By Robert Bradley Jr.
“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”
The New York Times op-ed, “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore” (May 9, 2026) is yet another marker that the debate is widening over the economic and political feasibility of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. [1] Matthew Huber wrote:
For the past several months, Democratic elites have been debating how much to talk about climate change, if at all — in part because these new candidates have narrowed their focus to energy affordability to win back the working class. It is a striking shift from a few years ago, when many Democratic politicians thought the promise of a Green New Deal would build a coalition based on green jobs and fighting inequality.
So how did the Progressive Left take this (small) dose of reality? New York Times climate opinion editor Eliza Barclay invited comments on social media:
Love to see all of the chatter about Matt Huber’s provocative essay about why Democratic candidates campaigning for the midterms should focus on affordable (and clean) energy rather than the climate crisis.
A hard line was taken by David Fenon:
This headline: Pearl Harbor Bombed. Democrats Shouldn’t Talk About it…. This is a big part of why the public doesn’t make it a top voting issue. This essay is capitulation to catastrophe…. Don’t talk about it, then the public won’t know about it, then you can’t run for office on it and the country won’t act on the emergency. And if a Democrat wins without a public mandate for action, she won’t be able to get legislation passed to deal with the crisis. Suggest you look at Senator Whitehouse’s response. And this kind of essay keeps appearing–urging Democrats to be “moderate” and support fossil fuel production, you know, Moderate Destruction. With respect but now exasperation too.
Scolding (bullying?) Barclay, Jim Bernfield, a communications expert for the alarmist cause, commented:
The author’s historical analysis was at best questionable, his political bona fides weak, and his argument fairly mundane, even for a NYT op-ed. But the clickbait headline — likely your responsibility, Eliza Barclay — was unadulterated garbage. You’re the climate editor, l am going to assume you can do better than this.
Michael Shank was less critical:
A variation on this theme, my piece for POLITICO Europe. Instead of leading with climate, flip the script: Rather than leading with data and promoting health, safety and economic “co-benefits” as bonus add-ons, climate advocates need to flip the script.
I added:
These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate editors and writers are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.
——————–
[1] My own op-ed in the Houston Chronicle is a smaller marker of a new era of open debate on the underlying science, economics, and public policy of a once closed mainstream media.
