GOP Has No Mandate for Attack on Clean Air and Climate Solutions

Most voters didn’t go the ballot box to demand dirtier air and contaminated water. And yet Republican leaders have proudly proclaimed that gutting environmental safeguards is one of their top priorities for the new Congress. They have vowed to roll back national limits on climate change pollution, strip protections from waterways that feed drinking supplies, and launch a host of other attacks.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says his top priority for the next session is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

That’s a bold statement to make when the vast majority of Americans value the EPA’s role in protecting their families from pollution. Seven out of 10 Americans, for instance, support the EPA’s effort to limit climate change pollution from power plants, according to an ABC/Washington Post survey.

The GOP pro-polluter agenda is out of step with what Americans want. Republicans may have gained control of the Senate, but they did not receive a mandate to dismantle environmental safeguards.

Given the dismal voter turnout in the midterms, it’s hard to declare a mandate for anything.

  • 36.2 percent of eligible voters participated in the midterm elections, the lowest turnout since World War II. Even if every single one of them favored the GOP, the party still wouldn’t have the majority of Americans behind them.
  • Several races were settled by small margins. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that Republican Thom Tillis won the North Carolina Senate race by a margin of 1.7 percent—about 48,000 votes.
  • Republicans lost among people under 40 years old and among all minority voters, according to the National Journal.
  • The voting center grew this year: 40 percent of voters identified as moderates, while 36 percent called themselves conservative, down from 42 percent in the 2010 midterms. Fewer voters are calling for the radical changes espoused by the Tea Party.
  • Since the last midterm election, 21 states have enacted more restrictive voting laws, which means fewer people are able to vote and fewer voices are being heard.
  • 69 percent of all dark money—campaign funding from undisclosed donors—went to Republican candidates. The vast majority of it came from the Koch brothers and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads/GPS—polluter friendly groups known for attacking environmental safeguards.  That money means Mitch McConnell may be able to claim the Koch Brothers’ mandate, but certainly not a mandate from the voters.

These numbers paint a picture of a discouraged electorate. Many are tired of the gridlock in Washington; many are overwhelmed by the money in politics. But nowhere in the polling does it say Americans want to breathe dirtier air or get hit by more extreme weather brought on by climate change.

Indeed, exit polling showed that six out of 10 voters leaving the voting booth support the EPA’s effort to limit climate change pollution from power plants.

Republicans won several hard fought races this year, but they would be wise not to let it go to their heads. When candidates won roughly 52 percent of about 36.2 percent of eligible voters, making a declaration of war against the environment sounds like the beginnings of overreach.

Compare those small portions to the 98 percent of scientists who say climate change is a serious threat to our health and wellbeing. Now that’s what I call a mandate for action.

Running Clean Draws Support from Swing Voters

With 48 hours to go before the midterm elections, you’re probably a bit tired of seeing competing poll results. Head-to-head matchups between candidates have varied this entire election cycle, but one item we’ve been tracking has remained consistent—voters want action on climate change.

In February, the NRDC Action Fund released our first polling of the 2014 cycle. It was conducted in 11 battleground states and showed that voters across the political spectrum were ready for the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. Now, eight months later, we released another poll, this time in five swing states that produced nearly the exact same results.

The poll found that:

  • Climate and energy are playing a role in the public discourse in these states’ senate races: nearly 40 percent of voters have heard about candidate positions on climate change, and majorities have heard their views on energy.
  • Republican candidates’ extreme positions are costing them support among key blocs of swing voters. By margins of 20 to 22 percentage points, independents, women and younger voters describe themselves as less likely to vote for their Republican candidate after learning of his or her views on energy, the environment and climate change.
  • Pro-climate positions are highly popular with voters. Sixty-eight percent of voters feel more favorably toward candidates who support clean energy and 54 percent have a more favorable impression of candidates who believe the government should take action on climate change.

Consistency is key. It clearly shows that even after polluters have spent millions of dollars to defeat candidates who are running clean, they have been unable to change voter’s attitudes.

