Every year I watch the State of the Union — the annual speech given by the president of the United States — mostly to listen for references to climate change.
But watching a speech this way is a lot like watching a baseball game and hoping for a triple. They happen, but if you wait for them, you’ll be disappointed. This year was no different.
Despite U.S. President Joe Biden being the country’s most climate-accomplished president, he devoted only one minute of his 67-minute speech (0.85%) to climate. This omission was both a strategic decision and a missed opportunity.
In his little time on climate, Biden largely struck an optimistic tone, touting his signature climate law without naming it (more on that below) and doubling down on his administration’s commitment to climate action:
“I’m cutting our carbon emissions in half by 2030, creating tens of thousands of clean energy jobs…, conserving 30 percent of America’s lands and waters by 2030, and taking action on environmental justice.”
But what’s most notable is what Biden didn’t say in regards to climate.
For example, despite repeatedly slamming Trump and his policies — referring to his “predecessor” 13 times — Biden stopped short of separating the pair’s wildly different climate policies. And that’s a big missed opportunity.
A new analysis by Carbon Brief finds that a Trump presidency could add four billion tonnes of U.S. emissions by 2030, compared with a second term with Biden.
That’s the equivalent of the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan.
Biden also failed to mention by name his signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes popular tax incentives for energy-efficient appliances, solar panels, and electric vehicles, as well as the country’s largest-ever investment in clean energy.
This is curious because many voters don’t know about this law: According to a recent Heatmap poll, some 63% of Americans say they’ve heard “not much” or “nothing” about the Inflation Reduction Act.
Of course, nothing is unintentional in a speech this important. And this framing was likely tied up in what Biden camp views as voters' most important issues. In several recent polls, voters prioritize the economy, inflation, defense, immigration, healthcare, crime, and more — all ahead of climate.
In that way, Biden did tie recent climate wins to the economy (“creating tens of thousands of clean energy jobs”). But I still would’ve liked to see him do more (e.g., climate resilience is necessary for national security, the Inflation Reduction Act literally has “inflation” in its name, climate change drives health crises and mass migrations, etc.).
Biden also knows he’s hurting in these polls, and one way to stop the bleeding is by mobilizing younger voters. Feeling that pressure, he called out in his speech the Climate Corps — an initiative to “put 20,000 young people to work in the forefront of our clean energy future.”
Finally, I can’t help but consider the negative connotations that often come with climate communication, especially since Biden repeatedly uses optimism, unity, hope, and faith in his messaging. If Biden got bogged down in the climate catastrophe that would be a Trump presidency, he would open himself up to be labeled a doom-and-gloom climate guy, at odds with his optimistic tone.
I’m likely putting way too much stock in a speech that few will remember come November, especially one that was more about questions over his age and stamina than his actual remarks.
I just caution the president to not abandon climate communication in the months leading to the election. Because though climate isn’t the top issue for most Americans, it’s still a top issue for many. And though Biden punted on climate last week, he still should use the coming months to outline the stark climate differences between him and his predecessor.
As Heatmap writes, “There are few single-issue voters, but there’s a clear distinction between one person who passed the country’s largest climate law and another who has promised to tear it apart.”
That’s worth talking about.
Appreciate this analysis. It’s a frequent messaging failure by Dems to not talk about the personal & individual consequences of environmental policy, but only refer to the policy itself (or, at best, its first order effects) as the point.
Biden’s messaging should not just be “we’re reducing carbon emissions,” but should follow with “…and that will reduce X cases of asthma per year, and if you’re a parent who has had to take their child to the ER because of an asthma attack, you know the value of that.” Or not “we’re conserving 30% of the country’s waterways,” but following it with “and preventing chemical companies from dumping carcinogens into our rivers, as my predecessor allowed, prevents X cases of cancer a year. As a father who lost a son to cancer …”
I wonder if there are better models of messaging this elsewhere in the world—like, are the more successful international Green Parties (e.g., Germany or Sweden) more adept at communications? Or do they just not have large fossil fuel industries lobbying against their efforts?