‘Be realistic’: Democrats adopt a new strategy for Trump regarding climate change
The affordability issues that propelled President Donald Trump into office are hindering blue-state leaders from taking a strong stance against his rollback of federal climate policies.
TroibNews 
ALBANY, New York — State climate policies are facing significant challenges.
Even prior to President Donald Trump's efforts to roll back regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, blue states were already contending with voter concerns over soaring electricity and gas prices. These dynamics pose a risk to Democratic officials' ambitions to aggressively counter Trump's agenda while also pursuing their own climate objectives.
“The public is exhausted,” commented New York Assemblymember John McDonald, a Democrat from the Albany area. “At the end of the day, they don’t want to see their bills go up. We have to be sensitive to that.”
Democratic-led states have begun to acknowledge the reality that they may not be able to stand as a formidable defense against federal climate rollbacks, as they had been during Trump's first term.
“We should not surrender because of the change in Washington, but we have to be realistic that we’re not going to have a federal partner,” McDonald stated.
The concerns among Democratic politicians about potential public backlash over increased consumer costs in the clean energy transition were apparent even before Trump's victory. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has raised alarms about the potential repercussions of her state’s climate law on home heating and gasoline prices, clarifying that the legislation was enacted before her administration took over.
“What is the cost? I can’t do things without knowing the cost on consumers and either educating them that this is the way to go because it's good for the future or just making it go a little bit slower,” she stated over the summer regarding New York’s clean energy efforts. “The goals are still worthy — but we have to think about the collateral damage.”
Currently, many states that had set ambitious emissions reduction targets are hesitating to implement the extensive measures required to achieve those goals as Trump continues to promote the same agenda.
This month, Hochul announced that she would not proceed with a significant pollution pricing and climate funding initiative this year as initially planned. Maryland is likewise postponing action on a similar plan, while Vermont appears ready to abandon its proposal to finance home electrification through increased charges on heating fuels, following challenging setbacks for Democrats in the Legislature.
Canada is also facing a conservative backlash against its carbon tax, with most Liberal contenders for Justin Trudeau’s prime ministerial replacement distancing themselves from the federal carbon pricing policy ahead of March's elections. Meanwhile, California is delaying the reauthorization of its pioneering emissions cap.
These latest developments underscore the ongoing struggle of Democrats to find a balance between effective climate action and the immediate economic interests of their constituents.
Nonetheless, there remains a sense of hope.
Eight years ago, Democratic governors and mayors formed coalitions to sustain climate action amid the significant regulatory rollbacks initiated by Trump against Obama-era policies. States like New York, California, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon either strengthened or introduced ambitious emissions targets—encouraging even some Republican leaders, such as Vermont Gov. Phil Scott and former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, to follow suit.
“We are ready to do it again," said former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who currently serves as the U.N.’s special envoy on climate ambition. He committed last week to covering America's dues to the U.N. climate body after Trump issued an executive order to withdraw from the Paris climate accords.
Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance, asserted earlier this week that their coalition of 22 states and two territories would still aim to reduce emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels this year in support of the Paris agreement.
Hochul also signed an extensive “Climate Superfund” measure targeting fossil fuel companies for past emissions impacts and is advancing congestion pricing in New York City. Lujan Grisham expressed her intention to formalize a net zero by 2050 goal for her state this year.
Furthermore, Washington state's voters soundly rejected a ballot initiative aimed at repealing its significant carbon pricing scheme, despite conservative claims that it has driven up gasoline prices. Regulators in Washington are now looking to expand their program to collaborate with California and Quebec.
“We had a direct test of that hypothesis that you can't support climate change action if there's some financial impact,” former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, remarked after the election. “We've showed that you can, you must, and over time, I believe we will.”
Other Democratic leaders are working to showcase how renewable energy initiatives can contribute to stabilizing costs. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont highlighted an all-of-the-above approach during his recent State of the State address.
“Everyone was mad as hell looking at their bills following the hottest July in recorded history,” Lamont noted.
Environmental advocates quickly highlight the multiple factors contributing to high energy prices, such as fluctuating fossil fuel costs and aging gas infrastructure.
"Our status quo is not affordable and our status quo is causing climate change," stated Jess Ottney Mahar, the New York policy and strategy director for The Nature Conservancy.
However, as Trump embarks on his second term, the disparity between climate change rhetoric and the reality of emissions reduction appears increasingly unbridgeable, jeopardizing states' efforts to maintain progress in combating global warming.
Projects related to offshore wind and other renewables have faced cancellations due to rising component costs, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures linked to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine—issues that arose even under the Biden administration.
