The ‘Climate Crisis’ Was Nothing But A Cynical Ploy By Democrats

Don’t look now, but the “climate crisis” is officially over. No need to take my word for it. Just ask the Democratic Party’s new standard bearer, Vice President Kamala Harris, who mentioned the topic “just once” in her acceptance speech at the recent Democratic National Convention, according to The New York Times. The Times also noted that Harris “has not offered any new policies for addressing climate change.”

How far we have come in five short years. In 2019, before COVID and inflation and antisemitic demonstrations on college campuses were the big issues of the day, America was prospering amid political calmness. With a presidential campaign beginning, Democratic candidates and their allies in the corporate press needed to talk about something, so they chose climate change. CNN even dedicated seven hours to a “climate crisis town hall.” 

Every candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, including Harris, warned of the dangers posed by climate change. In fact, she dubbed the matter, “an existential threat to who we are as human beings” and announced she was, “prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” No ambiguity there.  

Fast forward to today, and the existential crisis is ignored. Wherever one lands on the climate change spectrum, the contradiction is hard to miss. What was once the biggest issue is now a non-issue, and there are three possible explanations.

The first is cynical: climate change was never a crisis but an opportunity. Gas prices were in the $2 dollar a gallon range nationwide. The inflation rate was 1.7 percent. There were no wars in Ukraine or Israel. President Donald Trump enjoyed both popularity and success.  

Democrats needed an issue they could own. They needed a crisis to convince voters they deserved power. Labeling climate change “existential” gave it gravity and academic loftiness: Climate change is an enormous threat and only we are smart enough to realize it. Trump is too brash, too troglodytic, to care about something as esoteric yet profoundly serious as climate change. This was their plan.

Inventing a crisis with solutions that would upend everyday life — no more combustible engines or red meat — just to win votes is very cynical, but it’s what Democrats did.

The second reason for ignoring the “climate crisis” this election cycle is not much better: climate change polls poorly. It ranks as the 19th most important topic with voters in a national poll. Harris’ DNC speech was crafted with polling in mind. “Free Palestine” polls well among their crowd, so it was given attention. Fear of the mysterious “Project 2025,” supposedly the playbook for Trump and his fellow right-wing extremists, must test well because it was mentioned several times.

This explanation is also concerning because it implies that Harris would rather conceal the truth of an “existential crisis” (her words, not mine) rather than risk losing power. The left tries to brand “Kamala” as “Momala,” but no mother would hide a health diagnosis of her child rather than risk upsetting him.  

If climate change is an existential threat, state it plainly. Past presidential candidates of both political parties did not shy away from the major challenges of their time. Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against the danger posed by Nazi Germany. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan all spoke of the Soviet threat, believing the American people needed truth, not coddling. The American people deserve the fullness of truth — if their existence is really at risk. 

The third reason Kalama Harris is giving climate change the back seat is because the problem has been solved. That of course is laughable. If the Biden-Harris Administration fixed climate change, America would have seen ticker tape parades and mass celebrations. It would be data point number one for Harris’ promotion to the presidency. 

No, the Biden-Harris Administration did not “fix” the climate, which leaves the previous two options: either Harris disingenuously uses climate change to scare voters into compliance or she ignores the greatest threat of our time because it imperils her political goals.  

Both are shameful and belittle the American people. Both represent real “threats to our democracy” for they leave the fullness of truth in the dark. Both are disqualifying.

Of course, Harris herself could tell us why she is suddenly ignoring the climate issue. But there’s no good answer. This is just another example of why she is avoiding the media and the public.  

Whether its cynicism or naked ambition, the climate issue is manipulated endlessly by people looking for power and money. This election cycle makes it clear that whatever climate change might be occurring, it certainly is not “existential.” Given her silence on the issue, Harris obviously agrees. 

Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. Contact him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @DanielTurnerPTF.