Latest news with #Inslee
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Can Democrats win over Trump voters with this one issue?
Many liberals would like the Democratic Party to put climate change at the center of its messaging and policy agenda. They would also like Democrats to win more elections. In a recent column in the Washington Post, former Washington governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee argued that there is no tension between these two objectives: The best way for Democrats to defeat Republicans is to focus more on bold climate action. Inslee's case can be broken down into three claims: Democrats lost in 2024 largely because their support among younger voters fell sharply. Young voters care about climate change. In fact, according to the Associated Press' polling, 60 percent of young Trump voters are concerned about the climate. Therefore, 'to present a compelling vision to the next generation,' Democrats 'should focus on the issue that simultaneously represents the greatest threat to them and the clearest delineation between the two parties' — climate change. Inslee is right that young voters swung hard against the Democratic Party in 2024. AP VoteCast, a high-quality exit poll, showed Kamala Harris winning voters under 30 by just 4 points. By contrast, Joe Biden won young voters by more than 20 points in 2020. And it's also true that young voters are more worried about climate change than older ones. Nevertheless, the evidence for Inslee's fundamental thesis — that the best way for Democrats to win back power is to focus more on climate — is weak. The problem with his argument is simple: Voters — both old and young — do not consider climate change a top priority. And focusing on an issue that voters care relatively little about isn't a great way to win their support. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. When Gallup asked Americans last year which issues were most important to their vote, climate change ranked 21st out of the 22 issues tested — above transgender rights but below 'relations with Russia.' A separate Gallup survey right before the election asked Americans to name their country's most important problem, and only 2 percent mentioned climate change or the environment. Similarly, in Pew's polling published in February on the biggest problems facing America today, climate change came in at 17th. In his op-ed, Inslee's prime concern is with winning over young voters, on the grounds that declining youth support for Democrats was 'the dynamic that caused' Trump's election. But this is an overstatement. Democrats also lost ground with voters over 30 in 2024. And since older voters far outnumber younger ones, Democrats can't afford to give exclusive consideration to the latter's concerns. This said, young voters' priorities aren't actually that distinct from the broader electorate's. According to AP VoteCast data — which Inslee himself cites — only 8 percent of young voters listed climate change as their No. 1 issue in 2024, while 40 percent named the economy and jobs. The share of younger voters who considered climate change a top three issue is more substantial. In Tufts University's post-election survey of the youth vote, 26 percent of respondents put climate as one of their top three priorities. Yet this still constitutes a small minority of the under-35 voting population. Notably, young Americans who did not cast a ballot in 2024 were especially unlikely to prioritize climate, with only 18 percent putting the issue in their top three. A proponent of Inslee's strategy might blame Democrats for the public's limited concern about climate change. After all, political parties have influence over which issues are and are not salient. If Democrats centered climate change in their messaging, perhaps voters would start prioritizing the issue. But there are a couple problems with this reasoning. First, as Inslee himself writes, Democrats did put climate at the center of their agenda under Biden, making 'historic investments in clean energy' through the Inflation Reduction Act. And Biden and Harris spoke frequently about the need to combat the climate crisis. Yet none of this was sufficient to turn climate change into a top 15 issue for the American public. Second, and most critically, Americans are well aware that the Democratic Party deems climate change a policy priority. In January, when the New York Times and Ipsos asked voters to name the issues that are most important to Democrats, climate came in third. In other words, the party does not need to put greater emphasis on climate in order to convey its commitment to decarbonization — that message is already coming through. And last year, Harris won voters who considered climate change one of their top three issues by 70 points, according to Navigator Research. The problem is simply that such voters aren't very numerous. This is a point that progressive donors and activists are liable to miss, since voters who prioritize climate change are heavily overrepresented in their social circles. According to polling from Democratic data firm Blue Rose research, wealthy and/or 'very liberal' Democrats are much more likely than the broader public to name climate as a top concern. Meanwhile, on the issues that Americans do broadly prioritize — such as the cost of living, the economy, and inflation — Republicans boasted a double-digit advantage in 2024. Focusing more rhetorical energy on climate change is unlikely to enhance Democrats' credibility on bread-and-butter issues. To the contrary, there's