Any far-sighted Democratic strategist has a Texas-shaped goal on the horizon. With surging urban areas, a large Latino population, and high levels of growth, the state’s demographics are changing in a way that should be favorable to the party. Democrats have already made significant inroads over the last eight years – Donald Trump’s 5.6% margin of victory in 2020 was the smallest for a Republican presidential candidate since 1996. But Democrats still need a boost before they can finally win their first statewide election in Texas since 1994.

The Last Frontier, for Democrats

Something occurred to me while I thought about Democratic prospects in a state that’s very far away from and very unlike Texas, but whose economy has something in common with that of the Lone Star State. That state is Alaska, and the commonality is the economy tethered by the production of crude oil. 

Flying under the radar even in a heavily Democratic-leaning year, Alaska has many of the signs you’d like to see as a forward-planning Democrat: 

1. It’s a small state, which means that it’s easier to create huge shifts in voting patterns over time.
2. It’s a state with a large military population, a demographic that has begun to swing towards Democrats as Republicans pursue a platform based on mistrust of government institutions.
3. It has a large Native American population which favors Democrats.
4. It’s a high income state, something that increasingly correlates with Democratic voting intention, though this is almost certainly caused by the correlation between increases in education level and the increase in income, and – in this regard – Alaska is around the national average.
5. It’s a very “elastic” state – meaning it’s more sensitive to changes in the national environment than others.

This last element is a virtue of its high proportion of independent, libertarian, and otherwise unaffiliated voters; approximately 58% of Alaska’s voters are unaffiliated with either of the major political parties, the highest proportion of any state. All of these factors point towards an opening for Democrats – and indeed, Joe Biden won almost 43% of the vote there in 2020, one of only two times a Democrat won over 40% of the vote in the state in the last 50 years. 

Of course, the energy industry – and oil in particular – is a dominant share of both Alaska and Texas’ economies. The Alaskan economy was described by University of Alaska Anchorage economics professor Scott Goldsmith as a “three-legged stool,” standing by virtue of approximately one-third each in three main industries: the federal government, petroleum, and (if I can paraphrase slightly) everything else. This is pretty much accurate – oil and natural gas are the state’s primary exports, and oil revenue accounts for a significant share of Alaska’s income. Although Texas has a far more diversified economy than Alaska (which makes sense considering it’s the second-most-populated state in the country), it produces more energy than any other state, and 43% of all crude oil produced by the United States. What Alaska has in economic siloing in respect to oil, Texas has in sheer economic mass dedicated to petroleum production. 

Both are not-quite-swing-states yet, but both have obvious potential for Democrats – as recent Senate races, House races, and presidential results indicate. Democrat Mary Peltola became Alaska’s at-large congresswoman following a special election victory in 2022 (she was reelected in the regular November election as well), Democrat Beto O’Rourke pulled within 3% of incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz in 2018, and Joe Biden overperformed in both states in 2020 against an incumbent Republican president (Texas was significantly closer than famous former swing states like Iowa and Ohio). 

Decarbonization Cannot Happen Without Fossil Fuels

But antipathy towards petroleum may hinder persistent Democratic gains in these states. Even as the energy industry in Texas and Alaska diversifies – Texas currently generates more solar and wind energy than any other state (and more than double what California produces) – oil production remains a pervasive motivator in both states. President Biden, no ally of the oil industry, conceded during his latest State of the Union that “we are still going to need oil and gas for a while” in a strained pivot to the political reality regarding both current energy prices and the decarbonization of America’s energy grid.

Aware of the intense resistance to anything remotely pro-fossil fuel by many on the left, an incumbent president seeking reelection in a nation plagued by high fuel prices while it transitions away from carbon-based energy sources faces a simple calculus: embrace pragmatic pro-energy policies to save and strengthen the green transition. The environmental left aren’t wrong – fossil fuels do cause climate change, and climate catastrophes are only getting worse or more frequent – but they risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater if they insist on a radical overnight transition. We are closer to achieving decarbonization than ever before, but it will not happen if this wing of the Democratic Party ignores the politics of fossil fuels. The importance of reelecting a Democratic president who would be able to implement the necessary regulatory and administrative schemes required to secure a green transition is obvious, but it’s important that Democrats can win in swing Senate, House, and state races too.

