A real slugfest between Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer would have forced climate change onto the ballot. Instead, we got a whimper. Now, green activists are watching their leverage evaporate.
Steyer, the billionaire progressive who treated his campaign like a personal crusade, crashed out in third place. He trailed Becerra and Steve Hilton, a Fox-flavored Republican with Trump’s blessing. Steyer burned $213 million of his own fortune. For what? A few attack ads accusing Becerra of taking oil money and a promise to smash utility monopolies.
“I’m proud of the enemies we made,” Steyer sneered in his concession, pointing fingers at Chevron and PG&E. Then came the inevitable pivot. He endorsed Becerra. Why? Because letting Hilton win would be a “travesty.”
The green lobby is grieving. RL Miller of Climate Hawks Vote admitted she is cycling through the stages of grief. The dream of a high-minded debate on pocketbook environmentalism is dead.
Voters chose safety. Becerra, the ultimate establishment insider, emerged as the golden boy to replace Gavin Newsom. He ran on “affordability” and threw cold water on the state’s aggressive green targets. He was the easy choice after Eric Swalwell’s campaign imploded over sexual misconduct allegations.
Just before the polls closed, Becerra told reporters that California’s 2035 gas-car ban was built on “inflated promises.” He made it clear. He won’t wreck the economy to hit a 2045 fossil fuel phase-out.
He has it easy now. Democratic strategist Garry South notes that Becerra won’t have to explain his climate plans while running against a Republican. It is the classic playbook. If your opponent is anti-abortion, you do not need to detail your reproductive rights plan. You just point at them. Becerra will do the same with climate.
National Democrats are watching. Conservative strategist Rob Stutzman thinks Steyer’s faceplant is a warning. It signals to moderate Democrats like Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro that running as a climate hawk is a losing bet. The 2028 strategists are taking notes.
It is a missed opportunity. Activists wanted Steyer’s millions to convince voters that climate change is driving up housing and insurance costs. Without his megaphone, those connections go unmade. Polls show voters care about the economy, not carbon footprints. Steyer could have bridged that gap.
What could have been? Lobbyists were already dreaming of a true believer in the governor’s mansion. Ryan Schleeter of the Climate Center Action Fund noted that a green governor means bills actually get signed. Instead, moderate Democrats in Sacramento keep letting oil companies drill in the Central Valley.
Steyer would have fought the legislature. He could have purged the California Air Resources Board, which recently coddled oil refineries by weakening emissions rules. Policy consultant Katie Valenzuela lamented the lost ground.
Becerra claims he is a green champion. He points to his time as Attorney General, suing Trump and expanding environmental justice units. But talk is cheap.
Nature might force his hand. One bad wildfire season in Los Angeles, and the climate debate is back. Until then, Becerra can coast. He can ignore the fire until the smoke gets in his eyes.