No matter who comes out victorious on election night, all the winners would be wise to remember that voters want those heading to Congress to put in place policies that ensure cleaner air and less carbon pollution. It’s also a good reminder for all the would-be presidential candidates, that voters will not elect a climate denier to the White House in 2016.

A presentation of the results is available here: http://bit.ly/100D1ce

 

Christie’s Crisis and Climate

Hold the presses on the “Christie 2016” bumper stickers (though they’d be easy to read while sitting in a traffic jam). With the New Jersey Governor’s image taking a beating from still-developing public controversies, perhaps the case for Chris Christie as the leading Republican candidate in the next presidential election is not quite as clear-cut as before—unless he can find a way to rebuild his reputation.

Much of Christie’s success has been due to the political brand he has carefully cultivated: a straight if tough talker who’s a true conservative but can reach across the aisle to get things done.  His landslide victory for a second term as Governor seemed to unequivocally demonstrate the broad appeal of this political brand and to prove that Christie represented the GOP’s best chance of winning the White House by appealing to independents and centrist Democrats.

Then the allegations of scandals within his administration hit, portraying a different kind of Christie–saying one thing while doing another; being self-serving, vindictive, even petty.  It remains to be seen whether Christie knew more than he has admitted about the lane closures or doled out sandy relief money based on favoritism instead of need.  But whatever ongoing investigations turn up, the brand Christie worked so hard to build has now been badly tarnished.

A closer examination of Christie’s record, however, suggests that this reputation may always have been predicated more on image than fact.  Where was the straight-talking Christie who could tell his party that it was time to act after he acknowledged climate change as a serious problem? And where was the Christie who seemed able to reach across the aisle after he ran for Governor as a friend to the environment?

Christie’s actions on climate change and clean energy during his first term are revealing in this regard.  Christie unilaterally withdrew New Jersey from a 10-state effort meant to reduce carbon pollution in the northeast region through interstate cooperation (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).  He also diverted approximately $1 billion from funds dedicated to promoting clean energy initiatives in the state budget. These course reversals are even more perplexing in a “blue state” like New Jersey where government action to protect the environment is popular and the economic benefits from investing in clean energy are great.

If the most serious allegations against Christie turn out to be true, it’s hard to imagine how he would make a recovery.  But even if nothing else turns up, Christie will still have to work to repair his damaged reputation.  He can start by leading on issues people care about, such as climate change, as he should have all along.

An opportunity is in the making for the governor, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to soon issue a proposal for reducing carbon pollution from power plants that use fossil fuels.  This proposal will make sense for New Jersey and the states still remaining in RGGI.  And it wouldn’t be bad for Christie either, who could use a new bumper sticker with a positive message.

Americans Elect a Leader on Clean Energy, Clean Air, and Climate Action

This blog is re-posted from the NRDC Switchboard.

Last night Americans reelected a president who made clean energy and environmental protection a cornerstone of his first term. They chose the one candidate who spoke seriously about climate change on the campaign trail and used his authority to reduce America’s carbon pollution. They rewarded this leadership by calling for four more years of action.

This is a victory for all Americans who want to breathe clean air, drink safe water, and protect treasured landscapes. And it is a setback for the fossil fuel companies that invested so heavily in this election and have so little to show for it.

Energy issues figured prominently in this election. Candidates mentioned it frequently on the stump and it was among the top three topics discussed in campaign ads.  Oil, gas, and coal companies tried to influence the debate by spending more than $150 million in campaign ads by mid-September. Polluters’ anti-environmental messages were reflected on the campaign trail, where Governor Mitt Romney ran on a platform of more drilling, more coal-fired power plants, more climate paralysis, and weaker pollution standards.

Yet despite the dirty ad blitzes and the anti-environmental policy proposals, voters rejected this outdated vision for our country. Poll after poll has identified people’s preference for a clean energy economy. Last month, for instance, Hart Research Associates found that nine out of 10 Americans, say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the president and Congress, and that includes 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Independents. A survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center found that 80 percent of car owners want to raise fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2025,

The majority of Americans realize cars that go farther on a tank of gas, wind and solar energy, and cleaner power plants will improve our health and wellbeing far more than dirty companies can.

