For well over two decades, the linked causes of climate alarmism and energy transition have provided their adherents with a powerful upper hand in American politics. For that matter, supporters of those causes have had just as strong, if not a stronger upper hand in the politics of all the countries with advanced economies, whether in the EU, or Canada, Australia, and others. Here in the U.S., for all this time, almost no politician — even those claiming to advocate generally for smaller government or less regulation — has been willing to push back directly against assertions of “climate crisis,” or against demands for reducing “carbon emissions” or for achieving a “net zero” energy economy via government coercion and massive subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office have been cowed into deflecting and deferring on these issues, if indeed they have not openly gone along with the left’s energy program.

I have long said that this situation can’t last. The reason is that the proposed energy transition is infeasible and can’t possibly work; and the effort to achieve the impossible via government mandates and subsidies would inevitably drive up costs and otherwise impact voters directly in ways they would see. At some point the voters would react. But when would that occur?

You may not have noticed, but in the current election, push-back against insane energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue. For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the now patent consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.

Consider the issue of electric vehicle mandates. There is no question about where Kamala Harris stands on this issue right now as a matter of official government action in which she has been personally involved. The Biden-Harris administration worked on developing a form of mandates for EVs from the day those two took office, as part of the administration’s “all of government” approach to, supposedly, controlling climate change through regulations. Two major rules were initiated on the subject, and gradually crept their way through the regulatory labyrinth. After years of process, the two rules became final on, respectively, April 18 and June 7, 2024. This is not ancient history, but rather something that occurred just over four months ago, and was big news at the time. The two Rules are in effect right now. There is no pretending this does not exist, or that it is part of some long-ago talking points of prior Harris campaigns that she has since moved on from. I covered these two rules in a post on June 8 titled “The Latest On The Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”

For those not following this closely, let’s have a review of the bidding. The April 18 Rule came from EPA, with the title “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 373 pages long in the three-column single-spaced format of the Federal Register. The gist is to progressively tighten the permissible emissions from internal combustion cars such that only fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller cars can meet them. The June 7 Rule came from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and sets fuel economy standards for combustion vehicles. Its title is “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” This one, often known as the “CAFE” standards, is 1004 pages in standard double-spaced typing.

Although the Rules are couched in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, it is obvious on their face that the standards are set in a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet them, thus forcing a transition to mostly EVs by the early 2030s. My June 8 post cited a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that the EPA Rule alone could force EVs to be as much as 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032:

The regulation is set to bring significant changes to the auto industry, potentially putting the United States on the glide path to full electrification. . . . Under this final rule, battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric light-duty vehicles could make up 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in model year 2027, increasing to 69 percent by model year 2032.

Some time in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan explicitly stating that Harris is seeking to ban gasoline-powered cars. Video of the ad can be seen at this link. Here are the first few sentences of text:

Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris's push requiring electric only is failing big and Michigan auto workers are paying the price. Massive layoffs already started. You could be next. President Trump's committed to protecting America's auto workers.

On October 4, reported by the New York Post here, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, with a statement saying:

“Michigan, let us be clear: Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.”

Of course Harris did not give anyone a chance to press her on the issue, or to ask her to explain how the two new Rules do not constitute an attempt to tell people “what kind of car they can drive.”

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, on July 31 Ted Cruz proposed a resolution rescinding the EPA and NHTSA Rules, which Cruz correctly characterizes as “the Biden-Harris gas car ban.” The resolution ultimately came to a vote in both the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in close races to take a position and defend it. One of those was Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, currently in the House. Here is her statement defending her vote to uphold the Rules. Excerpt:

“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that had been drafted in close consultation with Michigan’s auto industry and Michigan’s auto workers. After responding to legitimate concerns from our auto manufacturers, the administration developed standards that were tough and aggressive, but also achievable — and earned the support of the auto industry and the UAW.”

The statement goes on and on from there in carefully calculated dissembling. It’s fun to watch her squirm.

A very similar dynamic has been unfolding in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey is now pretending that he has been a big supporter of fracking all along.

We are in the early days of this. Harris, Slotkin, Casey, et al., may still very well win their races. But however things come out this year, I predict that two and four years from now the needle will have swung further in the direction of energy sanity. Sooner or later, support for expensive and unworkable energy will become politically toxic. It can’t happen soon enough.