I knew Obama deported a lot of people… I didn’t realize his rhetoric about that. Totally in opposition to current Dems. I think most people are for ‘controlled legal immigration’. It’s hard to understand why progressives don’t see that the migrant influx under Biden affected the poor working class the most. The migrants strain social services, housing and job availability for these Americans. Those financially better off are not affected in this way
Today there is the added challenge of figuring out how to pierce the bubbles people are living in to get your message out.
For example--manufacturing employment in the U.S. reached a level in February 2023 it hadn't seen since November 2008, and ended Biden's term at a higher level than it was pre-pandemic during Trump's term. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP)
Clearly none of that got through to blue-collar voters for which bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. was one of the most important political goals they were concerned with. Polling shows they thought manufacturing was declining.
Messaging is just as--if not more--important as actual policy, and too many Democrats, including Biden, are still messaging as if it's the Obama era. The media ecosystem has changed, and their strategies need to change, too. Polished oratory and television ads are on their way out; it's 'authenticity', memes, podcasts, and attention-getting theatrics now. Trump understands this at a primal level, and because the Republican party's whole identity is (some mavericks aside) essentially being Trump acolytes, it has a built-in advantage right now. Mamdani and AOC get it, too--now the Dems need the centrists of the party to get their heads around it, so it's not just the party's leftmost flank piercing the bubble. Folks like Buttigieg show that it can be done, but there's not nearly enough Buttigieg's to go around at the moment.
Very well explained article and it is very sad indeed! Obama also just had a way of speaking and a background that came across as being transcendant whicomforti Great explination and it is sad indeed! Another thing is that Obama had both a background and way of speaking that came across as transcendant that was comforting to many. Biden and other Dem's frequent referances to his modest Scranton background frankly wasn't similerly helpful as it came across as disingenous, given his move to Delaware at a young age during his father's rapid upward rise as the elder Biden rose to become an elite professional while Joseph was still a young boy. I am sure someone like Obama with his rhetoric at the time could not win today. For all our devisions back then (less then 20 years ago!) we still largely had a common sense of nationhood across political and other lines. Today, it honestly often does not feel like we do anymore!!!
Frankly, I am also just not optomistic that a more consistently genuine populist can win the US Presidency nor that they would even be safe if they somehow did, and not just do to voter polerizarion along class and other (Geographic, religious etc etc.) lines, but do to money in politics and the presures from elite interests and their willingnese to potentially take drastic action to keep geting their way out of a sense of entitlement. One can always hope, but I have lost so much faith in the sytem in recent years! It is truly messed up. But I now put my faith in God and in the ability of many ordenary people to make change for the better. But sadly, some things are just terrible and not much we can do about them..
I also have to add that as much as most progressives don't want to hear it, there is also still massive anger and distrust among a wide swath of voters (especially among many non college educated and small business owning voters) over Democrats' pandemic 19 shutdowns, vaccine mandates and other pendemic policies. Many lost their generational businesses, many lost their homes, jobs, and most importantly loved ones. They often do blame these and other pandemic policies for a large portion of pandemic deaths as well! For a massive swath of voters, this was unforgivable and they have vowed to never vote for Democrats again, or at least not for anything resembling the current party, based on their experiance of what they believe was totalitarian goverment and a complete violation of their human rights. But the majority of these were not Democratic voters to begin with. And for all the many that had voted for Demorats before and no longer did as a result of these policies, many others had an opposite reaction and were equally apalled by Trump and Republicans.
For me, I have been so appalled by BOTH major US party's actions and rhetoric in recent years, that I no longer vote for their candidates at the national level, and usually not at the state level either.
Not yet mentioned. Obama is very likeable, no matter what you think of his policies.
Obama went to Montana, and made noticeable overtures to hunters, said he'd nominate a hunter for Interior, and he did. Obama didn't win Montana, but people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the states that sell the most hunting licenses, noticed.
When Obama was running for senator I watched a vid of him talking to a room full of some sort of farmer org from Southern Illinois. He knew their issues, probably from being a representative in the state. First he framed the issue in neutral language and asked if he had identified the problem. Corn subsidies or some sort of BS. Lots of heads nodding yes. Then he went on to state where he might well differ from them on the best solution. Right up front, first said where they probably disagree. Then offered a solution that was probably a compromise they were willing to work with. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear, more difficult to identify differences.