reason to fear it would hurt that cause. One of the party's biggest challenges today is that voters don't think Democrats share their priorities. In the Times's poll mentioned above, voters were asked to name their top five issue priorities and then those of the Democratic Party. Respondents said their top issues were the economy, health care, immigration, taxes, and crime — while the Democrats' were abortion, LGBT policy, climate change, the state of democracy, and health care. In other words, they suggested that Democrats weren't focused on their top concerns, with the exception of health care policy. This sense that Democrats are more preoccupied with niche social causes than the middle-class's core material needs surfaces in other survey data. For instance, even after Trump engineered an economic crisis in April with his unpopular tariffs, Quinnipiac still found the public evenly split on the question of which party 'cares more for the needs of people like you.' Making progress on climate requires removing the GOP from power. Thus, were Democrats to put greater emphasis on climate change, they would risk perpetuating the idea that the party does not share ordinary Americans' priorities. And doing so would also risk directly undermining the party's standing on the cost of living. Inslee rightly notes that it is possible to reduce emissions and raise living standards simultaneously. But it's nevertheless true that there are some tensions between cutting carbon pollution and increasing affordability in the near term. The climate movement has sought to block new fossil fuel extraction and transport projects, an objective that would limit the supply of energy in the near term, thereby potentially increasing costs. Therefore, if Democrats signal that climate change is their overriding concern, some voters may conclude that the party isn't committed to keeping gasoline or home heating oil cheap. Or so some polling would suggest. During the Biden administration, Blue Rose gauged the persuasive impact of hundreds of Republican messages by polling voters, exposing them to a conservative argument, and then polling them again to see if any had switched their voting intentions. The firm found that one of the GOP's best attack lines — one that outperformed 90 percent of all other Republican messages — was, 'Since Day 1, Biden has waged war on energy independence. His failed policies, like canceling the Keystone Pipeline, have led to Americans paying higher heating costs.' To be fair to Inslee, he acknowledges that young voters are preoccupied with the cost of living. And his vision for climate policy foregrounds direct material benefits for ordinary people: He touts the fact that Washington's 'cap-and-investment' program has subsidized working families' electric bills and provided young people with free access to transit. This is a fine program. And a national version might deserve a place on Democrats' laundry list of policy proposals. But the idea that the party's most electorally expedient message is one that centers climate change just isn't plausible. This doesn't mean that Democrats should never discuss the climate crisis, or advocate for emissions-reducing policies. But the party should not overestimate the political utility of the issue. Climate change is a top priority for progressive donors and activists — but not for swing voters, old or young. That reality does not render decarbonization any less important. But making progress on climate requires removing the GOP from power. And it will be difficult for Democrats to do that, if they refuse to align their party's priorities with those of the electorate.
Vox
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Can Democrats win over Trump voters with this one issue?
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. Young voters' priorities aren't that different from the broader electorate's — in one survey, only 8 percent of young voters said climate change as their top issue in 2024. Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images Many liberals would like the Democratic Party to put climate change at the center of its messaging and policy agenda. They would also like Democrats to win more elections. In a recent column in the Washington Post, former Washington governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee argued that there is no tension between these two objectives: The best way for Democrats to defeat Republicans is to focus more on bold climate action. Inslee's case can be broken down into three claims: Democrats lost in 2024 largely because their support among younger voters fell sharply. Young voters care about climate change. In fact, according to the Associated Press' polling , 60 percent of young Trump voters are concerned about the climate. Therefore, 'to present a compelling vision to the next generation,' Democrats 'should focus on the issue that simultaneously represents the greatest threat to them and the clearest delineation between the two parties' — climate change. Inslee is right that young voters swung hard against the Democratic Party in 2024. AP VoteCast, a high-quality exit poll, showed Kamala Harris winning voters under 30 by just 4 points. By contrast, Joe Biden won young voters by more than 20 points in 2020. And it's also true that young voters are more worried about climate change than older ones. Nevertheless, the evidence for Inslee's fundamental thesis — that the best way for Democrats to win back power is to focus more on climate — is weak. The problem with his argument is simple: Voters — both old and young — do not consider climate change a top priority. And focusing on an issue that voters care relatively little about isn't a great way to win their support. