“Overall, Democrats have softened some of the rhetoric they think may have alienated voters in the Biden years — on climate and gender issues in particular….” – David Wallace-Wells, New York Times (October 14, 2026)
It’s election season. A major issue is high energy prices. “Climate change” is way down the concern list, knowing that climate mitigation (anti-fossil-fuel) policies increase prices. Thus, the green hushing continues.
Climate messaging is a mess–and in a funk (see Appendix below). The leading critic of green hushing, Joe Romm, committed suicide to escape the issue. “The problem is not denial nor this strawman description of ‘climate messaging’ that no one I know actually does— and I’ve been doing this for three decades,” he complained.
The problems are 1) the biggest disinformation campaign in human history, 2) which is amplified by every major social media site and 3) which combined outspend the money disseminating any of the climate messaging by 20x to 100x. The world is not subjected to bad climate messaging so much as it subjected to an open fire hydrant of lies on the one hand and climate silence on the other.
Or maybe the public is more attune to their priorities than this “expert” pontificator. And the climate alarm is exaggerated.
Election Update
The Guardian gave a current on Greenhushing as if it was an anomaly.
… the unfolding climate crisis, and the imperative to transition to cleaner, less volatile forms of energy, has been starkly absent on campaign trai s before the midterms in three weeks’ time. Even among previously pro-green Democrats, 2026 has seen a widespread climate omerta.
Three examples were given.
“Look, I’m not going to defend the Green New Deal,” Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic US Senate candidate in Michigan, told Fox News in August, after previously campaigning for 100% renewable energy.
Jon Ossoff, seeking to retain his Senate seat in Georgia, has ditched mentions of the environment in favor of focusing on the Iran war and inflation.
… James Talarico, another leading Democratic Senate hope who previously compared oil and gas to 1980s cassette tapes that are “not gonna last”, has struck a very different tone in this campaign. “I support our oil and gas industry,” Talarico, aiming for a first Democratic win in Texas in decades, said last month. “I had family members who worked in the industry. I went to public schools here in Texas, funded by the oil and gas industry.”
“Head exploding,” as Joe Romm used to exclaim.
Sarah Peach at Yale Climate Connections issued a warning:
But when candidates simply mirror what they think the public wants, that can lead to a vicious cycle. The public is influenced by what elite politicians say, so when candidates don’t prioritize climate change, the public may see it as less important, too.
Conclusion
Once again, reality has set in. The magical thinking that wind, solar, and batteries are the energy future is busted. Affordability is causing the swing-state Democrats to change their stripes. Meanwhile, Big Green argues that their politically correct, economically incorrect energies are really cheaper and better. They cite studies, such as Lazard’s (flawed) LCOE analysis. And Stanford University engineer Mark Jacobson’s fanciful analysis that the U.S. could affordability go to 100 percent renewables (without nuclear too).
Remember: Noncompetitive energies need studies; competitive energies need economic freedom.
Appendix
Previous posts at MasterResource on this issue have been:
Climate Retreat Documented in the New York Times (July 15, 2026)
‘Climate Hushing’: Pragmatism Demoting Exaggeration (McKibben fools himself) May 19, 2026
Disaster? NYT Op-Ed on Demoting the Climate Pitch (May 14, 2026)
Climate Messaging: The Alarmists are Alarmed (July 29, 2025)