Obama was also very good off the cuff. Spoke in paragraphs. Used neutral vocabulary. Ran in 08 on giving us universal health care. Which we kinda got. Obama was charismatic, H Clinton, Biden, not so much.
It’s striking how this piece frames working-class support for Obama as rooted in his embrace of fossil fuel expansion, while sidestepping a major opportunity Democrats have largely failed to seize: building a compelling, pro-worker vision of a clean energy future.
Yes, working-class voters care deeply about energy prices and job stability—but that doesn’t mean they’re inherently hostile to decarbonization. The U.S. could—and should—be investing in wind, solar, grid upgrades, EV infrastructure, and other clean energy sectors that generate precisely the kinds of jobs non-college-educated Americans need: skilled, stable, local, and often unionized. Europe has shown this is possible. What’s missing isn’t voter openness—it’s leadership, messaging, and delivery.
What troubles me is that this essay reads less like an analysis and more like a quiet ratification of fossil fuel dependency. By emphasizing Obama’s support for oil and gas while painting climate-conscious policies as elite-driven and politically toxic, the article risks stoking class resentment rather than bridging the gap between environmental goals and economic justice.
Surely The Liberal Patriot isn’t denying the reality of human-caused global warming or the need to decarbonize. But the tone here leans dangerously close to reinforcing the narrative that clean energy is a political liability, rather than a path to broader economic opportunity—especially in regions hit hardest by industrial decline.
Working-class Americans aren’t anti-climate—they’re anti-betrayal. They remember promises made and broken. If Democrats want to win them back, they need to stop talking about sacrifice and start talking about investment, pride, and jobs. That requires rejecting the false choice between climate policy and working-class security—and crafting a vision that connects the two.
"Most Americans believe in climate change and the overall utility of transitioning to clean energy. Relative to credentialed progressives, however, they are much less likely to rate the latter as a top priority and instead view lower prices and energy abundance as more beneficial to American prosperity"
Climate fundamentalism necessarily betrays the working class.
"Climate fundamentalism necessarily betrays the working class" is the kind of slogan that sounds provocative but collapses under scrutiny. It's a caricature, not an argument. The real betrayal of the working class isn’t concern for the climate—it’s failing to pair that concern with a plan for stable, well-paying jobs and affordable energy. That’s a policy challenge, not a reason to abandon decarbonization altogether.
The idea that Americans care about energy abundance instead of clean energy is also misleading. In reality, most people want both—affordable energy and a livable planet for future generatioins. The job of serious policymakers (and commentators) is to reconcile those aims, not set them up as mutually exclusive.
This kind of sloganeering—“climate fundamentalism,” “credentialed elites,” etc.—is increasingly used as a lazy substitute for original thinking. It trades real-world problem-solving for tribal signaling. And ironically, it does nothing for the working class it claims to defend. The people installing solar panels, upgrading HVAC systems, and building wind farms aren't "climate fundamentalists"—they're tradespeople trying to make a living in a changing economy.
So let’s stop pretending the energy transition is some boutique hobby of Ivy League progressives. It’s the future of infrastructure, and it’s going to happen. The real question is whether it will benefit American workers—or leave them behind because we let slogans stand in for strategy.
What people understand is that natural gas is more efficient, less expensive more and pollutes less than other methods including green when you figure in the cost of cleaning up the mess they make. Nuclear is the best of all worlds. But we see that the zealots of climate change won't even consider it. Which looks like to the sane, an idiotic stance that proves that the climate change zealots ere not about climate change but power to run people's lives.
They care about both, but recignize that green energy based climate fundementalism is harmful to the working class with current technology and that wind and solar alone are not sufficiant!
The green jobs don't pay. A coal miner makes six figures, a solar installer is lucky to make $40K. It's $20 to start just like all the other trades, but hours are sporadic, and when the weather is bad they don't work. Most all factories are now non union and lucky to start at 20, more likely the state min. Roughnecks here (when there was drilling), make twice or three times what can be had in the trades. Oil generally has no illegal workers.
It’s true that some traditional energy jobs—especially in oil and gas—have historically paid very well, and that’s a reality climate policy advocates need to face squarely. But that doesn't mean clean energy jobs can't provide good wages—it means we need to demand that they do.
