Midterms Climate Wrap-Up
One more signpost on the road to… somewhere
The November 2018 midterm elections were a mixed bag for climate issues. On the one hand, the dirty-energy companies spent extravagantly to defeat several climate-related state measures, including a Washington state initiative that would have imposed the nation’s first carbon tax, and almost all of those state measures were defeated. On the other hand, several candidates were elected nationwide for whom climate is [professed to be] a top priority. Taken together, the results suggest that while direct democracy may not yet be effective, the representative kind could still yield results in the form of increased pressure, scrutiny, and regulation.
Or to put it another way, we’re not dead yet — but there sure is a lot of coughing going on. Particularly in California, where the smoke and destruction from a new wave of catastrophic, climate-related fires has been brutal.
Dirty Energy Buys the Day
I wrote a couple weeks ago about Colorado’s Proposition 112, which would have established a 2,500 foot buffer around any new oil/gas/fracking wells in the state. The aim was to dramatically increase the health of everyone who lives in the vicinity of such wells, even if it would have also had the effect of significantly restricting any possibility of creating new wells. The dirty-energy companies, like Anadarko Petroleum, outspent supporters of the measure by about 30 to 1, and sure enough, money ruled the day.
These big spenders made essentially the same argument in Colorado as their brethren did in Washington state, where Initiative 1631 sought to impose a tax on all carbon emissions. Whereas Anadarko, et al. claimed Colorado’s measure would kill energy-sector jobs, BP America, et al. argued that Washington’s measure would cost residents more in passed-on carbon fees. Always, the dirty-energy producers tell you that something affecting their business will hit you in your wallet. Since their principal goal is to preserve their short-term profits, they always want you to think short-term as well.
Long-term, of course, their current business model is doomed, and the long-term impacts on your wallet will be severe. And yet, today at least, the big dirty-energy companies are popping champagne corks.
The real concern is whether there is enough political will, anywhere in the nation, to vote for a carbon tax at the ballot box. Despite claims of support for such an idea from companies like Shell, their support appears to be resoundingly hollow, as they have never taken any concrete steps to actually support a carbon tax, anywhere in the U.S., and they routinely give the majority of their financial support to legislators who are opposed to a carbon tax.
And in July, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (nearly identical to one from 2016) proclaiming their opposition to any form of carbon tax as dangerous to the economy. Even members of the House’s so-called Climate Solutions Caucus voted overwhelmingly against a carbon tax, which strongly suggests that the bipartisan Caucus may be as nominal, as inconsequential, as Shell’s alleged support for a carbon tax.
The Green New Deal
But half the GOP members of the Climate Solutions Caucus just lost their seats in Congress, whether by retirement or defeat. Given their track record, this is probably a substantial gain for the environment. Particularly when the new freshman class of Congresspeople includes several fervent activists and scientists. And in keeping with the urgency of the recent IPCC report that gives the globe only twelve years to stave off the worst effects of climate change, these activists aren’t waiting for permission to get active at their new jobs. On her first day of orientation in D.C., Alexandria Ocasio-Hernandez joined a rally at the offices of the likely returning Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. And one of the principal initiatives she and others are pushing for is collectively referred to as the Green New Deal.
Like Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era New Deal, the Green version describes a big grab-bag of new policies and practices. Its size is the point: the emergency, as laid out in the IPCC report, is huge, so the response must be as well. The upside is that, like the original New Deal, this one can also revitalize the economy, reshaping it away from the current largely carbon-based model and toward a renewable future. The broad strokes are these:
100% renewable energy, zero emissions by a specific target date
Significantly higher standards for clean air and water
Reforestation, wetlands protection, sustainable agriculture
Green construction standards and increased mass transportation options
Increased recycling and zero-waste targets
As with FDR’s original, the Green New Deal will have elements that work better than others, and that’s fine. (The new version, for instance, would do well to work with business interests rather than alienate them, as the original did — a violation of the Keynesian philosophy that kinda sorta sat at the heart of the New Deal.) But it’s essential that a large, coordinated effort be initiated as soon as possible. And if the big oil companies are still successfully squelching efforts at the state level, then a large influx of eager young activists in Congress, determined to make their voices heard, might be the best chance we’ve got.
The old guard, of course, is already putting its collective stodgy foot down. If nothing else, the next Congress will be an interesting one.
