### Senator JD Vance Revives Old Arguments Against Climate Change at VP Debate

During the recent vice-presidential debate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) unveiled a refreshed version of the Republican stance against taking climate change seriously. His arguments were notably reminiscent of those posited by the GOP a decade ago. This debate followed the devastating impacts of Hurricane Helene, which intensified rapidly due to unusually warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico, bringing climate change into sharp focus.

Vance was the first to address the climate change issue when questioned on how a potential second term for Donald Trump would tackle the crisis. He began by showing empathy for the regions affected by Hurricane Helene, then acknowledged the growing public concern over unusual weather patterns. Despite affirming that climate change is a significant issue, Vance quickly pivoted to the broader topic of environmental quality, echoing Trump’s longstanding rhetoric emphasizing clean air and water.

Vance somewhat conceded the point by stipulating, for argument's sake, that carbon-dioxide emissions drive global warming. He underscored the necessity for the U.S. to reshore manufacturing and increase domestic energy production, claiming the U.S. has the "cleanest economy in the entire world." He criticized the Biden administration's policies for shifting energy production and manufacturing to places like China, suggesting this undermines global environmental efforts due to less stringent regulations abroad.

However, Vance's argument overlooks a crucial historical context. During Barack Obama's presidency, the U.S. had an opportunity to lead in clean energy manufacturing. Obama’s administration aimed to invest $150 billion over a decade into renewable energy projects like wind and solar power, as part of a broader strategy to create jobs and modernize the economy. This initiative, however, faced staunch opposition from congressional Republicans and political pressure from the fossil fuel industry.

The resistance peaked during Obama's re-election campaign in 2012, particularly with the fallout from Solyndra's bankruptcy—a solar company that had received federal loan guarantees. Republicans leveraged this incident to argue against government subsidies for green technology, thus stalling progress and allowing foreign competitors to dominate the clean energy market.

In a pointed response, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) highlighted how current efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act are working to boost clean energy job creation domestically, including in Ohio and Minnesota. He also noted that these advancements are happening alongside increased domestic oil and gas production. Walz took the opportunity to recall Trump's past dismissals of climate change as a "hoax" and his cozy relationship with oil industry executives, underscoring the contrast between the Democratic and Republican approaches to energy policy.

Ultimately, Vance's position serves to galvanize support for Trump by framing climate action as economically detrimental and hypocritical, a strategy reinforced by the Republican Party's stance a decade earlier. This well-rehearsed argument might still resonate with voters wary of the economic implications of green energy transitions.