President Obama must tap this public support and push for health and environmental progress. And he can demonstrate bold and resolute leadership on climate change. The devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy— and the drought that turned nearly 1,300 counties into designated disaster areas and the wildfires that forced thousands of people from their homes this year—reveal the danger climate change poses to our families and communities.

President Obama has already taken important steps to curb climate change. His administration issued fuel economy standards that will cut carbon pollution from new cars in half. It also proposed the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. But we must do still more. We need carbon limits on existing power plants (click here to send a message to the administration in support of carbon limits). We need to extend incentives for wind energy and spur investment in clean energy research. And we need to promote energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.

All of these measures will generate jobs and help clean up our air. But make no mistake, plenty of polluters and lawmakers will be lined up in opposition. Oil and gas companies will continue to pour money into the political system. The Tea Party still has many stalwarts in the House of Representatives—a body that voted over 300 times to undermine public health and environmental safeguards since 2011. And the Republican leadership will still try to erode investment in clean energy innovation and technology.

It will take tremendous effort to realize the sustainable future we seek. But we will succeed with a combination of presidential leadership and citizen action. The president can’t do it alone. He must have American people behind him. The administration moved forward with its carbon limits for new power plants in part because people sent more than 3 million comments in favor of them. We must create the same momentum for similar breakthroughs.

NRDC stands for the environment, not for any party or elected official. We will do everything in our power to help President Obama deliver on his goals of clean energy and environmental protection. You can help by adding your voice to the call for clean air and clean energy. Together we can use the next four years to solidify the foundation of America’s sustainable future. 

 

 

Sandy Should Help Us Close in on the Election’s Closing Arguments

Hurricane Sandy may reshape the presidential race as surely as it just reshaped the eastern shoreline.  It reminds us that a central debate in this year’s election boils down to what we think is the appropriate size and role of government.  Big challenges require the right size of government in the mix and the response to Sandy dramatically illustrates the point.  

It’s hard to imagine adequately dealing with the disaster from Sandy without a well functioning federal response.  The Republican governor of New Jersey pleaded for help from FEMA and congratulated President Obama for facilitating it

But in the larger political debate this year the side backing Governor Romney makes it sounds like President Obama only wants to replace the market economy with more Big Government.  In fact, as President Obama made clear in his second debate closing, he and his adversaries agree that the private sector is the main source of growth in the economy.  The choice in reality is different but still important.  Do you want enough of the right kind of government or do you want nearly none?   In other words, a choice between President Obama’s sensible view that the federal government has a vital but not boundless role in meeting big challenges, or that the government is the problem and makes everything worse so the market should be left entirely alone, as Romney’s backers claim. 

No doubt the first presidential debate reshaped the public’s perception of the candidates on their view of the role of government, blurring the significant difference between them.  This was more a matter of style than substance, as Governor Romney purposely projected a more moderate manner than he had when appealing to the Republican base.  That’s why it was so surprising not to hear three key phrases during the debate, which President Obama should now bring home in his closing argument. 

Etch a Sketch 

Like an etch a sketch pad – that’s how the Romney campaign had promised that it would change his positions in the general election.  He supported health care reform before he opposed it.  He backed a woman’s right to choose before he didn’t.  He often seems to lack core convictions more than he’s hiding them.  In figuring out what he’s likely to do it’s probably best to consider whom he will owe if he wins.

That’s why his debate answer to a question on the role of regulation was so notable.  Of course we need regulations, he said, just not too many while the economy is recovering.  In fact he gave an extensive defense of how regulations were good even for business.  This apparent reversal was astonishing for a candidate who had placated conservatives by taking the view that regulations were the cause of our economic woes and who had endorsed a House bill that would grind most regulation to a halt.  This was President’s Obama’s chance to make clear this was one of those etch a sketch moments.  One in which Governor Romney was being misleading, not just changeable. 

Clean energy and environmental policy serves as another prime example of this etch-a -sketching.  Romney believed in climate change before he didn’t.  He thought coal plants were a health hazard before they weren’t.  He supported renewable energy before he didn’t, but then he did in the debate again (but not really as proven by his opposition to extending the production tax credit for wind power). 

