Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Speaker Mike Johnson is out of step with Americans, and his constituents, on climate change

Opinion

Speaker Mike Johnson

Speaker Mike Johnson never voted in favor of pro-environment legislation in 2022, writes Fine.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Fine is the project manager for the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and a Public Voices Fellow on the Climate Crisis.

When it comes to climate change, newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson may be on the same page as many of his fellow Republican lawmakers, but his views are far from those of most of his constituents in Louisiana, as well as most Republican voters and 81 of Johnson’s Republican colleagues who make up the Conservative Climate Caucus.

According to the League of Conservation Voters, Johnson never voted for pro-environment legislation in 2022 while the American Energy Alliance gave him a 100 percent rating in 2022. This is not surprising as the oil and gas industry has provided more funding to Johnson over his political career than any other industry.

Yet Louisiana is impacted by climate change in real time. The state just had its hottest and third driest summer on record, creating prime conditions for 500 large fires in August alone, which is almost the yearly state average. Most adults in Louisiana understand that climate change is happening and that it’s affecting the weather, and they are worried about it.


The majority of Louisianans say Congress should do more to address climate change. Yet when Congress passed its most significant climate legislation to date, the Inflation Reduction Act, Johnson relabeled it the “Inflation Expansion Act” and tweeted that it would “send hundreds of billions of tax dollars to green energy slush funds.”

Support for the legislation is high across the country with 71 percent of American voters supporting the IRA, including 57 percent of liberal and moderate Republicans. Despite strong support for the meaure, one of the first actions in the House under Johnson’s leadership was to pass a bill cutting key pieces of the legislation. This is despite the fact that the IRA will bring $1.2 billion in investment and about one thousand new jobs to his home state for new major clean energy projects. Nationally, there is more investment in red states than in blue states thanks to the IRA.

In a 2017 town hall, Johnson claimed the climate is changing due to natural cycles in the atmosphere, not “because we drive SUVs.” Virtually all climate scientists disagree and only 28 percent of Americans agree with Johnson that climate change is mostly caused by natural changes in the environment. Those in the audience did not appear to be on the same page as Johnson either. Also, while Louisianans may indeed be driving SUVs, 74 percent of them support tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles.

Unlike Johnson, many Republican voters and members of Congress want climate action. Twenty-seven percent of Republican voters are alarmed or concerned about climate change. They tend to be Republicans who are younger, female, moderates, people of color, or they live in suburban areas. Over the past 10 years, Republicans increasingly have said that global warming will harm people in the United States, with 64 percent of liberal and moderate Republicans and 32 percent of conservative Republicans currently holding this view.

Across party lines, from Louisiana to Los Angeles, the majority of people want a stable climate and support climate solutions. Our chances of successfully tackling climate change drop drastically with Mike Johnson as speaker of the House, given the power he exerts on the legislative process. If you, like most of the country, want cleaner air and a bright future for our kids, demand that our leaders in Congress listen to the will of the people, not lobbyist interests.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less