[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now, a follow-up on the climate section of the presidential debate. You could be forgiven for asking what climate section as it came right at the end before the closing arguments and was really short. What's more, the moderator's question was about climate, but the candidates' answers turned into an exchange about manufacturing jobs, not protecting the world from potentially catastrophic warming. Here is the full exchange, beginning with a question from ABC's Linsey Davis.

Linsey Davis: We have another issue that we'd like to get to that's important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters, and that's climate change. President Trump, with regard to the environment, you say that we have to have clean air and clean water. Vice President Harris, you call climate change an existential threat. The question to you both tonight is, what would you do to fight climate change? Vice President Harris, we'll start with you. One minute for you each.

Kamala Harris: Well, the former president had said climate change is a hoax. What we know is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences, who now is either being denied home insurance or is being jacked up. You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go. We know that we can actually deal with this issue. The young people of America care deeply about this issue. I am proud that as vice president, over the last four years, we have invested $1 trillion in a clean energy economy, while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.

We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have been vice president. We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs, he lost manufacturing jobs. I'm also proud to have the endorsement of the United Auto Workers and Shawn Fain, who also know that part of building a clean energy economy includes investing in American-made products, American automobiles. It includes growing what we can do around American manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like happened under Donald Trump.

Linsey Davis: Vice President Harris, thank you.

Donald Trump: That didn't happen under Donald Trump. Let me just tell you, they lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month. They're building big auto plants in Mexico, in many cases owned by China. They're building these massive plants, and they think they're going to sell their cars into the United States because of these people. What they have given to China is unbelievable, but we're not going to let that. We'll put tariffs on those cars so they can't come into our country because they will kill the United Auto Workers and any autoworker, whether it's in Detroit or South Carolina or any other place.

What they've done to business and manufacturing in this country is horrible. We have nothing because they refuse-- Biden doesn't go after people because supposedly China paid him millions of dollars. He's afraid to do it, between him and his son. They get all this money from Ukraine. They get all this money from all of these different countries, and then you wonder, why is he so loyal to this one, that one, Ukraine, China? Why is he? Why did he get $3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow's wife? Why did she pay him $3.5 million? This is a crooked administration, and they're selling our country down the tubes.

Linsey Davis: President Trump, thank you.

Brian Lehrer: That was it after the question, what would you do to fight climate change? Let's talk to two reporters, one who covers what they did debate after that question about the climate, and one who covers what they didn't. Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter for the New York Times. Ben Lefebvre, energy, including climate implications reporter for Politico. Alan and Ben, thanks for joining us. Welcome to WNYC.

Ben Lefebvre: Thank you. Glad to be here.

Alan Rappeport: Thanks for having us.

Brian Lehrer: Alan, be patient for a few minutes because I'll start with Ben, who covers what the question was supposed to be about. Ben, the small part of Vice President Harris's answer that was responsive to the question was this line, "I am proud that as vice president, over the last four years, we have invested $1 trillion in a clean energy economy, while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels." Would you say she was trying to have it both ways, like telling climate-concerned Americans she's on this and at the same time reassuring people who think eliminating fossil fuels will make their lives more expensive and less convenient that she's with them, too?

Ben Lefebvre: Yes. I think that's definitely the way that they put it. The Biden administration is trying to make this argument that, yes, climate change is important, but we also heard President Biden say earlier on in his administration was they're also trying to frame it as jobs, jobs, jobs. They don't want to come out and say anything that'll indicate that they're trying to kill the fossil fuel industry, but they are trying to say how that would impact people's fuel prices. They are trying to say, look, we are putting our thumb on the scale for green energy development, and that's our plan. Not saying that would result in massive layoffs anywhere.

Brian Lehrer: Can you say, in brief, if that balance of investing in a clean energy economy while increasing domestic gas production to historic levels does anything on balance for greenhouse gas emissions? It could sound like we're just creating all the energy we can in every way that we can. She didn't even try to give a net carbon scorecard or anything like that. Is there one she could have given from all this clean energy development and all this simultaneous fossil fuels extraction?

Ben Lefebvre: She could have mentioned how the rate of green energy production in the US has really gone up. She could have mentioned that a little bit more. As far as a carbon scorecard, I don't think she was going to get into that level of weeds. You have to remember this is a presidential debate for a general audience, and I think what the Harris campaign is trying to focus on is let's try to make this as broad a issue as we can and not either make voters think she's too wonky or make them turn off the TV because there's getting to be too many numbers.

