A Republican Climate Revolution?

Last year, Democrats had a lock on the climate change issue. Their acknowledgment of the science and the need to take action stood in sharp relief compared to many Republican leaders who persisted in questioning the reality of the phenomenon and the need to react to it. Democratic-leaning organizations used icons of the climate crisis - like polar bears - to drive increasing public interest. Democrats in the Senate led the charge to pass the most comprehensive climate legislation yet through a key committee, and Democratic presidential candidates were clearly more in tune with the American people on the issue than were Republican darlings Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Republicans stealing the climate issue for themselves was the farthest thing from almost everyone's mind.

Unfortunately for Democrats, times seem to have changed. Republicans are no longer disorganized climate-deniers with nothing compelling to say about the environment. Over the past few months, a new strategy has emerged that matches coordinated (and well-funded) resistance to significant reform with just enough concession on the climate issue to be disarming. The result is a deep challenge for a Democratic message and organizing machine accustomed to fighting a hobbled and confused opponent on unfamiliar territory. In short: the GOP is on the verge of figuring out how to outsmart the Democrats on climate.

The symptoms of this shift are clear enough. President Bush and many Republican leaders in and out of government have made limited conciliatory sounds on the science and the need to act. Republicans in both chambers are offering "economically responsible" legislative alternatives - even if they aren't serious - that could provide easy exits for nervous members and campaign tools for swing district candidates. The presidential climate debate has been blurred as John McCain offers palatable proposals. Climate legislation has yet to materialize in the House, and the upcoming Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill could turn into a bruising - and possibly short - partisan battle over gas prices.

So how did we get here?

It's helpful to return briefly to the halcyon days of Democratic climate messaging, circa early 2007. At the time, there was much political hay to be made by emphasizing a clear distinction between the parties: Democrats recognized the climate threat while Republicans denied it. Democrats wanted to protect our environment, national security and economy while Republicans wanted to continue greedily pumping, polluting and procrastinating. Democrats had a plan, Al Gore and a Nobel Prize; Republicans had George Bush.

That contrast has been significantly diminished, however, as leading Republicans outside of government - notably former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman - have argued that conservatives should recognize the economic opportunities inherent in solving climate change. Others have made compelling arguments from the faith and stewardship perspective. Support from major US industrial firms has also done double duty by demonstrating widespread support for action on climate (arguably good for Democrats) and creating a laboratory for the development of effective Republican messages on technology and innovation (bad for Democrats).

At the same time, Republicans in Congress appear to have finally regained their footing enough to push back on climate reform effectively. GOP leaders are assembling a fusillade of pocketbook economic arguments to batter Lieberman-Warner and are helping keep the relevant House committees tied up and inactive. Legislative alternatives to Lieberman-Warner, including a widely condemned bill drafted by Senator George Voinovich, have also created pressure on fence-sitters unsure of their support for Democratic proposals.

As a result, Democrats now face a highly vocal and public Senate fight that will rely on the old but effective Republican saw that liberals want to take money out of people's pockets. Whether Democrats are prepared to parry effectively remains to be seen.

Of course there are compelling responses to all of these developments: Republicans like Sen. Voinovich want to gut climate reform under the guise of "protecting the economy"; McCain has one of the worst environmental voting records in the Senate; Bush is making only the most unavoidable concessions - and, most importantly, only the Lieberman-Warner bill actually takes a serious step toward solving this genuine crisis.

But it is hard to deny that the political air is being sucked out of the Democrats' climate balloon as their standard arguments are being mooted and their opponents are gaining a head of steam. To hold onto their leadership position on the issue - and retain the mantle of credibility necessary to defend legislation or capture independent climate voters - they'll need a serious dose of new messaging and strategy. It would be a major defeat if climate went from the Democrats' best point of distinction to a pivot for resurgent Republicans. Leaders on the Hill and in the campaigns should recognize that such a threat is closer than they think.

Comments

[brianganek]

The Republicans are giving up the "Wait and See" strategy, now they embrace global warming to promote nuclear power and pork barrel subsidies. President Bush has spent eight years watching the steady rise of Carbon Dioxide emmisions, and looking for its effects on the climate. We've spent billions on climate research.

Now the Republicans have bought in, they want the subsidies for biofuels that cause increased food prices. They like alternate energy subsidies that bring home the pork to its "green" corporate partners. This new plan will drive up energy prices.

Greenhouse Gasses change the absorbtion properties of our atmosphere, politicians who promise to rollback GHGs are promising blue sky.

CO2 is a benign chemical, it is necessary for life and increases or decreases its concentration in the atmosphere naturaly over time. The atmosphere is the single biggest thing on our planet and there is no proof that fossil fuel use has changed the climate. CO2 limiting or sequestering strategies will increase fuel costs.

[PioneerKing]

The republicans are going to have a difficult time changing gears on this!

[peterg76]

If there's money involved, they will change in a flash. It's not like they have principles.

