As the midterm elections draw near, a notable shift has occurred among Democratic politicians: those who previously identified climate change as a critical crisis now seldom address it. The term has started to vanish from their speeches, social media, and podcasts. The notable exception is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who has delivered his “Time to Wake Up” speech on climate change dangers over 300 times in the past 15 years. He accuses “climate hushers” of urging the party to cease discussing the warming planet.
The onset of “climate hushing” can be traced back to the 2024 presidential election. After Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in all seven swing states, Democrats scrambled to understand their missteps. A common theory was that they focused too much on social justice and environmental issues, neglecting voters’ immediate concerns like the rising cost of living. Whitehouse, however, argues that global warming is integral to that discourse, not a diversion from it.
“Climate change is currently increasing costs for families nationwide, with higher property insurance premiums, grocery and electric bills, and healthcare expenses,” Whitehouse stated to Grist.
The belief that discussing climate change is detrimental to Democrats has become accepted wisdom. Last year, the Democrat-aligned think tank Searchlight Institute advised, “Don’t say climate change.” A recent op-ed in The New York Times suggested, “For now, it might be better not to mention climate change.” An early draft of the Democratic National Committee’s autopsy report on the 2024 election, released under pressure in May, claimed that climate change messaging and the shift to green energy “caused anxiety among workers in traditional industries fearing job losses.”
“It’s currently fashionable to believe it’s crucial not to discuss climate, or that Democrats have suffered politically for doing so,” said Matto Mildenberger, a political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. However, Mildenberger and other experts told Grist there is no concrete evidence that discussing climate change negatively impacts Democrats in elections. In fact, it tends to give candidates a modest boost among voters, according to studies and surveys.
The rationale for avoiding the topic stems from polls asking voters about their priorities: Climate change ranks 24th out of 25 when Americans are asked which issues will significantly influence their vote, according to data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication from last year. This is largely because other issues have gained prominence, with liberal Democrats increasingly focused on protecting democracy, combating government corruption, and addressing immigrants’ treatment since the 2024 election. It is a leap, however, to assume that discussing climate change is a political liability simply because it isn’t identified as a top priority by voters.
Some argue that climate action can be achieved simply by electing Democrats, regardless of whether they discuss it. However, sidelining climate change as part of their political agenda could have lasting impacts: Without open dialogue, momentum for action is lost, signaling a lack of importance. “You actually need conversation and attention to an issue to gradually build the coalition and policy work necessary to address it,” Mildenberger explained.
Democrats are, in effect, yielding rhetorical ground to opponents, Mildenberger contends, even as polls indicate Trump’s policies — such as blocking wind farm construction, removing public information on global warming from government websites, and withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement — are widely unpopular. “All of this is, frankly, benefiting the fossil fuel industry, ultimately, because it’s aiding climate delay,” Mildenberger stated.
Whitehouse criticizes Democrats for “poll-chasing,” echoing what voters want to hear with bland, regressive messaging. “Many Americans don’t believe Democrats are fighters,” Whitehouse remarked. “The best way to shed that label is to actually step into the arena and fight. Our climate messaging has long been terrible, but it would be malpractice to shy away from a fight with Central Casting villains (the fossil fuel industry climate denial fraud and dark money corruption operations) with such high stakes for the economic well-being of American families.” While people in the U.S. struggle with rising costs and gas prices, oil giants are profiting immensely from the Iran war, a contradiction Democrats could exploit.
Economist Matt Burgess from the University of Wyoming, who studies finding common ground on environmental issues, agrees that Democrats alienated voters on cultural matters and neglected affordability concerns, with progressive climate change messaging being part of that. However, he argues that it’s incorrect to conclude climate change is a losing issue. “There are numerous lines of evidence indicating that climate change as an issue overall benefits Democrats and disadvantages Republicans,” Burgess noted. A study he co-authored in 2024 revealed that in a hypothetical scenario where climate change wasn’t an issue in the 2020 election, Republicans might have experienced a 3-percent swing in the popular vote, enough to give Trump the White House instead of Joe Biden.
“If any issue moves the needle slightly in your favor in a tight election, it can make the difference between winning and losing,” Burgess remarked.
Exit polls suggest little reason to believe climate change was problematic for Democrats in 2024, with other issues playing a more significant role. Swing voters viewed “U.S. efforts to fight climate change” as a reason to support Harris over Trump by 21 points, according to a survey of 5,000 voters from Navigator Research conducted just before and after the election. Trump won by substantial margins on inflation, the economy, and immigration, which were top concerns for voters. “Simply put, Trump winning those voters won the election,” said Bryan Bennett, who leads the independent consulting practice Loft Beck strategies, advising Democrats and progressives, and who directed the post-election survey in his previous role at Navigator.
In essence, Harris didn’t lose because she occasionally mentioned climate change or because Democrats enacted climate policies under the Biden administration. Federal investments in infrastructure and manufacturing projects were, at the county level, linked to a slight increase in the vote share for Harris, according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress. The issue was that voters were unaware of the federal government’s role to credit the administration.
Even if climate change isn’t an electoral issue for Democrats, they may have other reasons for remaining silent. The media landscape is now fragmented, with many people obtaining their news from TikTok, YouTube, and podcasts instead of traditional sources, making it harder for politicians to convey their preferred narrative, Bennett explained. Recently, the Democratic Party has emphasized “message discipline,” focusing on a central message to cut through the noise.
“The main concern is, ‘How do Democrats, and progressives, address the economy in a way that resonates with voters?’” Bennett noted. “This naturally detracts from nearly every other issue, regardless of whether it’s beneficial to discuss or not.”
Democratic politicians who still mention climate change tend to do so indirectly, arguing that clean energy equates to “cheap energy” and linking it to rising electricity bills. Polling indicates that voters want more: Last fall, 41 percent of those surveyed by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication expressed a desire for political candidates to discuss efforts to combat global warming more frequently, nearly double the number who wanted it mentioned less. The climate-hushing trend might arise from a misunderstanding: Studies reveal that politicians and the public often significantly underestimate Americans’ willingness to take action on climate change, from enacting carbon taxes to expanding renewable energy.
“We have this tension where, empirically, discussing climate change yields a net benefit. It’s a small net benefit, but still a benefit,” Mildenberger remarked. “Yet we have a discourse that claims it’s a substantial cost.”