One thing I thought that was interesting that she got into, part of her reply was trying to actually get this green energy debate or climate change debate to really land concretely with voters. She mentioned that it's a checkbook issue. She mentioned people's insurance rates are going to go up because it's harder to insure homes in California, for example.

I think she's trying to get away from making this an abstract issue more into, look, climate change is actually affecting your lives.

We can argue about the rate of trying to dial it back, but again, we have invested trillions of dollars in energy projects that eventually, if the market continues to do what it's doing, will result in more green energy development, and less fossil fuel consumption.

Brian Lehrer: Making it sound like this is going to help you rather than take your medicine because we have to do this for the future. Now let's go to former President Trump's answer. You wrote that much as he did in his debate with Biden, Trump did not dwell on the subject of climate and instead segued into auto manufacturing. Now, in fairness, Harris set him up to do that because she answered first and made that explicit segue into auto manufacturing and her endorsement by the United Auto Workers union. Then it was Trump's turn to respond, so he responded to that. Did his answer also continue a pattern of nonresponsiveness on climate as your line about that indicates?

Ben Lefebvre: I would think from the Trump campaign, it was almost a watch. He didn't go into his previous statements of climate change being a hoax perpetrated by China. It was just more-- He didn't engage with it at all. He could have, As you mentioned, Harris segued into manufacturing. Trump could have just gone back and said whatever he wanted to say about climate change. Honestly, his campaign aids probably sighed a relief that at least he didn't call it a hoax again.

Brian Lehrer: Harris said that he has said that climate change is a hoax. As far as you know, does he say that today?

Ben Lefebvre: Again, he doesn't really engage with it. Also, when he does get into-- I don't even want to say he gets into climate, he gets in environmental things. In the previous debate, he said we had the best H2O. We have clean air, which doesn't necessarily-

Brian Lehrer: It's different answer.

Ben Lefebvre: Exactly. He hasn't really brought up climate change as a thing in recent campaign stops that I've heard and I've monitored considerably-

Brian Lehrer: What he does bring up is his mantra, drill, baby, drill. Maybe that's his way of saying, in your face, climate activists. I'm going all in on fossil fuels and in your face, you woke climate people.

Ben Lefebvre: It's funny. While the oil industry didn't necessarily do very well under Trump because of the trade wars, because of COVID, the oil guys do like that Trump has always been a big cheerleader for them, slapping their backs and drill, baby, drill, and all that. It's interesting, as you mentioned, the industry is reaching record levels of gas production, oil production now under the Biden administration, but Trump is the one going on about drill, baby, drill, and how much better things would be if he had still been president.

Brian Lehrer: If you're just joining us, we're following up on Tuesday night's debate by looking at the short climate section of the debate, which the candidates answered more in terms of a debate over who's creating more manufacturing jobs than over climate per se. That's why we have two reporters with us, Ben Lefebvre from Politico, who more covers climate, and now we turn to Alan Rappeport, economic policy reporter for The New York Times, to his reporting beat, for the question they actually did debate, which was less climate. Harris quickly, as I say, took it to this economic development topic, and here again, is that part of her answer.

She said, "We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I've been vice president. We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs, he lost manufacturing jobs. I'm also proud to have the endorsement of the United Auto Workers and Shawn Fain, who also know that part of building a clean energy economy includes investing in American-made products, American automobiles. It includes growing what we can do around American manufacturing and opening up auto plants, not closing them like what happened under Donald Trump."

Alan, first question, is the Biden-Harris climate policy actually a manufacturing jobs creator?

Alan Rappeport: That's definitely the way that they've tried to sell it and pitch it to the American people. You've seen that in some of the logic behind some of the tariffs that they've continued under President Trump and even increased out of concern that people will not go for this clean energy transition if the jobs are not going to be there. They made the pitch that this is a big job creation and manufacturing job creation push.

I think if you look at some of the numbers that they were talking about during the debate, there was definitely a lot of cherry-picking going on of numbers that they wanted to focus on and other factors that they didn't want to focus on. You heard President Trump mention the 10,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the last month. There has been some leveling off under the Biden-Harris administration in recent months, but there was a big increase of about 800,000 in the first two years of the administration, although I think a lot of that, as Trump has said previously, is related to some snapback hiring as the pandemic receded.