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Voters – including young ones – do not consider climate change a top priority When Gallup asked Americans last year which issues were most important to their vote, climate change ranked 21st out of the 22 issues tested — above transgender rights but below 'relations with Russia.' A separate Gallup survey right before the election asked Americans to name their country's most important problem, and only 2 percent mentioned climate change or the environment. Similarly, in Pew's polling published in February on the biggest problems facing America today, climate change came in at 17th. In his op-ed, Inslee's prime concern is with winning over young voters, on the grounds that declining youth support for Democrats was 'the dynamic that caused' Trump's election. But this is an overstatement. Democrats also lost ground with voters over 30 in 2024. And since older voters far outnumber younger ones, Democrats can't afford to give exclusive consideration to the latter's concerns. This said, young voters' priorities aren't actually that distinct from the broader electorate's. According to AP VoteCast data — which Inslee himself cites — only 8 percent of young voters listed climate change as their No. 1 issue in 2024, while 40 percent named the economy and jobs. The share of younger voters who considered climate change a top three issue is more substantial. In Tufts University's post-election survey of the youth vote, 26 percent of respondents put climate as one of their top three priorities. Yet this still constitutes a small minority of the under-35 voting population. Notably, young Americans who did not cast a ballot in 2024 were especially unlikely to prioritize climate, with only 18 percent putting the issue in their top three. Voters already know the Democratic Party cares a lot about climate change (and that may be a problem) A proponent of Inslee's strategy might blame Democrats for the public's limited concern about climate change. After all, political parties have influence over which issues are and are not salient. If Democrats centered climate change in their messaging, perhaps voters would start prioritizing the issue. But there are a couple problems with this reasoning. First, as Inslee himself writes, Democrats did put climate at the center of their agenda under Biden, making 'historic investments in clean energy' through the Inflation Reduction Act. And Biden and Harris spoke frequently about the need to combat the climate crisis. Yet none of this was sufficient to turn climate change into a top 15 issue for the American public. Second, and most critically, Americans are well aware that the Democratic Party deems climate change a policy priority. In January, when the New York Times and Ipsos asked voters to name the issues that are most important to Democrats, climate came in third. In other words, the party does not need to put greater emphasis on climate in order to convey its commitment to decarbonization — that message is already coming through. And last year, Harris won voters who considered climate change one of their top three issues by 70 points, according to Navigator Research. The problem is simply that such voters aren't very numerous. This is a point that progressive donors and activists are liable to miss, since voters who prioritize climate change are heavily overrepresented in their social circles. According to polling from Democratic data firm Blue Rose research, wealthy and/or 'very liberal' Democrats are much more likely than the broader public to name climate as a top concern. Meanwhile, on the issues that Americans do broadly prioritize — such as the cost of living, the economy, and inflation — Republicans boasted a double-digit advantage in 2024. Focusing more rhetorical energy on climate change is unlikely to enhance Democrats' credibility on bread-and-butter issues. To the contrary, there's reason to fear it would hurt that cause. One of the party's biggest challenges today is that voters don't think Democrats share their priorities. In the Times's poll mentioned above, voters were asked to name their top five issue priorities and then those of the Democratic Party. Respondents said their top issues were the economy, health care, immigration, taxes, and crime — while the Democrats' were abortion, LGBT policy, climate change, the state of democracy, and health care. In other words, they suggested that Democrats weren't focused on their top concerns, with the exception of health care policy. This sense that Democrats are more preoccupied with niche social causes than the middle-class's core material needs surfaces in other survey data. For instance, even after Trump engineered an economic crisis in April with his unpopular tariffs, Quinnipiac still found the public evenly split on the question of which party 'cares more for the needs of people like you.' Making progress on climate requires removing the GOP from power. Thus, were Democrats to put greater emphasis on climate change, they would risk perpetuating the idea that the party does not share ordinary Americans' priorities. And doing so would also risk directly undermining the party's standing on the cost of living. Inslee rightly notes that it is possible to reduce emissions and raise living standards simultaneously. But it's nevertheless true that there are some tensions between cutting