The prospect of Republican victories in 2024 poses a further threat to climate action.
"The election rattled everybody,” commented Kim Coble, co-chair of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change and executive director of the state’s League of Conservation Voters chapter. "I think everybody kind of stopped and said, 'Wait a minute. Wow. What's this really mean?'”
Coble urges caution in interpreting Washington's ballot win, given its failure to lead to similar initiatives in Maryland and New York, both of which have Democratic trifectas. Environmentalists express disappointment over Hochul's recent decisions against the backdrop of federal inaction.
In addition to postponing the emissions trading initiative, Hochul has temporarily delayed a toll on vehicles entering Manhattan and admitted that the state is not on track to achieve its 2030 target of generating 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Although Hochul has proposed $1 billion in her latest budget for climate initiatives, including decarbonizing state buildings and electrifying vehicles, green groups remain unsatisfied.
If a Democratic president were still in the White House, “perhaps we’d be fine with a visionless governor,” remarked Eddie Bautista, executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, who, along with two other advocates, resigned from a state climate justice panel on Tuesday in protest of Hochul’s climate strategy.
On the opposite coast, California has repeatedly postponed plans to strengthen its emissions trading program, which officials deem essential for achieving climate goals, while Trump threatens to undermine state electric vehicle regulations dependent on federal waivers.
California lawmakers are preparing to address the program’s reauthorization but are demanding enhanced oversight of its costs and climate impacts following a fierce dispute last year regarding a connected initiative targeting transportation fuels' emissions.
“We're deciding how we want to proceed,” California Air Resource Board Chair Liane Randolph said Thursday in response to questions about the timeline for updates before lawmakers complete a reauthorization bill.
As states continue to grapple with the financial repercussions of climate change-driven disasters, U.S. Climate Alliance Executive Director Casey Katims anticipates a ramp-up in efforts from governors.
“There's going to be a lot of implementation that happens this year,” he stated. “A lot of our states have set ambitious goals for clean energy and clean electricity standards, and … this year is going to be an important year to deploy new clean energy generation to help meet those goals.”
The potential loss of federal funding should not deter climate change initiatives, emphasized McDonald, the New York lawmaker.
"It should not be a death knell, but it's an opportunity to say, ‘Okay, where can we make a change to be sensitive to people’s wallets?’” he concluded.
Nick Taylor-Vaisey contributed to this report.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
Even prior to President Donald Trump's efforts to roll back regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, blue states were already contending with voter concerns over soaring electricity and gas prices. These dynamics pose a risk to Democratic officials' ambitions to aggressively counter Trump's agenda while also pursuing their own climate objectives.
“The public is exhausted,” commented New York Assemblymember John McDonald, a Democrat from the Albany area. “At the end of the day, they don’t want to see their bills go up. We have to be sensitive to that.”
Democratic-led states have begun to acknowledge the reality that they may not be able to stand as a formidable defense against federal climate rollbacks, as they had been during Trump's first term.
“We should not surrender because of the change in Washington, but we have to be realistic that we’re not going to have a federal partner,” McDonald stated.
The concerns among Democratic politicians about potential public backlash over increased consumer costs in the clean energy transition were apparent even before Trump's victory. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has raised alarms about the potential repercussions of her state’s climate law on home heating and gasoline prices, clarifying that the legislation was enacted before her administration took over.
“What is the cost? I can’t do things without knowing the cost on consumers and either educating them that this is the way to go because it's good for the future or just making it go a little bit slower,” she stated over the summer regarding New York’s clean energy efforts. “The goals are still worthy — but we have to think about the collateral damage.”
Currently, many states that had set ambitious emissions reduction targets are hesitating to implement the extensive measures required to achieve those goals as Trump continues to promote the same agenda.
This month, Hochul announced that she would not proceed with a significant pollution pricing and climate funding initiative this year as initially planned. Maryland is likewise postponing action on a similar plan, while Vermont appears ready to abandon its proposal to finance home electrification through increased charges on heating fuels, following challenging setbacks for Democrats in the Legislature.
Canada is also facing a conservative backlash against its carbon tax, with most Liberal contenders for Justin Trudeau’s prime ministerial replacement distancing themselves from the federal carbon pricing policy ahead of March's elections. Meanwhile, California is delaying the reauthorization of its pioneering emissions cap.
These latest developments underscore the ongoing struggle of Democrats to find a balance between effective climate action and the immediate economic interests of their constituents.
Nonetheless, there remains a sense of hope.
