But for how important this election will be for Planet Earth and the humans who live on it, the issue itself isn’t getting much airtime. Earlier this month, The Guardian examined the campaign websites of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates in eight battleground states. Of all the candidates surveyed, only two explicitly mentioned climate change.

This retreat hasn’t happened by accident. Over the last two years, some of the Democratic Party’s most influential strategists, donors, and think tanks have been explicitly telling candidates to shut up about climate change and focus on the economy instead—as if those were two separate issues.

It’s a strategy known as climate hushing. And with the midterms fast-approaching, it’s worth asking: Who convinced Democrats that ignoring climate change was a winning strategy? Does the evidence actually support that argument? And what is that silence costing the rest of us?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 hours ago

Now let's make them choose between climate action and economy, see how many of them would accept a risk to economy for sake of better climate.

That's the horrible reality, that campaigns have to focus narrowly on the top issue, and if the GOP assert that climate action will hurt economy, then it can hurt campaigns.

Despite the Democrats barely saying anything on climate, the GOP is still getting crowds to boo over the Democrats theoretically pursuing a "Green New Deal" as an economy ruining disaster.

  • source
  • parent