He lost a ton of jobs around 2020 in manufacturing and otherwise, and some of these came back. Just because the keys to the economy were handed over doesn't mean that necessarily Biden and Harris deserve credit for all of that boost.

Brian Lehrer: You're saying both of their stats were true, I guess, and it depends what lens you want to look for for your side's political advantage. Harris's stat that this administration has created over 800,000 manufacturing jobs. You're saying true but remember we shut down the economy at the beginning of COVID. A lot of those jobs were just from the reopening. Trump saying that they lost 10,000 jobs on Biden-Harris's watch just last month, is that actually true? The employment report the other day for the month of August, it still showed a net gain in jobs, just a smaller net gain than people expected. Did the United States lose 10,000 manufacturing jobs last month?

Alan Rappeport: It's not clear which month he was referring to. He could have been talking about July. I guess there is a lag in those numbers. I think another interesting thing was the fact that he excludes the pandemic when he's talking about his own manufacturing record. If you look at the first two years under the Trump administration, there was a big increase of about 400,000 manufacturing jobs, and then that started to level off just ahead of the pandemic. If you do include the pandemic, he had a net loss of manufacturing jobs during his term.

I think one other interesting thing to note, though, is that if you look at the manufacturing jobs in these key swing states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, on balance, those are down from where they were at the pre-pandemic level. I think what you're seeing is definitely this shift during the Biden years of manufacturing and factory construction to the Sun Belt areas and other parts of the South where companies have been taking advantage of a lot of this Inflation Reduction Act legislation, tax credits, and some of the infrastructure money that's out there.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. What about what Trump tried to hang it on, which is, "They're building big auto plants in Mexico, in many cases owned by China, and they think they're going to sell their cars into the United States because of these people." These people, meaning Biden Harris. "What they have given to China is unbelievable, but we're not going to let that. We'll put tariffs on those cars so they can't come into our country because they will kill the United Auto Workers and any auto worker."

There are several claims in that to fact check. Are manufacturing jobs from the swing states or any other states going to Mexico and particularly in the auto industry during Biden-Harris any differently from under Trump?

Alan Rappeport: It definitely is an issue that I think both parties are concerned about. Chinese manufacturers trying to set up shop in Mexico so they can get around some of these US tariffs and bring in products from Mexico, it's something that-

Brian Lehrer: Because we have lower tariffs from Mexico than we do directly from China. Is that it?

Alan Rappeport: Exactly. I think a lot of this will have to be relitigated when the USMCA, which was the big trade deal, the revision of NAFTA that Trump negotiated, is going to have to be updated around 2026. This is something that they're going to be focusing on. There was actually some news today, the Biden administration is trying to tighten some of these restrictions to prevent China from sending stuff directly in small packages to the United States to get around tariffs.

I think tightening these tariffs and some of these loopholes that have become available to China or that they've realized is something that both parties are pretty worried about, and it definitely has been happening the last couple of years under Biden's watch.

Brian Lehrer: This question can be for both of you, the economic policy reporter and the energy and climate reporter. They tussled there in that exchange over the United Auto Workers and whose policies would be more in the UAW members interests. Harris cited that she got the UAW president Shawn Fain's endorsement on behalf of the union. Trump said they will kill the United Auto Workers and any auto worker. I don't know if this is in your portfolio, Ben, covering energy, but why did the UAW endorse Harris? Is it because of jobs in the energy-related auto-making sector, or is it more because the Democrats are more union-friendly in their labor policies, or maybe some of both?

Ben Lefebvre: I think it's some of both. You have to remember, Biden went on to a picket line when the UAW was striking. He was very vocal about his support of that strike. The Democrats have made it easier to organize unions. There are numbers showing that as the auto industry moves more towards making electric vehicles, there won't be quite as many automotive jobs involved, but I think the union is saying, "Look, if we get a President Trump, this guy hasn't done anything for unions. We're just going to be up a certain creek."

I think they're expecting the administration to help union members in different ways that maybe help pay and benefits that don't necessarily have to do with the exact number of jobs at auto factories.

Brian Lehrer: Alan, same question.

Alan Rappeport: I definitely agree that Democrats appearing to be more union and labor-friendly has helped them get these big union endorsements. I think there's definitely also concern that, as Ben said, electric vehicles will be more ripe for automation and on the longer term, that could end up costing auto workers jobs. I think on the other hand, there's definitely a long-term push towards electrification. I think the Biden administration has been trying to help the US auto industry get a foothold in this sector, particularly as China has become so dominant.