carbon pollution and increasing affordability in the near term. The climate movement has sought to block new fossil fuel extraction and transport projects, an objective that would limit the supply of energy in the near term, thereby potentially increasing costs. Therefore, if Democrats signal that climate change is their overriding concern, some voters may conclude that the party isn't committed to keeping gasoline or home heating oil cheap. Or so some polling would suggest. During the Biden administration, Blue Rose gauged the persuasive impact of hundreds of Republican messages by polling voters, exposing them to a conservative argument, and then polling them again to see if any had switched their voting intentions. The firm found that one of the GOP's best attack lines — one that outperformed 90 percent of all other Republican messages — was, 'Since Day 1, Biden has waged war on energy independence. His failed policies, like canceling the Keystone Pipeline, have led to Americans paying higher heating costs.' Related This is why Kamala Harris really lost Getting Democrats to focus rhetorically on climate – and making actual progress on decarbonization – may be conflicting goals To be fair to Inslee, he acknowledges that young voters are preoccupied with the cost of living. And his vision for climate policy foregrounds direct material benefits for ordinary people: He touts the fact that Washington's 'cap-and-investment' program has subsidized working families' electric bills and provided young people with free access to transit. This is a fine program. And a national version might deserve a place on Democrats' laundry list of policy proposals. But the idea that the party's most electorally expedient message is one that centers climate change just isn't plausible. This doesn't mean that Democrats should never discuss the climate crisis, or advocate for emissions-reducing policies. But the party should not overestimate the political utility of the issue. Climate change is a top priority for progressive donors and activists — but not for swing voters, old or young.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Amidst FEMA staff cuts, worries grow about summer hurricane, tornado seasons
Federal Emergency Management Agency employees are trained to respond to disasters, but have struggled this spring with the situation unfolding at their agency. While they've been deployed to wildfires in Los Angeles, flooding along the Kentucky River and throughout the southeast in response to Hurricane Helene, FEMA workers have watched a roiling turmoil of staff cuts, slashed budgets and threats to dismantle their agency. They're fielding difficult questions from friends, co-workers and disaster victims about what the future holds. 'It's caused a lot of confusion,' said Michael Coen, a FEMA veteran of more than 15 years who left his position as chief of staff on Inauguration Day. At least 2,000 of the agency's roughly 6,100 full-time employees have either left or plan to leave under the waves of terminations and voluntary retirements ordered by Elon Musk's Department of Governmental Efficiency, Coen told USA TODAY. That doesn't include a reduction in force expected to take place in the federal government in the coming weeks. President Donald Trump also has launched an agency review and cut funds for some FEMA grant programs, outraging officials in states where those funds already had been committed. The controversy taps into a long-running debate over the role of states and the federal government in disaster response. It's hard to find a public official who doesn't think the way the nation responds to disasters could be improved, but the 30% cut in its full-time staff raises concerns about whether FEMA will be able to respond to major disasters during the approaching summer storm season that could bring hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires. Jay Inslee, whose term as the Democratic governor of Washington State ended in January, is among those gravely concerned about FEMA's ability to respond. 'Gutting FEMA is just going to make more and more families have to be living under blue tarps for years, and not to have the financial assistance they deserve when they pay their taxes," Inslee said. 'I'm outraged on their behalf.' Major disasters require federal resources, and state and local governments cannot cope on their own, said Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists 'With the summer danger season of extreme weather, including climate-fueled disasters, getting underway soon, these attacks on FEMA could not come at a worse time,' Udvardy said. "Congress must push back assertively on these egregious plans in a bipartisan way ‒ disasters do not discriminate based on politics.' When enormous natural disasters befall communities, especially small ones, they just don't have the local resources, Inslee said. 'It's basically everybody pitching in together from the county to the Red Cross to the state, to the federal government.' FEMA's remaining full-time employees, even those who work at headquarters and don't typically deploy, have been warned to be ready to deploy to disasters this summer. The agency has been short-staffed for years, federal documents show. The staff flexes up and down as the need arises, with roughly 12,000 employees who respond as reservists or local temporary hires. Among the cuts this year to the permanent employees were 200 probationary staff, dismissed because they had been either recently hired or recently promoted. Coen said another 800 took the 'fork-in-the-road' plan that placed employees on administrative leave with pay until the end of the summer, when they'd lose their jobs. 