How Should Progressive US Midterm Candidates Frame Their Arguments About Climate Change?

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

Progressives are already working hard to win back the US House of Representatives in 2026 as a fundamental piece of the “Stop Trump” strategy. The politicalization of climate change means that there is much at stake for climate activists in the upcoming election, as its results will help to shape the final two years of climate policy under the Trump administration. That means everything from “energy dominance” to FEMA, offshore wind, climate superfunds, endangered species, air and water quality, and so much more.

How should progressive candidates tackle the existential crisis of climate change in their upcoming campaign speeches? The language of a net zero society can be invigorating or alienating, hopeful or dark. All too often, climate action is posed as a binary, an either–or stipulation that quickly divides audiences.

It’s instructive to look to the ways that activists from different climate camps typically frame their arguments. You might think that climate advocates rely on lots of information to back up their arguments and that climate skeptics focus on anger and disgust to rile up their audiences.

You would be right on both guesses. And, yet, you’d also be wrong. It’s a lesson to which midterm politicians should pay attention.

Approaches to Climate Messaging: Republicans vs. Democrats

How do advocates and opponents of climate action intentionally design their messaging? How do messengers operationalize obstruction and action in their climate change communications? The results may surprise you.

• Climate advocates: Focus on solutions and aim to inspire fear and sadness in readers. Emphasize pragmatism and economics. Often invoke a crisis but are also more likely to express positive emotions and optimism.
• Climate skeptics: Emphasize anti-elite rhetoric and seek to trigger anger and disgust. Lean most heavily on science in their communications strategy — more than 70% of skeptic discourse employ a scientific or technical frame. Deploy images with science-y vibes to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change.

It is commonly accepted that conservatives adhere to rhetorical strategies of denial and delay of action. It turns out that 93% of Republican posts reflect “discourses of delay,” aimed at slowing or avoiding climate action such as policies, regulations, and other actions to meaningfully address the causes and impacts of climate change. It’s been well chronicled that climate change deniers run the same playbook used by the tobacco industry to deny carcinogenic links to their product.

As sociology professor Jeremiah Bohr at the University Wisconsin Oshkosh lists, “attack the experts” is right up there with climate deniers. So is “launch personal attacks on opponents,” such as framing an email scandal to maximize political gain. More tactics include:

• Delegitimize mainstream media sources.
• Cast yourself as the savior of traditional American life.

Such climate denial is the result of Big Oil actors who pursue private gain, hide information from the public, and push negative externalities onto society.

Meanwhile, 97% of Democrats’ posts, including those from US members of Congress affiliated with the Democratic Party, promote “discourses of action.” Democrats post far more frequently on social media about climate change than do Republicans, with most of this progressive content aimed toward supporting climate action. Social media has exerted a growing influence on political discourse and policy agenda setting within the US. Indeed, the rise of social media requires rethinking how traditional legacy and new media frame environmental coverage.

Yet Bohr argues that “fact-checking and communicating the scientific consensus regarding climate change insufficiently counters the power of misinformation campaigns, partly because climate change denial belongs to the same polarizing trends that establish ‘post-truth’ discursive spaces.”

Bohr’s acknowledgement about polarization is significant for 2026 midterm candidates. It’s clear that progressive politicians need to identify effective climate communication approaches if they want to win over audiences.

A Middle-of-the-Road Philosophy for Climate?

Perhaps this year’s Democratic midterm candidates will be more in tune with voters than pundits concede. In fact, research suggests that not all Democrats’ posts about climate action are straightforward. Congressional representatives tend to discuss environmental issues along the political-economic lines that characterize their districts. Some Democrats give the thumbs up to climate action in hazy expressions or without specific solutions. Sometimes they couch the issue within discussion of other topics. As a result, such climate rhetoric is a mere suggestion to an audience to take or delay action — it’s all up to the interpretation.

Is opaqueness necessarily a bad thing for 2026 midterm candidates? No. Studies indicate that a middle ground may invite in more interested listeners. Audience members who feel uncertain about midterm candidates’ positions on climate may feel obliged to open up active, two-way dialogue, which then strengthens ownership of climate action as a pivotal campaign issue.

In essence, it no longer works with climate messaging to distinguish between “individual” and “structural” approaches to decarbonization. While it is absolutely beneficial for the environment for individuals to reduce their own carbon footprint, changes to institutions, laws, and other social structures are also necessary to bring about substantive climate progress. Midterm candidates this year would be wise not to posit these two approaches as oppositional; rather, it’s time to reframe individual and structural reform as symbiotic and interdependent.

The Benefits of Renewables: Speaking Voters’ Language

Here are some lessons that can gently be infused into progressive midterm candidates’ stump speeches that can resonate with audiences. Renewable energy is a good thing because it is:

• Less expensive. With economic concerns and energy costs ranking high on voters’ concerns, cost is a imperative point to reinforce. Onshore wind and utility‑scale solar photovoltaic installations are cheaper than new fossil fuel plants for communities. Spend fewer tax dollars for more.
• Unassailable. Global conflicts don’t have the impact on renewables that they do on the fossil fuel international supply chains. Sun, wind, and thermal energy are available domestically and don’t experience financial tremors of wars and political disputes.
• Robust. Grid need to evolve from fossil fuels to a mix of renewable sources, as diverse grids are more resilient. Just look at the way Europe has embraced clean energy rather than to succumb to fossil fuel deficits imposed by Russia.
• State-of-the-art. Setting aside the global warming approach may work better for midterm candidates. So explaining how a community can transition to contemporary, proven, and forward-thinking. In 2025, records were broken for US green energy generation, so that solar and wind remain the fastest-growing electricity source in the country.
• Productive. We waste about two-thirds of all the energy in the coal, oil, and methane we extract from the Earth every year. More efficient end use — electric cars and heat pumps — and new clean supply technologies — solar and wind — all undercut fossil fuels where they are at their weakest — rampant inefficiency.

Final Thoughts

Like humans themselves, the body of research about best climate change discoursal approaches to win over audiences is complex. Yes, we respond to emotional messaging, yet our reactions to climate change rhetoric is more unpredictable than expected.

Educating and mobilizing audiences to take action to confront the climate crisis is no easy task. If we want to infuse greater climate understanding with the people around us, we must be self-reflective about the way we talk — from how we design a thought to how we present arguments. Clear messaging can help.

But understanding the nuances of climate persuasion will have great value to midterm candidates in the upcoming 2026 elections, as candidates have the potential to reach new audiences and inspire new understandings — about climate and our world.

Resources

• “How do US politicians communicate about climate change on X? Examining discourses of delay and action.” L. McAllister, et al. Climatic Change. 2026.
• “Individualism, structuralism, and climate change.” M. Brownstein, et al. 2022. Environmental Communication. 2022.
• “The emotional contradictions of climate messaging.” Sarah DeWeerdt. Anthropocene. March 31, 2026.
• “The new language of clean power.” Corporate Knights. April 2, 2026.
• “Reading the climate room through unsupervised analysis of unfiltered climate perspectives.” L. Sweeney, et al. Scientific Reports. 2026.
• “The structure and culture of climate change denial.” Jeremiah Bohr. Footnotes: American Sociological Society. 2026.