It was the stunning video seen
around the world, viewed hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube.[1] At
the height of 2008’s era of hyper-partisanship, two Speakers of the House—one
current, Nancy Pelosi, and one past, Newt Gingrich—from two parties managed to
come together to deliver a powerful message that they believed transcended
congressional factionalism. “We don’t always see eye to eye,” begins Pelosi, “but
we do agree that our country must take action to address climate change,” ends
Gingrich.[2]
The image of the two—who spent most of their careers leading opposing sides of
the country’s most contentious issues—sitting together on a love seat and
finishing each other’s sentences was a profound statement about the importance
of Congressional environmental regulation.[3] At
the time, it seemed to indicate that the severity of the issue rose above the
individual political ambitions of politicians. However, as Congress became more
dependent on dark money—SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s, organizations that can accept
unlimited amounts of money with little accountability—and lobbying, climate
action became a deeply contentious issue.
Vested Interests Invest
Themselves
The year 2011 marked a stark
departure from the genial tone 2008 had taken on
climate change. It began with the new Republican majority in Congress
eliminating the House Committee on Climate Change, continued with presidential
candidate Mitt Romney refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus and ended with
Newt Gingrich calling his video with Pelosi “the dumbest single thing I’ve done
in years.”[4] So
what changed in those three short years between 2008 and 2011? A couple of
things: first, the 2010-midterm elections, which brought the Republican
majority to Congress. The “wave” election was fueled by “Tea Party” supporters
(who we’ll cover more in depth later on the blog) largely opposed to
environmental regulation.[5]
Secondly, President Obama’s sweeping support—that had won him the 2008
Presidential election by nearly double digits—had dwindled to a negative
approval rating by mid-2011.[6]
And most importantly, in the wake of the Citizens United ruling of January
2010, a series of groups were tasked with lobbying and donating against climate
action.[7]
These groups, largely funded by the oil and gas industry, ranged from Americans
for Prosperity to the Heartland Institute.[8] Since
then, these SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s have become some of the most powerful
players and major donors in every election cycle.
Pro-Climate
Action Forces Align Exclusively with Democrats
In response to the growing
financial power of the anti-climate action lobby, pro-climate action forces began
to spring up, but they often suffered from strategic shortfalls. Consider for
example the case of Tom Steyer, perhaps the largest donor in pro-climate action
politics to date. A billionaire hedge-fund-manager-turned-philanthropist,
Steyer has donated more than 39 million dollars to various candidates and
political action committees over the course of the 2016 cycle.[9]
However, Steyer has donated 100% of that money to liberal/democratic candidates
and groups, spurning Republicans altogether. The same is true for the Sierra
Club and the League of Conservation Voters, two notable pro-climate action
groups.[10]
Effective organizations with similar goals to Steyer’s generally donate to
candidates across the aisle, based on policy instead of party. A notable
example of this practice is Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ pro-gun control Americans for Responsible Solutions,
which endorsed Republican Senators Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk for re-election his
year.[11]
The Oil & Gas industry follows this strategy, donating hundreds of
thousands of dollars to even centrist Democrats in Congress, like Senator Heidi
Heitkamp of North Dakota.[12] When
these organizations fail to reach across the aisle with their donations, it
means that the legislation they support will remain partisan, failing to make
headway out of committees or on the floor.
An Unbalanced Battle
On top of these political failings,
pro-climate-action forces are thoroughly outspent nearly every election cycle.
After that 2008 bipartisan message, it seemed as though the pro-climate-action
supporters—with both broad scientific consensus and widespread public
support—had finally found their opening in Congress.[13]
The only remaining hurdle was the financial prowess of the oil and gas
industry. Pro-climate-action groups spent a record $22.4 million during the
2009 election cycle, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, their
opponents managed to spend eight times that amount.[14]
In this election cycle, the Koch Brothers—heads of energy company Koch
Industries—have alone pledged almost $890 million to conservative causes.[15]
Additionally, large corporations that support increases in environmental regulation,
like members of the technology industry, do not concentrate any of their
lobbying efforts on the issue.[16]
As a result, pro-climate-action forces will continue to lose the spending race
against oil and gas behemoths for years to come.
The end result of all of this has
left the Republicans in Congress, and several centrist Democrats, with no
political incentive to support action against climate change. The money from
pro-climate-action donors and PACs does not come close to matching the
donations from the relevant industries on the other side, companies that
support environmental protections are unwilling to stick their neck out for
them, and even if this money did exist these groups have shown a reluctance to
donate to even moderate Republican candidates. Instead, there is even a
political risk for them, as they will alienate primary voters, lose endorsements
and face the wrath of one of the most well-funded and sophisticated political
machines of all time.
That is not to say that this
congressional division is entirely driven by donors and that there is not
grassroots opposition to environmental regulation. According to one former
Organizer for the Iowa Democratic Party working on Patty Judge’s Senate
campaign, voters are very concerned about local environmental issues like
ethanol. That level of citizen engagement with the environment, he says, is
real. But he argues the root cause of this concern among voters comes from
reports, articles and ads pushed by big money interests. We’ll talk more about
that state-level dynamic and grassroots enthusiasm in the coming weeks over the
next few installments of Cloudy with a
Chance of Armageddon.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154&feature=youtu.be
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154&feature=youtu.be
[3] http://blog.sfgate.com/politics/2008/04/18/pelosi-gingrich-team-up-for-global-warming-tv-ad/
[4] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change/
[5] https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/09/what-tea-party-supporters-think-about-global-warming
[6] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
[7] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change/
[8] https://www.publicintegrity.org/environment/climate/climate-change-lobby
[9] https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
[10]
Data courtesy of OpenSecrets and the Center for Responsive Politics
[11] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gabby-giffords-pac-endorses-pat-toomey-mark-kirk-227268?cmpid=sf
[12] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033782
[13] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc/
[14] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc/
[15] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604
[16] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/06/07/lobby-climate-change-failure/#5087920c69d3
No comments:
Post a Comment