'A lot of people with the agency were just exhausted,' he said. 'Last year was a very challenging year for FEMA employees with all the disasters that took place, plus all the (Hurricane) Helene misinformation.' In the aftermath of Helene, some FEMA officials found their personal information had been made public on the web, and some were threatened. 'Getting rid of FEMA:' Takeaways from Trump's trip to two disaster zones The inauguration opened a new chapter. Trump had been critical of FEMA during the campaign, and his first official trip was to visit the Helene disaster zone in western North Carolina, where he said the administration was "very disappointed" in FEMA. After information was leaked from one early meeting with the new FEMA officials, at least a dozen staff members were asked to submit to lie detector tests, Coen said. Employees are afraid to talk, even to former colleagues, because they're afraid they might be subjected to a lie detector, Coen said. 'If the head of the agency isn't even respected by the Secretary's office, if he's being subjected to a lie detector test, you know, why would I stay here?' Even some of the younger staff are thinking, 'I don't need this anxiety," he said. FEMA responds to every major natural disaster, assessing damage and providing assistance under pre-established guidelines and state agreements. In Washington State, "FEMA has been a tremendous, absolutely essential partner," Inslee said. "From a boots-on-the-ground perspective, FEMA has been incredibly valuable." In recent years, FEMA has seen an enormous increase in the number of disasters that require a response. That's, in part, because the number of extreme weather events is rising, with more intense rainfall and larger wildfires brought on by climate change, Inslee said. That's backed up by numerous federal reports. The scope and complexity of disasters are also growing because more people live in vulnerable areas, where they're more exposed to storms and fires. In the current fiscal year, the agency carries financial obligations for 30 major disasters, dating back to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, according to its February 2025 monthly report. Its actual and estimated total obligations for those disasters are around $57 billion. Its budget authority for this year was $33 million. The agency's reputation has struggled in part because FEMA meets people when they are likely to be at their lowest, most desperate point, and, in part, because its mission is often misunderstood, Coen said. FEMA is supposed to function primarily as a backstop for people who don't have insurance. It covers uninsured losses, so if you have homeowners insurance, "you're probably not going to be eligible," he said. "That frustrates people who feel like they did everything right." Victims often expect FEMA to be there first, even though the agency must wait to be requested by state government. That message is often hammered home by emergency management officials, who remind residents to store enough supplies for five to seven days after a disaster. What does FEMA do? What to know after Trump considers 'getting rid' of agency The agency's mission has evolved and it walks a tightrope at times between trying to battle fraud and not attach so many rules that money can't get where it needs to. State and local officials often refer to the recovery phase as the "disaster after the disaster." A General Accounting Office Report in 2022 made numerous suggestions for addressing "red tape" in disaster recovery. Coen said a prime example of the misunderstandings is the frustration from states where the Trump administration recently denied claims for disaster assistance and denied extensions of certain assistance in others. "I'm personally not critical of that," he said. When the federal government takes the bulk of the financial responsibility, it often slows down recovery, he said, adding that when new bridges or other infrastructures are complete, other officials and organizations sometimes take credit and forget to acknowledge FEMA's role. By executive order on Jan. 24, Trump ordered a "full-scale review" of FEMA. Federal responses to Helene and other disasters "demonstrate the need to drastically improve" the agency's efficiency, priorities and competence, his executive order stated.. Appointees to the review council, announced April 28, will be tasked with taking a sweeping look at everything from disaster aid during periods before and after FEMA, the traditional role of states and citizens in securing life, liberty and property and how FEMA could serve as a support agency if the states were in control of disaster relief. They're expected to make recommendations to Trump for improvements or structural changes to promote the national interest and enable national resilience. Members include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Florida's emergency management chief Kevin Guthrie and Tampa, Florida, Mayor Jane Castor. Noem already has stated she wants to eliminate FEMA. On Truth Social, Trump posted: "I know that the new Members will work hard to fix a terribly broken System, and return power to State Emergency Managers." Udvardy, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is among many who agree there's room for reform at the federal agency. Genuine reforms, she said, "should be informed by science, expertise, and the experiences of disaster survivors." Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. The start of the Atlantic hurricane season is just a month away. Dinah Voyles Pulver covers climate change, disasters and the environment for USA TODAY. Reach her at dpulver@ or @dinahvp on Bluesky or X or dinahvp.77 on Signal. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: FEMA staff gutted as nation debates agency's future