The wage gap between fossil fuel jobs and green energy jobs isn’t inevitable; it’s the result of policy choices, regulatory structures, and decades of labor dynamics. Coal mining, drilling, and pipeline work paid well because they were unionized, hazardous, and—crucially—heavily subsidized. These subsidies take many forms:
Tax breaks like the percentage depletion allowance and intangible drilling cost deductions allow oil and gas companies to write off large portions of their expenses and profits.
Favorable tax structures, such as Master Limited Partnerships, let pipeline firms avoid corporate taxes altogether.
Underpriced leasing of federal lands for drilling and mining allows extraction companies to pay royalties below market rates.
Public infrastructure investment—highways, railroads, ports, and pipelines—has long supported fossil fuel logistics with taxpayer money.
And perhaps most importantly, the externalized costs—from air and water pollution to black lung disease—are paid by the public in the form of health care costs, disability funds, and environmental remediation. This is a massive indirect subsidy that props up fossil fuel profitability.
These financial advantages help companies offer higher wages, especially when paired with hazard pay for dangerous work and union-negotiated contracts—both of which are less common in the current green energy economy. In fact, many fossil fuel wages are artificially high not just due to market forces, but because public policy and lobbying have created a heavily protected, profitable environment for extractive industries.
As for job stability: yes, solar installers may lose hours in bad weather—but so do roofers, framers, and others in the trades. No job is without volatility. And fossil fuel work isn’t magically secure either. Entire towns have been devastated by oil price crashes. Meanwhile, black lung disease—once thought to be declining—is making a deadly comeback among younger coal miners due to more toxic dust exposure and longer shifts underground. These are not cost-free careers.
Regarding illegal labor: no sector is immune. The oil and gas industry may appear more regulated, but exploitation can occur anywhere—especially through subcontractors and temp agencies. The solution isn’t to idolize one sector over another but to enforce strong labor standards across all industries.
So yes, we should take concerns about pay and conditions in clean energy seriously. But rather than using those concerns to dismiss the transition, we should use them to shape it—by building a clean energy economy that supports fair wages, union rights, and worker protections. With the right policies—like those in the Inflation Reduction Act, which ties subsidies to prevailing wages and apprenticeships—green jobs can be both abundant and dignified.
The goal shouldn’t be to cling to a heavily subsidized fossil fuel model that harms public health and destabilizes communities. It should be to demand a transition that’s economically fair, environmentally sustainable, and built to support workers—not leave them behind.
Leathernecks are rarely unionized , at least in Texas. Oil and gas are subsidized, because they are the backbone of national defense and our food supply, and they will be for decades to come.
May I suggest Climate advocates preach where the sinners are located? The US has already cut carbon production back to 90s levels, when we had far fewer people.
Asia hold's 1/2 the world's population. China and India are home to nearly 3 billion people, the US 335 million. If every American immediately and permanently forsook all energy, but equine and candles, the world's Climate would barely notice. John Kerry admits that.
There are 8 billion people on earth. The notion 335 million Americans , or even the 1 billion in the West, will solve Climate Change , is the height of arrogance and poor Math skills. We need Climate missionaries, not Climate warriors continually berating what amounts to a rounding error in the world's population.
You can demand all you want. Reality is tangible and not a could of, should of or maybe dream and something one can see and understand. Demanding better wages has never shown to be the way to get higher wages. How far into demanding do you want to get? Violence we see today?
Not sure who you are listening too about the European disaster on clean energy being a success, and hate of nuclear except France, and the failure of the girds over there. But I've yet to read any article by anyone who says the transition in Europe is smooth or even working.
Seems to me your grasp of the energy situation is the same as the one biden and other liberals had prior to the election and no where near reality. solar and wind will never produce enough to be independent of any other source and will never even be the major source of electricity any where for a long time if at all.
As for this article, the question is for the left, so what are you going to do about it? From what I see on Substack, whining, crying, name calling, fear mongering and demonizing Trump are the actions of today. That didn't work [re election Nov 2024.
Finally watching a lot of "man on the street" interviews where it appeared those leaving the Dem party made such a decisions after many years of the Dems making promises they never meant to keep. You can't fool all your base forever.
Ever notice that the carbon reduction in this country was best and eliminated more carbon to atmosphere prior to the government getting involved? There is a nexus there.