Eight years ago, Democratic governors and mayors formed coalitions to sustain climate action amid the significant regulatory rollbacks initiated by Trump against Obama-era policies. States like New York, California, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon either strengthened or introduced ambitious emissions targets—encouraging even some Republican leaders, such as Vermont Gov. Phil Scott and former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, to follow suit.
“We are ready to do it again," said former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who currently serves as the U.N.’s special envoy on climate ambition. He committed last week to covering America's dues to the U.N. climate body after Trump issued an executive order to withdraw from the Paris climate accords.
Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance, asserted earlier this week that their coalition of 22 states and two territories would still aim to reduce emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels this year in support of the Paris agreement.
Hochul also signed an extensive “Climate Superfund” measure targeting fossil fuel companies for past emissions impacts and is advancing congestion pricing in New York City. Lujan Grisham expressed her intention to formalize a net zero by 2050 goal for her state this year.
Furthermore, Washington state's voters soundly rejected a ballot initiative aimed at repealing its significant carbon pricing scheme, despite conservative claims that it has driven up gasoline prices. Regulators in Washington are now looking to expand their program to collaborate with California and Quebec.
“We had a direct test of that hypothesis that you can't support climate change action if there's some financial impact,” former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, remarked after the election. “We've showed that you can, you must, and over time, I believe we will.”
Other Democratic leaders are working to showcase how renewable energy initiatives can contribute to stabilizing costs. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont highlighted an all-of-the-above approach during his recent State of the State address.
“Everyone was mad as hell looking at their bills following the hottest July in recorded history,” Lamont noted.
Environmental advocates quickly highlight the multiple factors contributing to high energy prices, such as fluctuating fossil fuel costs and aging gas infrastructure.
"Our status quo is not affordable and our status quo is causing climate change," stated Jess Ottney Mahar, the New York policy and strategy director for The Nature Conservancy.
However, as Trump embarks on his second term, the disparity between climate change rhetoric and the reality of emissions reduction appears increasingly unbridgeable, jeopardizing states' efforts to maintain progress in combating global warming.
Projects related to offshore wind and other renewables have faced cancellations due to rising component costs, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures linked to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine—issues that arose even under the Biden administration.
The prospect of Republican victories in 2024 poses a further threat to climate action.
"The election rattled everybody,” commented Kim Coble, co-chair of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change and executive director of the state’s League of Conservation Voters chapter. "I think everybody kind of stopped and said, 'Wait a minute. Wow. What's this really mean?'”
Coble urges caution in interpreting Washington's ballot win, given its failure to lead to similar initiatives in Maryland and New York, both of which have Democratic trifectas. Environmentalists express disappointment over Hochul's recent decisions against the backdrop of federal inaction.
In addition to postponing the emissions trading initiative, Hochul has temporarily delayed a toll on vehicles entering Manhattan and admitted that the state is not on track to achieve its 2030 target of generating 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Although Hochul has proposed $1 billion in her latest budget for climate initiatives, including decarbonizing state buildings and electrifying vehicles, green groups remain unsatisfied.
If a Democratic president were still in the White House, “perhaps we’d be fine with a visionless governor,” remarked Eddie Bautista, executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, who, along with two other advocates, resigned from a state climate justice panel on Tuesday in protest of Hochul’s climate strategy.
On the opposite coast, California has repeatedly postponed plans to strengthen its emissions trading program, which officials deem essential for achieving climate goals, while Trump threatens to undermine state electric vehicle regulations dependent on federal waivers.
California lawmakers are preparing to address the program’s reauthorization but are demanding enhanced oversight of its costs and climate impacts following a fierce dispute last year regarding a connected initiative targeting transportation fuels' emissions.
“We're deciding how we want to proceed,” California Air Resource Board Chair Liane Randolph said Thursday in response to questions about the timeline for updates before lawmakers complete a reauthorization bill.
As states continue to grapple with the financial repercussions of climate change-driven disasters, U.S. Climate Alliance Executive Director Casey Katims anticipates a ramp-up in efforts from governors.
“There's going to be a lot of implementation that happens this year,” he stated. “A lot of our states have set ambitious goals for clean energy and clean electricity standards, and … this year is going to be an important year to deploy new clean energy generation to help meet those goals.”
The potential loss of federal funding should not deter climate change initiatives, emphasized McDonald, the New York lawmaker.
"It should not be a death knell, but it's an opportunity to say, ‘Okay, where can we make a change to be sensitive to people’s wallets?’” he concluded.
Nick Taylor-Vaisey contributed to this report.
Frederick R Cook for TROIB News
