result [the 2024] The election was an earthquake. Polls and experts alike predict a close race that will be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states. [emphasis, links added]
Instead, Donald Trump whipped Kamala Harris. He won the popular election by nearly 5 million votes and defeated her in the Electoral College. …
While this campaign touches on many things, one issue has always been lurking: climate policy. The results clearly show Democrats are deeply out of touch with mainstream voters on energy and climate policy.
But the national results are only one aspect of voters’ rejection of left-wing climate policies. Tuesday, Ballot initiatives to tax or limit natural gas use — one in Washington state and another in Berkeley, Calif. — failed miserably.
As I pointed out in these pages a few days ago, The Biden administration has been imposing restrictions on the use of natural gas in homes and buildings. They are following a phalanx of dark money NGOs including Reimagining America, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Sierra Club and others.
While consumers across the country have been demonstrating a desire to continue using natural gas, which is the cheapest form of residential energy, NGOs continue to push their agenda, as data from the Department of Energy shows.
In Berkeley, one of America's most liberal cities, Initiative GG's plan to impose a huge tax on buildings that use natural gas was defeated by a huge margin of 69 to 31.
Recall that in 2019, Berkeley became the first city in the US to ban new natural gas connections. Dozens of other cities in California and other states soon followed.
As I explained in February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled that Berkeley's ban and other similar bans are illegal under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
Berkeley's vote against the gas tax was particularly notable because Harris defeated Trump in California by a 57-40 margin.
Berkeley, of course, is part of Alameda County, where Harris defeated Trump by a 72-25 margin. Even America's most liberal voters want to be able to use their preferred fuel, and that includes seeing the familiar blue flame on a gas stove.
In Washington state, Initiative 2066 is also prevalent. The measure repeals a provision of state law aimed at forcing Puget Sound Energy to accelerate its transition away from natural gas.
The initiative, backed by many business groups, prohibits cities and counties from banning or punishing homes and businesses for using natural gas.
The bill passed 51 to 49 (about 60,000 votes). Again, context is crucial. A majority of voters in Washington say they want to continue using natural gas. Meanwhile, they voted for Harris over Trump by a 58-39 margin.
Harris has sought to distance herself from the extreme climate policies enacted by the Biden administration. She also walked back her remarks about banning fracking.
Why? She knew she had to carry Penn State, The second in the United States——largest natural gas producer.
But she can't distance herself from her history or the platform the Democratic Party released this summer, which declares that “nothing is more important than solving the climate crisis.” (The word “climate change” appears 16 times in the party's platform, and the modifier “existentialism” that refers to climate change appears four times.)
Instead of winning Pennsylvania, Harris lost it by two points and any chance of winning the White House. Yes, Harris is a weaker candidate. Aside from talking about “happiness,” her campaign is sorely lacking in detail.
But from an energy policy perspective, the results make sense. Polls consistently show that voters care about energy prices and that few are willing to spend more because of concerns about climate change.
as pointed out Introduction to gridsPennsylvania exit polls found “Sixty-five percent of voters support expanding natural gas production, saying it is critical to job security and energy independence.”
In Michigan — another swing state that Harris must win — Sixty percent of voters “express support for increased domestic oil drilling. Boosting local energy production is seen by many as crucial to solving economic stagnation, High energy costs top voters' concern“. (Emphasis added.)
Last year, a survey by the University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute found that only 38% of Americans were willing to pay $1 a month to cover climate change policies, and only 21% were willing to pay $100 a month.
Key passages from the investigation are worth quoting at length:
Americans are less willing to pay a carbon fee than they were a year ago. Actually, Nearly two-thirds of Americans are unwilling to pay any amount to combat climate change. The number of people willing to pay $1 for carbon emissions fell by 14 percentage points in two years. As the impact on energy bills increases, their support for the charge decreases. (Emphasis added.)
Last month, two of my favorite political writers, Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira, published the results of a YouGov survey that matched the University of Chicago’s The results are very similar. Again, important findings deserve to be cited in detail:
When asked if they supported charging just $1 a month for electricity to combat climate change, only 47% said yes, while almost as many (43%) said no… When the proposed fee was increased to $20, overall voter support plummeted to 26%, with 60% opposed. At $40, 19% support and 69% oppose; at $75, 15% vs. 72%; at $100, the ratio to pay for such costs to combat climate change is 7: 1 (77% vs. 11%). (Emphasis added.)
A year ago, Teixeira and John Giudice wrote in an article (and a book called “ Where have all the Democrats gone?)That The Democratic Party “has gradually lost the loyalty of 'average Americans' —the working-class and middle-class voters who were the core of the old New Deal coalition.
A key reason for this, they concluded, is “the Democratic Party's insistence on eliminating fossil fuels.”
Pundits and political scientists will be watching Trump's victory closely for years to come, trying to explain why he prevailed so decisively. Of course, there are many reasons.
But one of the key points is Democrats have lost the loyalty of millions of ordinary Americans because they were too willing to cave to the climate activists who dominate the party and pursue destructively regressive energy policies.
Over the next few months, Democrats will have to deal with the pain of losing badly to a candidate they hate. Ultimately, the party must correct course if it wants to gain support from working-class voters. This requires a corrective approach to energy policy.
If you value what you read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work.
Read more from Robert Bryce