The answer to the question of why Obama was that Obama was an expert liar and the Democrats had formed a aggressive negative campaign strategy against their opponents, and Republicans, dealing with overall disgust over the Bush war and economy, at the time didn't fight the political battles with the Democrats with the same fire.
For example...
"Speaking at Rice University in 2018, Obama said, “You wouldn’t always know it, but [oil and gas production] went up every year I was president…that whole, suddenly America’s like the biggest oil and gas producer; that was me, people.” "
US oil and gas production had been going up every year before Obama. Like all industries of needed commodities in the US, GDP growth supported market production increase. It was fracking technology invented in the US that resulted in the jump in US oil and gas production, and Obama era policies were hostile to fracking. In other words, the private market that Obama was hostile to caused the jump in oil and gas production, Obama was just lucky in timing.
It is this type of lying that the Democrats have become addicted to because our legacy news media never challenges these claims anymore. The people have learned over the years that you can tell a Democrat politician is lying because their lips are flapping. Obama was the king of this practice.
This is also partly true. Even so, Biden ended up being notably more hostile then Obama in this regard, and the more Extreme policies of people like CA Gov. Gaven Newsom also rubbed off on many voters. But Obama's rhetoricical style, personally transcendant quality, and his policy's on immigration in contrast to Biden or current Democrats in general also mattered and helped him win many.
So to, did Biden's obviously declining faculty and Dem's crude attemt to cover it, Democrats pandemic overreach and corruption, and Gaza situation all have a negative impact on his support as well.
But more then anything, not just our media lanscape but our whole culture and political and soceoeconomic structure have all changed markably over the last 15 years. Trump and his team our aware of this, while most Democratic leaders seem ro be either oblivious or in deep denial.
President Obama was tough on border security and deportation of those attempting to cross it illegally. He was also supportive of a path to citizenship for those who have been in the U.S. for a number of years. Recent polling indicate that tight border enforcement is popular while the rounding up of immigrant workers is increasingly unpopular. The performative cruelty of the Trump administration is backfiring.
I knew Obama deported a lot of people… I didn’t realize his rhetoric about that. Totally in opposition to current Dems. I think most people are for ‘controlled legal immigration’. It’s hard to understand why progressives don’t see that the migrant influx under Biden affected the poor working class the most. The migrants strain social services, housing and job availability for these Americans. Those financially better off are not affected in this way
Today there is the added challenge of figuring out how to pierce the bubbles people are living in to get your message out.
For example--manufacturing employment in the U.S. reached a level in February 2023 it hadn't seen since November 2008, and ended Biden's term at a higher level than it was pre-pandemic during Trump's term. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP)
Clearly none of that got through to blue-collar voters for which bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. was one of the most important political goals they were concerned with. Polling shows they thought manufacturing was declining.
Messaging is just as--if not more--important as actual policy, and too many Democrats, including Biden, are still messaging as if it's the Obama era. The media ecosystem has changed, and their strategies need to change, too. Polished oratory and television ads are on their way out; it's 'authenticity', memes, podcasts, and attention-getting theatrics now. Trump understands this at a primal level, and because the Republican party's whole identity is (some mavericks aside) essentially being Trump acolytes, it has a built-in advantage right now. Mamdani and AOC get it, too--now the Dems need the centrists of the party to get their heads around it, so it's not just the party's leftmost flank piercing the bubble. Folks like Buttigieg show that it can be done, but there's not nearly enough Buttigieg's to go around at the moment.
Uh … RIce University is in Texas, not Pennsylvania … ?
Sorry about that. Fixed.
Very well explained article and it is very sad indeed! Obama also just had a way of speaking and a background that came across as being transcendant whicomforti Great explination and it is sad indeed! Another thing is that Obama had both a background and way of speaking that came across as transcendant that was comforting to many. Biden and other Dem's frequent referances to his modest Scranton background frankly wasn't similerly helpful as it came across as disingenous, given his move to Delaware at a young age during his father's rapid upward rise as the elder Biden rose to become an elite professional while Joseph was still a young boy. I am sure someone like Obama with his rhetoric at the time could not win today. For all our devisions back then (less then 20 years ago!) we still largely had a common sense of nationhood across political and other lines. Today, it honestly often does not feel like we do anymore!!!
