Two days after America’s General Election nearly every campaign sign had vanished from Alliance’s front yards. My advice may be a little too late though I encourage volunteers who retrieved them to recycle the plastic signs at the Keep Alliance Beautiful Recycling Center. Separate the metal stands and we will take those too. A certain candidate’s name appeared on a number of tops and bottoms for our bales of plastic two years ago.
Where did the men and women named on this tried and true form of electoral advertising stand on the environment? From city council spots on local radio to the major parties’ national presidential campaigns there was nary a mention of the topic. That must be because of the perfect condition of our world. No, I would say the opposite is true when taking nature’s vital signs. Instead, voters just did not care enough to push the environment high enough, especially in the top race, to rate significant discussion by either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.
I had hoped to hear whether former and now President Elect Trump would turn a new leaf with more favorable policies or if Vice President Harris would build on the current administration’s priorities and own the traditional pro-environment Democratic platform.
Inside Climate News posted an article on its website on Election Day that speculated on what caused the short shrift. Despite Democrats considering climate change “a global emergency” the authors note the economy, abortion rights and threats to democracy were key to the Harris campaign. The article emphasized: The Environmental Voter Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, identified 4.8 million voters this election who had strong pro-environmental attitudes but were not likely to show up (and were not courted enough to feel any ownership). Harris never spelled out a Climate Agenda.
Trump has labeled climate change a “scam” or a “hoax” yet did not play up either in debates or interviews, rather he left the issue largely alone. His voters either agreed with his perspective on the environment or if they disagreed the sentiment was not enough to vote for a Democrat.
Both candidates championed America’s liquified natural gas exports. They also supported the energy industry with a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Whether a higher weight on the environment would have won Harris the election is doubtful in hindsight. However, spirited debate on the issue would have given potential voters more information as to what America’s policies are the next four years and beyond will affect climate change one way or the other.
Agree with them or not, Trump expects to pick up where he left off on the environment four years ago and nobody should be surprised if the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement again or rescinds the Inflation Reduction Act, which pays subsidies to clean energy technologies.
The best “plan of attack” is to do the best by the environment as we can in our day-to-day lives no matter who is in the White House and any office down the line.