Jeff Landry Exposes John Fleming’s Cynical Carbon Capture Rebrand

Governor Jeff Landry didn’t mince words.

In a recent video, Landry took direct aim at former Congressman John Fleming over his sudden opposition to carbon capture, calling it what it looks like to many observers: an opportunistic, cynical, and disingenuous flip-flop driven by politics, not principle.

And the record backs him up.

For years, Fleming wasn’t just passively aware of carbon capture policy. He actively supported it.

From 2011 through 2015, Fleming voted multiple times for federal legislation that funded and expanded carbon capture and storage programs across the country. These were not obscure votes buried in minor bills. They were major appropriations packages directing hundreds of millions of dollars toward carbon capture research, development, and deployment.

He voted for Energy and Water appropriations bills in 2011 and 2012 that each included roughly $184 million for carbon capture programs.

He supported additional funding in 2013 for Department of Energy research into carbon capture technologies.

In 2014, he backed legislation increasing carbon capture funding to more than $200 million, including major investments in both research and storage.

And in 2015, he voted for a broader energy package that didn’t just fund carbon capture, but directed federal agencies to continue advancing it nationwide.

At every turn, Fleming said yes.

Even when he had a chance to change course, he didn’t. During consideration of one of these appropriations bills, Fleming offered an amendment. But notably, he did not use that opportunity to strip out or limit carbon capture funding.

Now, years later, he’s trying to position himself as a leading opponent of the very policies he helped fund.

That’s the disconnect Landry is highlighting.

And it’s not just a contradiction—it’s a strategy.

Fleming is clearly trying to tap into a group of concerned, but often uninformed, voters who have real questions about carbon capture. Instead of helping educate or provide clarity, he’s exploiting those concerns. He’s using fear and confusion as a political base for a Senate run, hoping this issue becomes his ticket back to Capitol Hill.

That’s what makes this so cynical.

This isn’t a case of a leader thoughtfully reconsidering a policy. It’s a politician who has spent years trying to get back to Washington—whether through past Senate ambitions, or minor roles inside the Administration, Commerce Department, and HHS—now seizing on whatever issue he thinks can carry him there.

Carbon capture just happens to be the vehicle.

That’s what makes the shift so disingenuous.

Louisiana voters are being asked to believe that something Fleming supported repeatedly—through multiple votes, across multiple years—is suddenly unacceptable.

Not because the facts changed, but because the politics did.

The carbon capture debate is too important for that kind of political maneuvering. Billions of dollars in investment, thousands of potential jobs, and Louisiana’s long-term role as an energy leader are all on the line.

Voters don’t have to agree on carbon capture to recognize what’s happening here.

They just have to ask a simple question: is this about policy—or is it about getting back to Washington?

Governor Landry has made his view clear.

And based on the record, he’s hard to argue with it.