Frankly, I am also just not optomistic that a more consistently genuine populist can win the US Presidency nor that they would even be safe if they somehow did, and not just do to voter polerizarion along class and other (Geographic, religious etc etc.) lines, but do to money in politics and the presures from elite interests and their willingnese to potentially take drastic action to keep geting their way out of a sense of entitlement. One can always hope, but I have lost so much faith in the sytem in recent years! It is truly messed up. But I now put my faith in God and in the ability of many ordenary people to make change for the better. But sadly, some things are just terrible and not much we can do about them..
I also have to add that as much as most progressives don't want to hear it, there is also still massive anger and distrust among a wide swath of voters (especially among many non college educated and small business owning voters) over Democrats' pandemic 19 shutdowns, vaccine mandates and other pendemic policies. Many lost their generational businesses, many lost their homes, jobs, and most importantly loved ones. They often do blame these and other pandemic policies for a large portion of pandemic deaths as well! For a massive swath of voters, this was unforgivable and they have vowed to never vote for Democrats again, or at least not for anything resembling the current party, based on their experiance of what they believe was totalitarian goverment and a complete violation of their human rights. But the majority of these were not Democratic voters to begin with. And for all the many that had voted for Demorats before and no longer did as a result of these policies, many others had an opposite reaction and were equally apalled by Trump and Republicans.
For me, I have been so appalled by BOTH major US party's actions and rhetoric in recent years, that I no longer vote for their candidates at the national level, and usually not at the state level either.
Not yet mentioned. Obama is very likeable, no matter what you think of his policies.
Obama went to Montana, and made noticeable overtures to hunters, said he'd nominate a hunter for Interior, and he did. Obama didn't win Montana, but people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the states that sell the most hunting licenses, noticed.
When Obama was running for senator I watched a vid of him talking to a room full of some sort of farmer org from Southern Illinois. He knew their issues, probably from being a representative in the state. First he framed the issue in neutral language and asked if he had identified the problem. Corn subsidies or some sort of BS. Lots of heads nodding yes. Then he went on to state where he might well differ from them on the best solution. Right up front, first said where they probably disagree. Then offered a solution that was probably a compromise they were willing to work with. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear, more difficult to identify differences.
Obama was also very good off the cuff. Spoke in paragraphs. Used neutral vocabulary. Ran in 08 on giving us universal health care. Which we kinda got. Obama was charismatic, H Clinton, Biden, not so much.
It’s striking how this piece frames working-class support for Obama as rooted in his embrace of fossil fuel expansion, while sidestepping a major opportunity Democrats have largely failed to seize: building a compelling, pro-worker vision of a clean energy future.
Yes, working-class voters care deeply about energy prices and job stability—but that doesn’t mean they’re inherently hostile to decarbonization. The U.S. could—and should—be investing in wind, solar, grid upgrades, EV infrastructure, and other clean energy sectors that generate precisely the kinds of jobs non-college-educated Americans need: skilled, stable, local, and often unionized. Europe has shown this is possible. What’s missing isn’t voter openness—it’s leadership, messaging, and delivery.
What troubles me is that this essay reads less like an analysis and more like a quiet ratification of fossil fuel dependency. By emphasizing Obama’s support for oil and gas while painting climate-conscious policies as elite-driven and politically toxic, the article risks stoking class resentment rather than bridging the gap between environmental goals and economic justice.
Surely The Liberal Patriot isn’t denying the reality of human-caused global warming or the need to decarbonize. But the tone here leans dangerously close to reinforcing the narrative that clean energy is a political liability, rather than a path to broader economic opportunity—especially in regions hit hardest by industrial decline.
Working-class Americans aren’t anti-climate—they’re anti-betrayal. They remember promises made and broken. If Democrats want to win them back, they need to stop talking about sacrifice and start talking about investment, pride, and jobs. That requires rejecting the false choice between climate policy and working-class security—and crafting a vision that connects the two.
"Most Americans believe in climate change and the overall utility of transitioning to clean energy. Relative to credentialed progressives, however, they are much less likely to rate the latter as a top priority and instead view lower prices and energy abundance as more beneficial to American prosperity"
Climate fundamentalism necessarily betrays the working class.
"Climate fundamentalism necessarily betrays the working class" is the kind of slogan that sounds provocative but collapses under scrutiny. It's a caricature, not an argument. The real betrayal of the working class isn’t concern for the climate—it’s failing to pair that concern with a plan for stable, well-paying jobs and affordable energy. That’s a policy challenge, not a reason to abandon decarbonization altogether.
