The climate messaging war returns. Does it matter if we can’t build?

The climate messaging war returns. Does it matter if we can’t build?

May 29, 2026 · 1h 7m

About this episode

The episode discusses the political implications of climate change messaging and the challenges of building necessary infrastructure for the transition.

A familiar debate is reemerging in US politics: is it helpful or damaging to talk about climate change? It broke into the open when the New York Times published an op-ed from Matthew Huber arguing that Democrats should avoid talking about climate change. His case: climate carries far too much political baggage for working class voters that Democrats are trying to win back. It sparked a conversation over whether "climate hushing" is a savvy political strategy or a dangerous concession. This week, we take the debate head-on. Guest co-host Jane Flegal joins us to talk about the latest version of this argument, and whether dropping the climate frame is a smart tactical pivot. Then we turn to a more fundamental problem. Even if we land on the perfect climate frame, it may not matter if the U.S. can't actually build the infrastructure the transition requires. A sweeping new essay in American Affairs argues that both parties have become functionally obstructionist — and that “ideologically portable” obstruction has become a feature of American governance. We close with a look at an opening in philanthropy. Nan Ransohoff published a piece this month arguing that AI company wealth is…

People in this episode

Hosts: Stephen Lacey, Jigar Shah

Guest: Jane Flegal

Topics covered

Keywords

Mentioned in this episode

Organizations: New York Times, American Affairs, Latitude Media

More episodes of Open Circuit

Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Open Circuit podcast page.