What President Obama needs to do is bring home the point about whom do you trust.  Do you think Governor Romney, the guy who the fossil fuel industry bankrolled, will correct the health-threatening practices of that sector?  Do you think Governor Romney, the guy who proposes increasing taxes on renewable energy, supports ushering in a new, renewable energy future?  Not really. 

47 Percent

Meeting America’s challenges will require contributions by everyone.  Take addressing the budget deficit.  The question is not whether we should all contribute, but how those contributions will be distributed.  It’s about what’s fair. 

There is little fair about the Romney tax plan.  It gives the greatest tax reductions to the people who already have the most.  This is in addition to the math not adding up.  Quite simply, if you care about the budget deficit, you don’t start with extending temporary tax cuts that were adopted when we had a budget surplus.  That’s why it’s strange that the phrase “47 percent” never came up.  That’s the number of people Romney believes deserve no financial relief because they contribute nothing economically to society. 

Clean energy policy provides an example of what’s at stake in tax policy. The oil industry alone receives $4 billion a year in taxpayer support to help cover production expenses when oil companies are some of the most profitable companies in the world.  Yet Governor Romney has not called for repeal of these write-offs that were protected in the Ryan budget.  Instead, he’s called for raising taxes on the renewable industry by allowing the highly successful production tax credit for wind power to expire at the end of this year.  How is that fair?  It’s not. 

Obama needs to drive the point home that his energy tax plan would redirect investment resources from those who need them least to those who would use them the most.  Extending the production tax credit specifically would permit the wind industry to keep creating the jobs today and into the future.  That’s not only fair, it’s smart. 

Climate Change

Yes, climate change.  OK, maybe the phrase from President Obama should have been “economic accomplishments including more clean energy to fight climate change.”  President Obama later said he was surprised that a question about climate wasn’t asked during the debates.  Maybe he should have brought it up.  But at least he has brought up clean energy solutions for climate change on the campaign trail unlike Governor Romney who now mocks it.

One of the Obama’s administrations unheralded accomplishments is the stimulus bill, or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  As the Michael Grunwald documents in his new book about the effects of the stimulus bill, The New New Deal, the government investments did help create or save millions of jobs, perhaps preventing the Great Recession from becoming a depression. 

The premise of the stimulus bill was that the economic crisis was being worsened by a lack of sufficient overall demand.  A short-term stimulus in the Keynesian tradition — the basis for FDR’s New Deal — was needed to reverse the situation.  Notably a third of the stimulus bill went to tax cuts though to hear opponents tell it, it was full of nothing but wasteful government spending (for them a redundant phrase).  This raises the question as to why for these critics Democratic tax cuts only create deficits but Republican tax cuts only create growth.

Assessing the impact of the stimulus requires selecting the correct starting point.  Romney measures the success of the Obama’s policies from the day he took office even though the effects of Bush’s policies were still being felt.  The better comparison would start a year later after the stimulus had a chance to take effect.  Since then and through September the S&P 500 has advanced 27 percent (308 points) and the unemployment rate has declined 20 percent (1.9 percentage points).  

More needs to be done.  As Grunwald and others have noted, the stimulus bill was too small.  It made a 2.5 million contribution to an 8 million job problem.  Still its $90 billion in clean energy investments of the Obama administration has helped fueled the recovery that has taken place.  And it has done this by making progress in advanced biofuels, more efficient electricity distribution, improved battery powered cars, and domestic manufacturing of these energy system parts.   

President Obama has a great record in other ways on creating a clean energy economy that helps address climate change.  He brokered a deal that will cut the cost of driving cars in half by doubling fuel mileage.  He saved thousands of lives a year by modernizing coal plants and reducing mercury emissions. 

The basic choice comes down to this – will we have enough government to help do the correct things or will we have nearly no government and just trust the market system alone to sort everything out?  The latter approach is what got us into this economic situation to begin with. Obama’s record using the former approach offers an advantage he should press. 

And Hurricane Sandy should remind us of exactly what’s at stake in this choice.