Episode Summary
Executive Summary: David Roberts and Caroline Spears review Climate Cabinet’s 2024 state and local election portfolio, arguing that subnational races remain decisive for climate policy despite the chaotic national result. They highlight wins in North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and pockets like Michigan and Nebraska, while noting setbacks in PUC and insurance races. The conversation stresses redistricting, lobbying, and information ecosystems as the real battlegrounds.
Main Topics: Climate Cabinet’s portfolio approach to state races (Priority: 5/5): Spears explains that Climate Cabinet targets high-impact, low-cost state and local races using data science and a portfolio model rather than federal contests, aiming for about a 50% win rate and selecting races by climate leverage, not visibility. Bright spots: North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New Mexico (Priority: 5/5): The guests discuss major wins: Josh Stein’s governorship and breaking the GOP supermajority in North Carolina; Wisconsin’s map-driven break in legislative control after a long strategy; and New Mexico’s primary victories that removed anti-climate Democrats and expanded the climate coalition. The importance of redistricting and 2030 (Priority: 5/5): They emphasize that 2030 redistricting will shape climate policy through 2040, making legislative control and fair maps crucial. State legislature wins now are framed as groundwork for the next map-drawing cycle. Down-ballot losses in utility and insurance regulation (Priority: 4/5): They examine setbacks in elected public utility commission races and in North Carolina’s insurance commissioner race, showing how obscure but powerful offices can shape energy and climate outcomes and how utility-funded politics complicates reform. Information ecosystem and voter perception (Priority: 5/5): Both speakers argue that media narratives and viral clips distort what voters think candidates stand for. They say campaign messaging is filtered through a 'last mile' information environment that often overwhelms policy achievements and on-the-ground realities. Special elections, lobbying, and next-cycle strategy (Priority: 4/5): Climate Cabinet is building a special-election defense fund and expanding lobbying capacity for 2025 and beyond, aiming to translate 2024 wins into legislative action and to respond quickly to sudden vacancy-driven contests.
Key Arguments: Subnational elections matter enormously for climate because states and localities control emissions-relevant policy, utility regulation, building codes, and redistricting. A data-driven, portfolio model can outperform intuition by targeting the highest climate impact races, even if they are obscure. North Carolina’s governor win mattered because the legislature’s supermajority had overridden vetoes on climate-relevant policy; breaking it restores meaningful executive leverage. Wisconsin’s fairer maps were the product of a decade-long strategy, showing that long-term infrastructure and legal/political sequencing can change outcomes. New Mexico showed that climate politics are not purely partisan; Climate Cabinet can move primaries and remove anti-climate Democrats even in a blue trifecta. PUC and insurance races are strategically important because regulators can shape power and insurance markets, but these offices suffer from low voter awareness and high down-ballot drop-off. The information environment—not just candidate messaging—shapes what voters believe, and many post-election narratives rely too heavily on flawed exit polls. Biden-era material gains may not translate cleanly into votes if voters do not hear about them through trusted channels or if they are displaced by viral misinformation. The 2030 redistricting cycle is pivotal: whoever controls state legislatures then will influence climate policy and congressional maps through the next decade. Climate work requires ongoing lobbying and special-election preparedness, not just election-cycle spending, because governance and vacancy races happen continuously.
Data Points: Climate champions tracked: 172 - Climate Cabinet had 172 climate-aligned candidates on the ballot in the 2024 cycle. Win rate: 52% - Spears said the portfolio won 52% of its races on Election Day. New Hampshire legislature size: 400 members - Used as an example of an extremely large state legislature with limited climate leverage per seat. Pennsylvania emissions ranking: 40th largest emitter in the world - Spears compared Pennsylvania’s climate importance to New Hampshire’s lower leverage. North Carolina legislative margin: 1 seat - Breaking the GOP supermajority left Democrats with a one-seat margin against override power. North Carolina district flip: R+4 district - Lindsay Prowther won an uphill race in western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene. Wisconsin strategy horizon: 10 years - Ben Wickler and allies pursued a decade-long map-and-court strategy to reshape power in Wisconsin. New Mexico anti-climate Democrats removed: 4 - Climate Cabinet helped knock out four anti-climate lawmakers in New Mexico primaries. Arizona PUC result: 5-0 anti-climate majority - No climate-aligned candidates won on the Arizona Corporation Commission. Montana PUC result: 5-0 anti-climate majority - Montana’s elected utility commission remained unchanged and anti-climate. Arizona funding shortfall: 66% underspent - Spears said the Arizona Corporation Commission effort was underfunded by about two-thirds relative to what it should have been. Down-ballot drop-off in Arizona: 2% to 6% - Voters often left obscure PUC races blank, especially in cities. Michigan House loss: 1-2 seats - Climate-friendly Democrats lost the House majority by a small margin. Grand Rapids door program: 65,000 doors - David Legrand’s campaign in Grand Rapids ran a large door-knocking operation that also helped nearby battleground margins. Pennsylvania House majority: 102-101 - The narrow Democratic majority remained exactly the same after the election. Pennsylvania Senate flip: 1 seat - Democrats flipped one Senate seat in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania state-level ticket splitting: 15 points - Roberts noted 2020 battleground counties saw large ticket-splitting at the state legislative level. Republican climate score example: 30/100 - A Republican primary target in Arizona scored well above typical GOP climate scores, which are often 20 or below. Typical partisan climate scores: Dems 80+; Republicans 20 or below - Climate Cabinet’s internal scoring framework was described as separating candidates by actual voting records.
Pivotal Quotes: "We are moneyball for climate politics." — Caroline Spears: Spears explains Climate Cabinet’s data-driven targeting philosophy and low-cost, high-impact strategy. "It’s not a layer cake, it’s a marble cake." — Caroline Spears: She describes the constant contest between levels of government—state, local, executive, and regulatory—over climate policy power. "Our job is low-cost, high-impact." — Caroline Spears: Used to define why Climate Cabinet avoids federal races and focuses on state and local leverage points.
Implications: Climate progress will likely depend more on state power, map-drawing, and obscure regulatory offices than on federal messaging alone. Winning, defending, and lobbying in these arenas now may determine climate policy through the 2030s and 2040s.