Time Magazine
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Washington Governor Jay Inslee on the Power of Local Action
Jay Inslee believes in the power of local action—even in overcoming national pushback. 'Right now, we know these are hard days. We've got a person in the White House who must have been scared by wind turbines as a young man,' the three-term Democratic governor of Washington State said at the 2025 TIME Earth Awards on April 23. 'But despite the bad news coming out of Washington, D.C., we have a magic vehicle for progress that is the states.' Despite the President withdrawing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and dismantling climate initiatives across the country, 'Donald Trump cannot stop a state from defeating climate change,' Inslee said. In 2021, Inslee signed into law Washington's Climate Commitment Act, which requires the state's largest polluters to cap emissions and purchase allowances for the amount they pollute, which the state reinvests into clean energy. He has passed laws requiring a 100% clean—meaning generated from renewable or zero-carbon resources—electrical grid by 2045, invested billions of dollars into solar power and electric vehicles, and launched state programs to help businesses and residents transition to clean energy. President and CEO of American Forests, the oldest forest conservation non-governmental organization in the U.S., Jad Daley, who presented the award to Inslee, said Inslee's leadership is 'needed now more than ever.' 'The Governor's leadership in Washington State alone would merit this award,' Daley said. But Inslee 'went a pivotal step further' in 2017—when Trump first tried to withdraw from the Paris Agreement—by co-founding the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states that pledged to maintain pace with the goals set forth in the accord. Member states include Michigan, where Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law an extensive climate package in 2023 that would push the state towards 100% clean energy by 2040, and Maine, where Gov. Janet Mills has signed multiple clean energy and solar power bills. 'The cheapest electricity today is clean energy,' Inslee said. 'We are the answer to inflation, to give people cheap, inexpensive, clean energy.' Inslee ended on a call to action. 'This is the United States, and every one of those states has the capability of advancing clean energy and fighting climate change,' Inslee said. 'I'm tired of playing defense. We need to play offense right now.'
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jay Inslee Accepts 2025 TIME Earth Award
Jay Inslee on May 18, 2023. Credit - Steph Chambers—Getty Images Jay Inslee believes in the power of local action—even in overcoming national pushback. 'Right now, we know these are hard days. We've got a person in the White House who must have been scared by wind turbines as a young man,' the three-term Democratic governor of Washington State said at the 2025 TIME Earth Awards on April 23. 'But despite the bad news coming out of Washington, D.C., we have a magic vehicle for progress that is the states.' Despite the President withdrawing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and dismantling climate initiatives across the country, 'Donald Trump cannot stop a state from defeating climate change,' Inslee said. In 2021, Inslee signed into law Washington's Climate Commitment Act, which requires the state's largest polluters to cap emissions and purchase allowances for the amount they pollute, which the state reinvests into clean energy. He has passed laws requiring a 100% clean—meaning generated from renewable or zero-carbon resources—electrical grid by 2045, invested billions of dollars into solar power and electric vehicles, and launched state programs to help businesses and residents transition to clean energy. President and CEO of American Forests, the oldest forest conservation non-governmental organization in the U.S., Jad Daley, who presented the award to Inslee, said Inslee's leadership is 'needed now more than ever.' 'The Governor's leadership in Washington State alone would merit this award,' Daley said. But Inslee 'went a pivotal step further' in 2017—when Trump first tried to withdraw from the Paris Agreement—by co-founding the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states that pledged to maintain pace with the goals set forth in the accord. Member states include Michigan, where Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law an extensive climate package in 2023 that would push the state towards 100% clean energy by 2040, and Maine, where Gov. Janet Mills has signed multiple clean energy and solar power bills. 'The cheapest electricity today is clean energy,' Inslee said. 'We are the answer to inflation, to give people cheap, inexpensive, clean energy.' Inslee ended on a call to action. 'This is the United States, and every one of those states has the capability of advancing clean energy and fighting climate change,' Inslee said. 'I'm tired of playing defense. We need to play offense right now.' TIME Earth Awards was presented by Official Timepiece Rolex and Galvanize Climate Solutions. Contact us at letters@
