The recent Republican resurgence is not good news for the environmental cause, but it was not destined to be high on the agenda anyway, says Peter Davis, politics editor
The recent Republican resurgence is not good news for the environmental cause, but it was not destined to be high on the agenda anyway, says Peter Davis, politics editorOh how the mighty are fallen. Just two years after Barack Obama won the White House like some latter-day Messiah, his Democratic party suffered the biggest poll reversal since the 1940s. The president now faces two years of battles to get legislation through Congress following the Democrats’ loss of the House of Representatives.
This prospect of legislative stalemate has been met with much gnashing of teeth from environmentalists, who fear that the president’s ambitious plans to tackle climate change and other environmental issues will be stymied by reactionary Republicans.
Certainly, the evidence seems to suggest that Republicans as a group are more sceptical about climate change than other Americans.
Annual polls conducted by the Pew Research Centre show a steady decline in belief in climate change among Republican voters. In 2007, nearly two-thirds of Republican voters believed that there was clear evidence of climate change. By the following year, the proportion of believers fell below half for the first time.
A poll for CBS taken just before this autumn’s elections showed supporters of the ultra-conservative Tea Party faction of the Republicans to be even more doubtful about climate science. Two-thirds of Tea Party supporters said that they either did not accept that climate change existed, or believed it would not have any impacts. This compares with only 29% of the US population as a whole.
It is also true that certain Republican politicians have been vocal opponents of environmental legislation, and that some are now in positions to make these views felt. John Shimkus, for example, a Republican congressman from Illinois, is on record as saying that climate legislation would be worse than the 9/11 attacks. In April 2009, Shimkus said he thought such legislation would be “the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress – impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.”
Shimkus is one of the front-runners in the race to become chairman of the influential House energy committee. Another contender for the post, Joe Barton from Texas, is on record as saying that climate change is not man-made. In 2009, he said: “I believe that Earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons.”
Not all bad
However, notwithstanding the views of some individual Republicans, branding the entire party as obstructive to environmental legislation is equally unhelpful. It’s also wrong, as the Energy Policy Act, passed by a Republican Congress in 2005, demonstrates.
Although this act did allow extensions of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and the increased exploitation of oil sands in places including Colorado, it also contained a number of provisions that sought to improve America’s environmental behaviour, and to begin the long process of reducing the country’s energy usage.
For example, the act created an energy efficient commercial buildings tax deduction, a special financial incentive designed to reduce the initial cost of investing in energy-efficient building systems via an accelerated tax deduction.
It also authorised loan guarantees for innovative technologies that reduce or avoid greenhouse gases, including clean coal and renewable energy technologies. The act also increased the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the US to 7.5bn gallons by 2012. At a household level, the act provides tax breaks for those making energy conservation improvements to their homes.
Despite the deniers, most senior Republicans are pragmatic about the need to reduce emissions. Their argument is about the most effective way of doing it, as demonstrated by two other candidates for the House energy committee chairmanship. According to Fred Upton, “we need to reduce emissions, but … in a way that takes account of the economic and global realities”. Cliff Stearns says: “We’ve got to control CO2 … but do it through the private sector.”
However, the reality is that it probably will not matter much whether the new Republican-dominated Congress is more or less environmentally aware than its predecessor: climate legislation is currently not near the top of many people’s agenda.
The next presidential election is only two years away. With a double-dip recession still a risk, unemployment still very high, and American manufacturing remaining weak, the battleground of “pocketbook” issues is likely to form the focus of American political discourse in the coming months.