There is a lot of protectionism in place to keep Chinese cars out of the United States at this point, but just in terms of longer term, globally, if the United States is going to compete, they think that these incentives are really important for helping them to do so.

Brian Lehrer: The kinds of tariffs that Trump was promoting in that answer are actually bipartisan? Biden did keep some Trump tariffs. On this point, is there basic agreement?

Alan Rappeport: There pretty much is basic agreement right now on most of the tariffs. The Biden administration kept those tariffs pretty much in place and then has actually increased a lot of them in the last few months, and some of those are starting to take effect in the coming months. I think there is some bipartisan agreement here that protectionism, particularly on the auto industry and as it relates to China, is something that is a concern among both parties.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a text message from a listener. Ben, this would be more for you. Listener writes, "Can you explain, since the majority of climate disasters occur in red states, hurricanes, floods, fires, why the red state voters continue to vote against their own economic interests as the planet warms? Why is this ignored in debate after debate?" That listener adds. How would you answer that question? Do you accept the premise that the majority of climate disasters occur in red states?

Ben Lefebvre: I don't know if I'd say the majority of them happen. California is definitely not a red state, and it had its fair share of wildfires. New York has had flooding. We had this huge heat wave in DC this past summer. As far as why red states are maybe seen as championing climate change or legislation that would offset climate change, I think that's been a cultural thing. It's been interesting to see how younger Republicans are said to be more involved in wanting to do something about climate change.

One of the things that got me on the debate stage on this, too, was Harris mentioned-- She called climate change, she said, "We can deal with this issue," which I think was trying to make climate change an issue that younger conservatives could get around instead of just getting into like this is an existential crisis where a lot of red state lawmakers will say this is overblown talk. It very well could be an existential crisis, but I think, again, when you're making it more of a bite-sized problem that the government can help deal with, it brings more people into the fold of, yes, this could become a technocratic issue we can deal with. I think that helps bring in younger red state voters than some of the we're all going to die kind of talk.

Brian Lehrer: Alan, here's a question for you, specifically from a listener who's critical of something you said a few minutes ago. Listener writes, "It's surprising that The Times' economic policy reporter is uninformed. Like it or not, the numbers show clearly that the manufacturing comeback under Biden is the biggest since the 1950s, regardless of the pandemic. Look up the numbers. It's clear." That person has an opinion and an assertion about the numbers. What can you say?

Alan Rappeport: I would just say it depends on where you start the clock on. We know where these surges take place and we know how you want to factor in the pandemic, which I think President Trump wants to exclude that from his economic record. I think the Democrats, Harris, and Biden, definitely want to hang that on him and take credit for all the resurgence that happened afterwards. I think in those respects, it's a little bit of a matter of perspective.

Brian Lehrer: Did you notice the Bill Clinton line at the Democratic convention and follow up on it at all? What was the stat that he used that if you look at Democratic presidential years and Republican presidential years over the last however many decades, he cited that the ratio of jobs created under Democrats to Republicans is like 50:1?

Alan Rappeport: That is a pretty amazing stat. I think definitely one that the Democrats like to embrace. I also wanted to mention on the electric vehicle portion of the conversation, it has been a little bit interesting noticing how Trump's tenor seems like it's moderated a little bit, particularly since he got the endorsement of Elon Musk. He retreated a little bit from saying that he wants to totally undo any support for electric vehicles and said, "It's okay to have both. I think people should have options." It'll be interesting to see if he tempers any of his opposition to some of these climate measures.

I know a lot of Republicans in red states are a bit concerned that he would repeal so much of the Inflation Reduction Act and these tax credits in places where a lot of these projects are starting to be built. That'll be another interesting thing to see if he ends up winning.

Brian Lehrer: In closing, I would have liked to hear Linsey Davis's follow-up like she did so well on several other topics, and just say to Trump, "The question was, what would you do about climate change? Can you cite anything that you would do about that?" I guess it's going to take some other reporter to ask him that question. Ben Lefebvre, energy, including climate, reporter for Politico, Alan Rappeport, economic policy reporter for The New York Times. Thank you for coming on with us and taking a closer look at that portion of the debate.

Alan Rappeport: Good to be with you.

Ben Lefebvre: [unintelligible 00:25:28]

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.