Should We Even Call it Climate Week Anymore?

Trump’s Growing Power Demands Adapting Climate Messaging to Deliver Electoral Wins

By Chris Moyer

Few scenes encapsulate the influence of the climate movement on elected Democrats more clearly than a reception I attended 14 months ago in Chicago.

One by one, the highest-ranking Democrats filed out of elevators and into a penthouse event space, the city’s skyline glittering on a postcard-perfect August afternoon. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Regan, and scores of rank-and-file senators and House members mingled at a reception hosted by the nation’s most influential green groups during the Democratic National Convention.

There was a reason for their presence: money, membership, and political clout. By 2024, embracing pro-climate positions had become standard for Democrats, driven by resources, a loyal base of engaged voters, and agreement it was the right thing to do. 

This fact was not an accident, but the result of years of organizing and investment. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), for example, grew its combined budgets from about $12 million in 2006 to nearly $200 million in 2024, ranking among the top-spending super PACs in the country. Its scorecard emerged as the movement’s go-to benchmark for judging lawmakers.

Flash forward to today, and LCV is running an $8 million ad campaign focused on “energy affordability”—where not once do they mention “climate change.” 

Purists may balk, but this is exactly the right approach. If Democrats and their aligned outside groups aren’t framing climate in terms of household energy costs in 2026 and 2028, they don’t just risk losing elections—they may set back clean energy policy and the fight against climate change for years. Rising power bills will be weaponized against renewables, voters will believe it, and the wrong people will continue to gain and hold power.

At a time when Donald Trump is weaponizing the federal government against clean energy, there’s a unique urgency to getting the messaging right. At this fragile moment, broad messaging about a “climate emergency” misses the mark. But luckily there is actually overlap between climate action and voters’ top concern—cost of living. Climate existentialism might mobilize a movement of activists, but costs are the message that will win over voters.

Electoral Wins vs. Building a Movement

Political movements rarely focus on a single election cycle. Their goal is to drive lasting change over time, with Congress and state legislatures serving as just one arena for that effort. This creates an inherent tension with candidates who may share their values but approach the political calculus through a different lens.

The climate movement is no exception. Climate activists made tremendous progress that helped to deliver historic legislative wins during the last administration, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But an over-emphasis on climate change has not won over voters who prioritize a litany of other issues that more immediately affect their lives, with the cost-of-living squarely at the top.

Since cap-and-trade died in Congress 15 years ago, most climate messaging has leaned on alarmism: “We only have 10 years to solve this!” Every half-degree of warming framed as catastrophe. Every hurricane and wildfire blamed on inaction. Generally browbeating voters into agreeing with the science. 

There’s truth in much of this—but it isn’t resonating. As Senator Brian Schatz said at Climate Week: “You could talk about the planetary emergency and mitigation and adaptation, and you could throw in some environmental justice rhetoric, and by the time you’re done talking, people think you don’t care about them.”

Bingo. Voters roll their eyes when everything is framed as an existence-level emergency. They don’t feel those abstractions in their daily lives. What they do feel is their monthly utility bill. A recent Heatmap poll found that 57% of voters say surging electricity costs are significantly impacting their finances. That is the opening.

As my colleague Dan Crawford put it, Democrats should “become the party of cheap electricity.” He added that we may be at an inflection point where the old politics of clean-versus-dirty energy gives way to a new divide: cheap-versus-expensive. That’s a driving force behind new legislation from Congressmen Sean Casten and Mike Levin: the Cheap Energy Act.

Moment Calls for Winning Power

So we face a stark question: do we want to stick to the old playbook and emphasize building the movement, or do we want to win elections and regain a slice of power?

For the first time, we can make climate a winning political issue by tying it directly to an issue we know voters care about. The fight against climate change intersects with something every household and business feels: rising electricity bills—and clean energy offers the most reliable path to bringing those bills down. We don’t need to talk about climate change to actually address it. But if we keep leading with abstract rhetoric—or worse, with unrelated issues—we will squander this opportunity.

If we don’t seize the affordability message, Donald Trump will succeed in convincing voters that clean energy is to blame for higher bills. Electricity affordability is both our best offensive argument and a defense against a slew of falsehoods from opponents. 

Targeted Climate Messaging Can Still Work

There remains a role for traditional climate messaging. Eliminating the term “climate change” altogether would be a mistake; when targeted appropriately, it can remain an effective tool.

Campaigns already tailor messages on countless issues to reach the voters who care about them, and today they have more data and channels than ever to do so with precision. So why would we tell candidates not to talk about climate change with single-issue voters? Of course, candidates shouldn’t avoid supporting strong climate policies—but the point is that affordability is a more salient message for nearly every voter. We can still be leaders on climate, but framing clean energy in terms of costs is a winning strategy.

Winning Elections Must Be the Priority

The North Star has to be winning elections—putting leaders in office who will advance pro-clean energy policies that speed the transition, cut emissions, and drive real progress against climate change. Some in the movement won’t like that framing. But the alternative—clinging to moral righteousness while losing power—is far worse. The stakes are too high. With Trump consolidating power, we can’t afford anything less than the most effective, voter-centered arguments. And for perhaps the first time, we finally have one.

Check out our recent insights and conversations: