Should Hillary Clinton be elected president, she stands a better chance of advancing her environmental agenda than the bitter partisan divide in Washington suggests.
As a U.S. Senator from New York, she demonstrated considerable ability to reach across the aisle and work with Republican colleagues on compromise legislation.
Even if the GOP were to lose their majority in both houses of Congress (which is unlikely in 2016), they would still be numerous enough to obstruct Clinton's environmental initiatives. But after eight years of essentially stonewalling President Obama, Republican legislators will be under public pressure, along with the rest of the widely perceived do-nothing Congress, to get things done.
Hence, they should be receptive to Clinton's overtures, especially if she makes it as easy as possible -- and that is what we can expect her to do. Her approach tends to be incremental rather than a heavy-handed one fell swoop. This would smooth the path for Republican lawmakers (other than Clinton's most ardent conservative critics. Some of her most progressive environmental followers wouldn't be happy either).
Clinton would start with her least controversial reforms, and frame subsequent proposals in ways to placate all but her most intractable opponents on Capitol Hill.
Since many Republicans reflexively see "red" at the mention of the word "environment, Clinton is couching her initial proposals in terms of their economic benefits or significant public health protections. What's not to like!
Her opening gambit to slow global warming is not a draconian set of greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations likely to trigger partisan paralysis. Instead, she proposes federal subsidies to fund "green" infrastructure such as energy efficient buildings and expansion of renewable energy. They are initiatives that arguably will invigorate the economy and improve environmental quality. Another measure would entail job retraining for coal miners out of work because of the cheaper price of natural gas.
Rather than ban fracking of natural gas outright and ignite a battle royal with Republicans, Clinton would phase out the extraction procedure through gradual indirect means. The vise would be closed by regulations in response to air and water contamination as well as earthquake causation resulting from the industrial process.
As Clinton's term progresses, she could push for curtailment of subsidies to fossil fuels in addition to implementation of a revenue neutral carbon tax. The latter would be offset by rebates to the general public, while having a salutary effect on air quality. It is the kind of tax that upon reflection, many Republicans could support.
One more thing. Based on his campaign rhetoric, if Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump should win, all Clinton environmental bets are off.