Donald Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, have claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris is an extreme liberal who wants to ban fracking and cares more about climate change than the economy. There’s a good chance Trump will repeat this attack in the presidential debate on Tuesday. So far Harris has responded by saying, no, as president she would not ban fracking. She has also argued that climate action is good for the economy. On CNN last week, she pointed to her tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, President Biden’s signature climate legislation, as an action that has both increased leases for fracking and helped create record numbers of new clean-energy jobs.
But this is a very weak campaign message. As the cognitive scientist and political strategist George Lakoff notes, repeating your opponent’s language in order to deny it only reinforces their frame for the debate. Every time Harris says that she will not ban fracking, she keeps the idea of banning fracking in voters’ minds. And citing job statistics that don’t directly address voters’ top concern about prices is a missed opportunity. Harris should tie climate and energy not just to increased job opportunities but to her campaign themes of lowering prices, preserving freedoms, and leading America into a better future.
Instead of getting baited into a he said, she said dispute about a fracking ban, Harris should simply say that she’s for “freedom of energy choice.” Citing research showing that solar power is the cheapest energy in history, and will likely be free almost everywhere by 2030, Harris should say that she supports Americans being able to choose to save money with clean energy. This statement ties climate policy to inflation issues for voters who already have jobs but also frames climate action as a form of freedom.
If Trump claims that climate policy is making energy prices rise, Harris should point to research showing that other factors, including the growth of data centers and artificial intelligence, are straining the grid and driving up electricity rates. She should then repeat that this is why we need freedom of energy choice. Harris can also bait Trump by reminding Americans that energy prices rose after his friend Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, spiking the cost of crude oil and methane gas. Taunting Trump about Putin will likely push him off message, triggering him to say something alienating or aggressive that will turn off voters worried about his emotional instability.
Of course, Harris should not shy away from saying that freedom of energy choice leads to economic growth. She should certainly celebrate the jobs created by the climate investments she has already supported: over 330,000 jobs so far, primarily in Georgia, Texas, Michigan, and Nevada. And she should tell voters that this job creation has bipartisan support, highlighting a letter written by 18 Republican House members urging Speaker Mike Johnson not to repeal IRA, because its tax credits have “spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country—including many districts represented by members of our conference.”
When Trump falsely claims that Harris and Biden have imposed an electric vehicle mandate, here too Harris can employ the strategy of invoking freedom and the future. Harris should not repeat her opponent’s frame by denying that the Biden administration imposed any mandate. Rather she should simply redirect the conversation by saying that she reasonably supports air pollution standards. Describing pictures from the 1970s of choking smog in American cities, Harris can say we need to keep American technology moving forward so that we can enjoy freedom not only from “the pollution that is fueling the climate crisis,” as she noted in her convention speech, but also from the pollution that causes hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States every year, according to some estimates. Many of those killed each year by pollution-related lung infections are children.
And, again, she should tie this freedom from pollution to America’s leadership in the industries of the future. The vice president should speak of her pride in being endorsed by the United Autoworkers Union, which has called for a “a whole of government approach to ensure the next generation of vehicles are made in the United States.” Trump wants to keep us in the past, behind our competitors in Europe and China; that’s bad for America, she should say. We want to be at the forefront of next-generation automotive innovation.
Finally, Harris should tie Trump’s desire to take America backward to the threat of climate change itself. Harris already mocks Trump for calling climate change “a hoax.” She should do this in the debate too—and she should link his climate denial to his narcissistic self-interest, suggesting he doesn’t care about young people or the future. Eighty percent of young voters prefer a presidential candidate who prioritizes climate, and fully half of these young voters say that failing to prioritize climate is a “deal breaker.”
Harris need not fear that calling Trump out for his climate denial might alienate older voters. The center-right think tank the Cato Institute recently found that a majority of Americans in all demographics ranked climate change right after inflation, health care, jobs, and immigration as one of their top three issues of concern—even above taxes, guns, national security, or abortion. Trump likes to claim that concern about climate change is a far-left trait. But Harris should not cede the point, because it’s not true.
In contrast to Trump’s extremist and selfish climate denial, Harris must include climate in her fight to preserve America as a nation of endless possibilities, where we protect the futures of the children we love. The Republicans like to pretend that they’re the family party. Well, Harris must say, you can’t be the family party without caring about the future. In the end, this values-based message, appealing to Americans’ love for the children they work so hard to launch into the world, will do more than any wonky statistic to win voters’ support.
