It'd unfortunately require a continuation of an unsustainable energy policy. A major factor in why rural areas as a whole have become more conservative is because of their local economy's dependence on fossil fuels. This is one of the primary reasons Appalachia first swung so hard for Dubya in 2000.
It's easy to talk about investing in more sustainable energy such as solar/wind/nuclear and conservationist measures for protection of timber in the abstract as a public good to combat climate change. However, it must be acknowledged there are frictional costs to this type of disruption, and there should be accommodations to transition rural areas which see a fair amount of wealth creation from fossil fuel extraction, refinement/processing, production in power plants, and distribution. Likewise most areas with low population densities tend to be reliant on motor vehicles for transportation as most American infrastructure is designed with the implications of one owning car.
Dems/progressives need to sell these consumers on the transition to electric as well as why a restructuring of energy supply will ultimately produce economic benefit. We will all see different adverse effects of climate change, the problem is its harder to convince the electorate of that while most of those challenges are still abstract. Even worse, it'll be too late to do anything by the time those challenges are concrete.
Yes, the Dem climate change platform is
the most important problem for this.