The idea that Americans care about energy abundance instead of clean energy is also misleading. In reality, most people want both—affordable energy and a livable planet for future generatioins. The job of serious policymakers (and commentators) is to reconcile those aims, not set them up as mutually exclusive.
This kind of sloganeering—“climate fundamentalism,” “credentialed elites,” etc.—is increasingly used as a lazy substitute for original thinking. It trades real-world problem-solving for tribal signaling. And ironically, it does nothing for the working class it claims to defend. The people installing solar panels, upgrading HVAC systems, and building wind farms aren't "climate fundamentalists"—they're tradespeople trying to make a living in a changing economy.
So let’s stop pretending the energy transition is some boutique hobby of Ivy League progressives. It’s the future of infrastructure, and it’s going to happen. The real question is whether it will benefit American workers—or leave them behind because we let slogans stand in for strategy.
What people understand is that natural gas is more efficient, less expensive more and pollutes less than other methods including green when you figure in the cost of cleaning up the mess they make. Nuclear is the best of all worlds. But we see that the zealots of climate change won't even consider it. Which looks like to the sane, an idiotic stance that proves that the climate change zealots ere not about climate change but power to run people's lives.
They care about both, but recignize that green energy based climate fundementalism is harmful to the working class with current technology and that wind and solar alone are not sufficiant!
The green jobs don't pay. A coal miner makes six figures, a solar installer is lucky to make $40K. It's $20 to start just like all the other trades, but hours are sporadic, and when the weather is bad they don't work. Most all factories are now non union and lucky to start at 20, more likely the state min. Roughnecks here (when there was drilling), make twice or three times what can be had in the trades. Oil generally has no illegal workers.
It’s true that some traditional energy jobs—especially in oil and gas—have historically paid very well, and that’s a reality climate policy advocates need to face squarely. But that doesn't mean clean energy jobs can't provide good wages—it means we need to demand that they do.
The wage gap between fossil fuel jobs and green energy jobs isn’t inevitable; it’s the result of policy choices, regulatory structures, and decades of labor dynamics. Coal mining, drilling, and pipeline work paid well because they were unionized, hazardous, and—crucially—heavily subsidized. These subsidies take many forms:
Tax breaks like the percentage depletion allowance and intangible drilling cost deductions allow oil and gas companies to write off large portions of their expenses and profits.
Favorable tax structures, such as Master Limited Partnerships, let pipeline firms avoid corporate taxes altogether.
Underpriced leasing of federal lands for drilling and mining allows extraction companies to pay royalties below market rates.
Public infrastructure investment—highways, railroads, ports, and pipelines—has long supported fossil fuel logistics with taxpayer money.
And perhaps most importantly, the externalized costs—from air and water pollution to black lung disease—are paid by the public in the form of health care costs, disability funds, and environmental remediation. This is a massive indirect subsidy that props up fossil fuel profitability.
These financial advantages help companies offer higher wages, especially when paired with hazard pay for dangerous work and union-negotiated contracts—both of which are less common in the current green energy economy. In fact, many fossil fuel wages are artificially high not just due to market forces, but because public policy and lobbying have created a heavily protected, profitable environment for extractive industries.
As for job stability: yes, solar installers may lose hours in bad weather—but so do roofers, framers, and others in the trades. No job is without volatility. And fossil fuel work isn’t magically secure either. Entire towns have been devastated by oil price crashes. Meanwhile, black lung disease—once thought to be declining—is making a deadly comeback among younger coal miners due to more toxic dust exposure and longer shifts underground. These are not cost-free careers.
Regarding illegal labor: no sector is immune. The oil and gas industry may appear more regulated, but exploitation can occur anywhere—especially through subcontractors and temp agencies. The solution isn’t to idolize one sector over another but to enforce strong labor standards across all industries.
So yes, we should take concerns about pay and conditions in clean energy seriously. But rather than using those concerns to dismiss the transition, we should use them to shape it—by building a clean energy economy that supports fair wages, union rights, and worker protections. With the right policies—like those in the Inflation Reduction Act, which ties subsidies to prevailing wages and apprenticeships—green jobs can be both abundant and dignified.
