instance, the Politico story noted that Sen. Brian Schatz (D) of Hawaii last year removed “climate hawk” from his X biography. And during a fall event connected to New York Climate Week, Schatz, according to Politico, said that “those of us in the climate community who are used to making a more broad argument about where we are in the sweep of history have to get comfortable making a more immediate argument that says the reason prices are going up is a deliberate policy choice of the Republican Party.”

Indeed, changing the subject from doomsday climate scenarios to more economically focused arguments seems to be the path many Democrats have decided to follow, the story noted. Makes you wonder if they ever believed their own rhetoric in the first place. But climate change messaging is not their only problem. Reality is making their argument more difficult all the time.

The harsh winter experienced so far has resulted in Americans clearly witnessing the limits of their preferred energy sources. For example, the last week of January saw social media populated with images of solar panels caked with snow. The real possibility of frozen wind turbines is an annual concern, as described here.

And as the Associated Press reported last winter, “frigid temperatures from Chicago to northern Texas have made life painful for electric-vehicle owners, with reduced driving range and hours of waiting at charging stations.”

Based on apocalyptic warnings about the necessity of changing our ways, billions have been spent to prop up alternatives like wind and solar. But in New England, for instance – where an aggressive push has been made to build large-scale offshore wind projects – the electricity needed to combat the recent frigid air mass was generated mostly by natural gas, oil and nuclear power, as usual.

Left to the tender mercies of wind and solar, New Englanders and most of the U.S. population would have been a cold and stranded lot indeed.

Politicians from the political left tamping down or even forsaking their doomsday climate talk could just be a short-term development while polling shows voters don’t consider climate change a top priority.

Or, it could be a more long-lasting phenomenon. Albert Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” It can be argued that most leftwing politicians never understood it will enough; they just parroted the talking points. Now that they’re realizing voters aren’t listening anymore, they’re downplaying the issue – raising questions about the level of their sincerity in the first place.

The left has been enslaved to their climate change dogma for decades. As such, they’re not ready to give it up entirely. But they are trying to craft a new message – “affordability” – around a tired old issue. Apparently, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but you can simplify the one that he already knows. Will voters think Rover is smarter – or still dutifully obedient?

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.