Trump is a man who wants to see the world burn. He will prioritize expanding oil and gas production and roll back support for renewable energy. He is pushing for economic isolation through import tariffs and plans to deport 10 million migrants. And this nightmare will not end in four years, even if the Constitution says he cannot run for office again. He will break the rules and ask, “What are you going to do about it?” This is pure fascism.

 

A Look Back at the Campaign

But back to the election campaign: Even Hurricane Milton, which destroyed half of Florida, didn’t change the fact that climate practically played no role in the campaign. This was due to the absurd nature of one of the candidates, which made all real issues seem so small that they were barely discussed.

 

Even Harris didn’t really bring up the climate issue, possibly due to a misunderstanding about how much consensus there actually is among the public in favor of climate protection. Or maybe because she focused on other issues where she believed she had a better chance of success. First, the economy, as that resonates most with people. Second, abortion rights. And third, of course, Trump’s madness and eccentricity.

 

Thus, it seemed reasonable not to focus on climate during the campaign but instead to adopt a strategy aimed primarily at defeating Trump, with the plan of addressing climate policy later. It was essentially a matter of saying, “We’ll deal with the climate, but first, we need to win the election and put someone in office who is at least normal.”

 

But let’s be honest, the Democrats aren’t climate champions either. Harris doesn’t truly grasp the urgency of the climate crisis.

 

The Democrats are certainly more aligned with science than today’s Republicans. But even they don’t want to fully commit to solving the climate crisis.

 

The Polarization of the Climate Issue

In the US, however, climate issues haven’t always been so polarized. Democratic President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof in the 1970s. Okay, Ronald Reagan removed them, but still: The climate crisis wasn’t a controversial topic back then.

 

Climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. In fact, it was George H. W. Bush – George W. Bush’s father – who promised, and I quote, “to combat the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.” That changed after 1990 when fossil fuel lobbyists poured billions into disinformation campaigns, essentially bought the Republican Party, deceived the public, and deliberately polarized the issue.

 

What Lessons Can We Learn From This?

One important insight is that scientifically based arguments alone often don’t convince people to act more sustainably. We need better narratives and emotional messages that highlight personal benefits. Arguments like “saving money” or “gaining more independence” are more effective than moral appeals to responsibility for climate protection.

 

Additionally, it’s crucial to prevent further polarization of the climate debate. Fossil lobbyists are actively driving the climate issue into a culture-war dynamic, which must be countered with targeted communication strategies.

 

That’s why we need unusual alliances. For instance, farmers, homeowners, and climate activists could join forces to create broad societal acceptance. Practical examples show that climate issues are better received when they’re not presented as ideologically charged.