This is not just because a Democratic Party-run country is more likely to transition the nations’ economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels, but because competitive elections will also draw Republican candidates towards moderate positions. Many moderate Republicans are keen to engage on environmental and energy issues, aware of the climate consequences and energy needs of the modern American economy. But, in this period where the transition towards a cleaner economy is in flux and increasingly ramping up, a traumatic election or loss of electoral salience could determine whether or not this transition occurs in a decade, or in two. Any progressive worth their weight should recognize the danger inherent in that prospect. If given a choice between gradual green energy progress and short-sighted absolutist wins that may not occur for years, the answer is clear.

If a decarbonized and renewable energy market is the goal (and I challenge you to find a serious Republican who believes that it is not), it will require the assistance of fossil fuels. High gas prices may, in the long run, perpetuate a national shift towards electric vehicles. But in the short run, they squeeze the wallets of American consumers, including those who are trying to do the responsible thing by driving their clunker until its last mile and putting money aside to switch to electric whenever that happens (note that it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make electric vehicles). The economy will always need a baseload power source that can supplement shortfalls in less reliable solar or wind power, or provide excess capacity when there is surging demand. 

Nuclear energy is the most obvious candidate for this at bulk scale as it is the safest and most reliable energy source, is clean and takes up little operating space, and is incredibly flexible in its ability to meet the needs of consumers when they need energy. But fossil fuels have to play a role here too, be that in the form of providing the energy to quickly ramp up nuclear or renewable energy capacity, by providing a different kind of energy for those facing unique circumstances or geographies (remote communities may struggle to inclusively adopt all-electric infrastructure; nuclear power may be less feasible in areas with lots of hurricanes or earthquakes), or providing an efficient mechanism for high-power manufacturing necessary in the development of key technology (electric kilns to produce cement or blast furnaces for making steel are not pragmatic solutions because they cannot efficiently generate the high temperatures needed). There is no one-size-fits all solution – every energy decision involves trade offs. As the Brookings Institution’s Samantha Gross’ well-reasoned analysis on decarbonization insists, “Renewable electricity generation alone won’t get us there – this is an all-technologies-on-deck problem.”

A Pro-Energy Party 

Once Democrats accept that fossil fuels will play a role in any carbon neutral economy, not only through the transition but with several convenient end uses, they’re left with little choice but to accept that they must begrudgingly embrace them. There’s no sense in throwing the party off an unpopular and ill-advised political cliff to eliminate coal, oil, and natural gas when it will hurt them at the ballot box and destroy the ultimate aim of decarbonization. And, to be clear, most Democrats seem to accept this fact – the militant anti-fossil fuel types are a vocal minority amongst a coalition that widely accepts that people who drive gas-powered cars are not morally reprehensible and who understand that going to 100% solar overnight is not going to happen.

But the fact lingers that Democrats are seen as more than simply an anti-fossil fuel party, but an anti-energy party generally. Yes, the gas stove “freakout” was stupid and neither the Biden administration – nor any serious Democrat – was suggesting gas stoves be ripped from homes, but it hit at a relatively sticky weakness Democrats often face: voters are resistant to change, and a party attempting to overhaul the energy infrastructure is suggesting a lot of change. Despite endorsing the “correct” prescription for America’s energy and climate woes – decarbonization, energy diversification, and government subsidies to support this transition – Democrats struggle to win over voters when it comes to energy policy, despite the fact voters trust them far more on climate change.

And that is why Biden’s moderately loud embrace of a comprehensive energy environment, one which includes fossil fuels, is a shrewd pivot. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on energy, they need to talk seriously – high oil prices hurt people, but so does climate change. The electoral implications of Democrats ignoring the short term energy reality will damage the long term decarbonization agenda. Instead, Democrats should aggressively lift up states like Texas and Alaska as examples. Though it is undeniably a titan of fossil fuel, roughly a quarter of all wind energy produced in the United States comes from Texas. And Alaska offers an example of locations where fossil fuel remains efficient and pragmatic due to the needs of remote communities facing different geographic and economic realities – while channeling profits from fossil fuels towards a state-run permanent fund that disburses basic income to Alaska residents.

Neither party’s energy policy and messaging should be single-minded. Complex and difficult problems require complex and difficult solutions. As the party most willing to caution about the real dangers of climate change, Democrats are the party best suited to gain from a practical pro-energy agenda, one which emphasizes not only green energy but also nuclear energy and fossil fuels, with the overwhelming government investment this requires. That there are electoral gains to be made while doing so prove not that this is a compromise from some superior alternative, but that the American system of government is in fact suited to address this complicated issue and that the political incentives need not doom the country to endless reliance on fossil fuels. A large and diverse country requires a multitude of policies, flexibility in implementation, and a willingness to avoid oversimplification. That balancing act is one that the Democratic coalition is uniquely suited to pulling off.