The goal shouldn’t be to cling to a heavily subsidized fossil fuel model that harms public health and destabilizes communities. It should be to demand a transition that’s economically fair, environmentally sustainable, and built to support workers—not leave them behind.
Leathernecks are rarely unionized , at least in Texas. Oil and gas are subsidized, because they are the backbone of national defense and our food supply, and they will be for decades to come.
May I suggest Climate advocates preach where the sinners are located? The US has already cut carbon production back to 90s levels, when we had far fewer people.
Asia hold's 1/2 the world's population. China and India are home to nearly 3 billion people, the US 335 million. If every American immediately and permanently forsook all energy, but equine and candles, the world's Climate would barely notice. John Kerry admits that.
There are 8 billion people on earth. The notion 335 million Americans , or even the 1 billion in the West, will solve Climate Change , is the height of arrogance and poor Math skills. We need Climate missionaries, not Climate warriors continually berating what amounts to a rounding error in the world's population.
You can demand all you want. Reality is tangible and not a could of, should of or maybe dream and something one can see and understand. Demanding better wages has never shown to be the way to get higher wages. How far into demanding do you want to get? Violence we see today?
Not sure who you are listening too about the European disaster on clean energy being a success, and hate of nuclear except France, and the failure of the girds over there. But I've yet to read any article by anyone who says the transition in Europe is smooth or even working.
Seems to me your grasp of the energy situation is the same as the one biden and other liberals had prior to the election and no where near reality. solar and wind will never produce enough to be independent of any other source and will never even be the major source of electricity any where for a long time if at all.
As for this article, the question is for the left, so what are you going to do about it? From what I see on Substack, whining, crying, name calling, fear mongering and demonizing Trump are the actions of today. That didn't work [re election Nov 2024.
Finally watching a lot of "man on the street" interviews where it appeared those leaving the Dem party made such a decisions after many years of the Dems making promises they never meant to keep. You can't fool all your base forever.
Ever notice that the carbon reduction in this country was best and eliminated more carbon to atmosphere prior to the government getting involved? There is a nexus there.
The answer to the question of why Obama was that Obama was an expert liar and the Democrats had formed a aggressive negative campaign strategy against their opponents, and Republicans, dealing with overall disgust over the Bush war and economy, at the time didn't fight the political battles with the Democrats with the same fire.
For example...
"Speaking at Rice University in 2018, Obama said, “You wouldn’t always know it, but [oil and gas production] went up every year I was president…that whole, suddenly America’s like the biggest oil and gas producer; that was me, people.” "
US oil and gas production had been going up every year before Obama. Like all industries of needed commodities in the US, GDP growth supported market production increase. It was fracking technology invented in the US that resulted in the jump in US oil and gas production, and Obama era policies were hostile to fracking. In other words, the private market that Obama was hostile to caused the jump in oil and gas production, Obama was just lucky in timing.
It is this type of lying that the Democrats have become addicted to because our legacy news media never challenges these claims anymore. The people have learned over the years that you can tell a Democrat politician is lying because their lips are flapping. Obama was the king of this practice.
This is also partly true. Even so, Biden ended up being notably more hostile then Obama in this regard, and the more Extreme policies of people like CA Gov. Gaven Newsom also rubbed off on many voters. But Obama's rhetoricical style, personally transcendant quality, and his policy's on immigration in contrast to Biden or current Democrats in general also mattered and helped him win many.
So to, did Biden's obviously declining faculty and Dem's crude attemt to cover it, Democrats pandemic overreach and corruption, and Gaza situation all have a negative impact on his support as well.
But more then anything, not just our media lanscape but our whole culture and political and soceoeconomic structure have all changed markably over the last 15 years. Trump and his team our aware of this, while most Democratic leaders seem ro be either oblivious or in deep denial.
President Obama was tough on border security and deportation of those attempting to cross it illegally. He was also supportive of a path to citizenship for those who have been in the U.S. for a number of years. Recent polling indicate that tight border enforcement is popular while the rounding up of immigrant workers is increasingly unpopular. The performative cruelty of the Trump administration is backfiring.
Maybe labor and the Gen Z males have now seen the effects of the Biden social/industrial policies and want a saner society. A Shellenberger interview with a 20 year old Britain sheds some light here. https://www.public.news/p/why-gen-z-men-are-revolting-against?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=279400&post_id=168037573&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=udlz6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email