ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Circumstances have changed drastically since Thomas first came to campus to talk about the environment, on May 24, 2024. At that time, Thomas was working with President Biden in a she had held since the first day of his presidency. She was part of a seventeen-person team in the Office of Domestic Climate Policy, the first of its kind in the White House.

Since President Trump regained the White House in January, he has made it a priority to roll back the previous administration's climate agenda and to support fossil fuels.

Johnson began her line of questioning by asking what Thomas wished more people knew about her office’s achievements. Thomas listed a few highlights, including helping to create almost 400,000 new jobs in the clean energy sector and generating savings in energy costs for American households—a goal that has not yet fully played out. “I wish we had had enough time for people to see those savings reflected bill over bill over bill,” she said. “By 2030, the country would have been saving $38 billion in energy costs.”

The administration achieved this, she explained, by deploying the cheapest kind of energy right now—wind turbines and solar panels.

“The president really charged us to make sure that when we talked about climate, we talked about jobs,” she said. “It was about expanding manufacturing across the country and expanding economic opportunities.”

Shifting Climate Politics 

Thomas and Johnson then delved into the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden’s crowning climate achievement. The Act, passed by Congress in 2022, authorized $370 billion for climate projects around the country.

When combined with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which also included climate actions, the two bills launched the biggest spending on climate solutions in American history, Johnson said.  

The overarching goal of the legislation was to revive manufacturing in the United States and reduce energy costs, Thomas said. “The idea behind the Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure law was to create the conditions for the United States to be a global magnet for clean energy and domestic manufacturing. ...That was the big premise, and it was working, and in many ways it will continue to work.”

Companies around the world have poured money into battery, solar, and electric vehicle manufacturing facilities in the US. While a few have walked back their commitments since President Trump returned to office, they haven’t completely abandoned the effort, she said.

“We might not have the national spotlight on climate like we did before, but in many communities across the US there are happening and jobs continuing to be created from the climate agenda,” she said.

Notably, Thomas added that many of those jobs and investments are in more conservative states—like Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and South Carolina—which tend to be business friendly because of their affordable labor, generous tax breaks, and anti-union stances.

Because of this lopsided investment pattern, Thomas said national politics around climate is shifting. Yet, the partisan rhetoric around climate remains fixed and bitter.

For this to change, Thomas said investments must continue to be made “on the ground,” and more people must be employed in clean-energy jobs. Only then, when people begin building “a family, life, and identity” around being a worker in these industries will we stop seeing “this mismatch between rhetoric and outcomes of the implementation,” she said. “It’ll be messy for a while but will hopefully trend in the right direction.”

Johnson noted that “it's important to differentiate between agreeing on the problem and collaborating on the solution. There are a lot of people who don’t want to talk about climate change or admit that climate change is happening, but those people could still want wind energy projects in their state because they bring good jobs and lower energy costs.”

The Possibilities, and Possible Pitfalls, of Activism

Thomas admitted she was disappointed that funding for an American Climate Corps (ACC) was cut from the Inflation Reduction Act. Modeled after President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps, the ACC would have hired tens of thousands of Americans—especially younger ones—to work on clean energy and climate projects around the nation. Jobs would have included reducing wildfire risks, restoring wetlands to serve as buffers against storms, and installing solar panels.

This would have “changed the relationship between young people and government and made sure we’re training the workforce we need to battle the climate crisis and match the investments we’re making in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Thomas said.

Johnson, who teaches a class called Communicating Climate Change at ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ, relayed a story about why the $30 billion allocated for the ACC failed in Congress—a decision she said came down to the vote of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. She believes he was put off by young climate activists who hounded him near his large houseboat in DC and in his Maserati leading up to the vote. 

“That is not to say do not protest,” she said to the students. “But we need to think strategically about the role of shame, of activism, of coalition building, and of messaging.”

Thomas, in response to a question from a student about what effective activism looks like, said that the youth movement had been essential to getting the Inflation Reduction Act over the finish line.

“It was important for young people to come together…to bring awareness to the Green New Deal and to put this on the radar of politicians around the country,” she said. They shifted the “national zeitgeist and paved the way for us to pass the Inflation Reduction Act.” But, she added, activists are smart to keep in mind who their audience is and the personalities of the people they want to persuade.

In that open discussion, students asked about a number of issues, including the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine and the future of carbon border policies. The specificity of their queries prompted Thomas to joke that the students didn’t seem keen on “softballs.”

To a student who asked about how ramping up mineral extraction for batteries could damage environments and vulnerable communities, Thomas acknowledged the environmental and humanitarian toll that our transition to a clean energy economy could have.

A way to avoid doing more harm, she pointed out, was to not just support the manufacture of batteries and new technology, but to also boost recycling facilities to drive the “circular economy.”

“The best way to reduce our use of critical minerals is by recycling more batteries, to reuse what we already have,” she said. “So we are not just repeating lessons of the past.”