From Climate Purist To Climate Pragmatist: The Case Of Kamala Harris
How should we assess whether a politician is pro-climate, anti-climate, or somewhere in between? We probably look at what they say and what they do. If so, we might be witnessing a climate policy convergence between Democrats and Republicans, much more than what is typically acknowledged. This means that some liberals are no longer climate purists and some conservatives are no longer climate skeptics. They are becoming climate pragmatists.
The rise of climate pragmatism is visible in different forms. Some liberals recognize the tension between decarbonization on the one hand and jobs, inflation, and energy security on the other. Consequently, they have softened the rhetoric on ending reliance on fossil fuels. At the same time, conservatives recognize the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels because solar and wind are economically competitive. Seeing the writing on the wall, they are supporting climate-friendly industries.
While climate pragmatism might reflect political opportunism, we view it as a positive development that negates "litmus test politics," and facilitates policy progress. Kamala Harris of 2024, in a sharp deviation from Kamala Harris of 2016-20, epitomizes the emerging climate pragmatism.
Kamala Harris' Evolving Climate Positions
In 2016, California's Attorney General Kamala Harris sued the Obama administration over permitting hydraulic fracturing. In 2019, Senator Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution. In the 2020 Presidential primaries , Candidate Harris said, "I'm committed to passing a Green New Deal, creating clean jobs and finally putting an end to fracking once and for all."
Fast forward to September 2024. In the TV debate with Trump , she supported fracking and even took credit for the largest increase in oil production in history: "I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking ... We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history..."
Now consider another policy issue: Electric Vehicles (EVs.) In 2019, Senator Harris co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act , which required "the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a zero-emission passenger vehicle standard. Specifically, the bill sets a schedule for increasing the percentage of zero-emission vehicles a manufacturer delivers for sale, culminating in a requirement to sell only zero-emission vehicles from 2040 on." In 2024, she does not support the EV mandate.
Critics might call this opportunism. Instead, we suggest that she is a climate pragmatist who is not bound by ideological litmus tests, and who is open to changing policy positions in response to political imperatives and economic opportunities. She is a politician, not an ideologue—and this is a good quality if we want policy progress in a polarized world.
Harris is not alone in evolving into a climate pragmatist; she is joined by a growing cadre of Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans and Climate Skepticism
Republicans are supposed to be an anti-climate party. Historically, many have questioned climate science—and a handful probably continue to do so. They support investments in fossil fuel exploration, extraction, refining, and pipelines. Trump is a vocal supporter of coal. Not a single House or Senate Republican voted for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In recent years, Republican Attorney Generals and Congressional leaders have pursued companies supporting the pro-climate ESG metric alleging that these companies are neglecting their fiduciary duties , or unlawfully colluding to impose liberal agendas.
And yet, Republican Governors are supporting renewable energy. Texas leads the country in utility-scale wind and solar. Indiana's Governor Holcomb is an outspoken champion of renewable energy . Republican Governors (but for South Dakota's Governor Noem) are actively courting EV, solar, and wind manufacturing industries which have received generous federal subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act .
Democrats and Fossil Fuels
Democrats are supposed to be the pro-environment party that seeks vigorous climate action. Many of them sponsored the Green New Deal Resolution in the U.S. House and the Senate. They enacted the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest infusion of federal monies in climate policy.
And yet, the Biden-Harris administration celebrates the rise of America as an energy superpower, driven primarily by fracking. It allowed Alaska's Willow Project despite vocal opposition from environmental groups and Biden's pledge of "no more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, including offshore, no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period." It supports the massive investment in LNG pipelines and terminals for exporting fracked gas. Leading Pennsylvania Democrats, Governor Shapiro and Senators Casey and Fetterman do not support a fracking ban either. Alaska's lone House Member, Mary Pelota, a Democrat, claims credit for pressuring the Biden Administration to approve the Willow project. Ohio's Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown wants to overturn the EPA rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants as well as the vehicle tailpipe emissions rule.
In sum, ideological purity might have become less salient in driving climate policy. Instead, politicians are responding to local/state-level factors, a good development because it bridges the democracy deficit. Democrats from fracking states support fossil fuels. Republicans from a state with wind and solar potential support renewable energy. Hopefully, voters will reward climate pragmatism and policy evolution. They will assess politicians not by what they said in the past, but by what they say now and importantly, what they do. With this yardstick, Democrats and Republicans will have additional incentives to embrace climate pragmatism and work together on climate issues.