[technopolitical]

Cooling during La Nina events may suggest that human impact on global temperature is slight, but even more than that, the huge cooling during winter proves that human impact is negligible. And seasonal fluctuations in Arctic sea ice put its ongoing, unprecedented disappearance in perspective, too. Yes indeed.

[noneIn2008]

The party that will take the lead will be the one that finally confronts big oil and big auto to repeal the second law of thermodynamics. This requires that we waste about 70% of our energy on nothing. This law requires that our hybrids use more oil than they save. This law requires our power plants to throw away energy into the worst green houses gas, dihydogen monoxide. The people are looking for the forward thinking party to finally confront this dirty secret that none will discuss.

[UnbiasView]

"Democrats recognized the climate threat while Republicans denied it"

Since global warming has stopped that seems pretty reasonable, if something like a la nina can make us cool off for 10+ years how much of an impact do we have?

Even the biggest liberal hippie in the room has realize that the threat of global warming is nothing like Al Gore's disaster theory.

Everyone in here does know that Al Gore actually uses CGI footage from the move the "Day After Tomorrow" in his movie don't they?

[CaptainObvious]

"Everyone in here does know that Al Gore actually uses CGI footage from the move the "Day After Tomorrow" in his movie don't they?"

Really? So I guess you've watched it?

[Uselessboy]

Nobody could've anticipated that the global economy would organize to resist regulation.

[research]

Whatever the GOP promises is lie.

Stop believing the GOP.

[UnbiasView]

What will you say when there isn't universal healthcare or free college in 4 years?

Did you believe in the DNC when they promised to end the war and lower gas prices in 2006?

Try whatever ANY politician promises is a lie.

[research]

We'll see.

[research]

Ya'know, politicians in the USA and around the world, have honored their promises and helped people. Many of our politicians seem to be deceivers, but not all. We do you bother to post if you truly believe they are all liars all the time?

[politicky]

How many Republicans OR Democrats are willing to take a good hard look at the most egregious oil consumer, and polluter on the planet?

This Wall Street Journal article makes the military look like the hero--AGAIN---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
May 21, 2008; Page A1

....WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer....

...Alternative fuels are part of a broader -- and not so long ago unlikely -- conversion by the military to "green" initiatives. Producing synthetic fuel itself can cause more pollution than conventional fuel if the emissions aren't captured.

"...Those war machines burn oil such intense rates that their oil consumption is mostly talked in "gallons per mile" and "gallons per minute" instead of "miles per gallon."..."
http://www.energybulletin.net/26758.html

Let's cut through the crap eh?

[Javani]

"It's helpful to return briefly to the halcyon days of Democratic climate messaging"

Hm, maybe. I like to think the "halcyon days", the height of them at least, were those heart-warming days back in 1998 when Al Gore and his Enron friends hoodwinked the Western European suckers to embrace cap and trade in the Kyoto Protocols. Anyway, Republicans such as McCain have long embraced climate change as an avenue to cap and trade.

[mouselion]

Huh?

[j0em0mma]

I find the point of this article ludicrous. The Dems are poised to take over Washington in the Fall. Climate change will be a major priority, and we will make a lot of progress. The Republicans will never be able to take credit for it, as their legacy will be the last people in power who lied, misled and stonewalled any action.

[UnbiasView]

And once they enact that progress (meaning taxes) we will look back and realize that we really don't have the kind of control that we think over the environment.

[CaptainObvious]

I'll be happy if we just regain some degree of control over our government.

[bethinCary]

Joe-it really doesn't matter what the GOP tries to say about global warming.
The GOP has denied global warming-to protect thier oil buddies...
Now oil companies are making record profits---and they're the worst polluters..
While the GOP and the oil industry may have been able to deny global warming--with prices now at close to $4 a gallon--they've got worse problems by seeing an electorate unhappy with oil prices that have gone from $20 when GW came into offrice to now $140 (barrel).
GW's begging the Saudis whom he had everyone fooled into thinking he had a bud in--has backfired on him.
Something tells me voters won't forget it either-and why McBush won't have much appeal in the GE.
Dependency on oils' the problem...
the electorate get it..
So more subterfuge on whether or not global warming exists won't distract voters..
A focus on alternative energies instead of global warming denial wiill render it moot.

[UnbiasView]

"Dependency on oils' the problem...
the electorate get it.."

Then why have all of them taken drilling for our own oil off the table?

A significant reason for high oil prices is oil producing countries cutting back on exports and using the oil themselves to grow their economies . . . meaning less oil for us and higher prices.

[magen]

Because most of us realize that the millions of dollars spent to gain the oil and ruin our beautiful natural places here in the US would be better spent in developing clean renewable energy sources that the rest of the world would have to come to us for.

If America doesn't develop it, another country will, and THEY will reap the profits.

[scarfoot]

Senator Inhofe, I presume. Or someone with as much credibility. On being challenged for his lack of documentation he will refer us to the Senator's website. Those who are interested in a serious exposition of the doubts he raises can go to Real Climate for a rational high level discussion unmatched in the denial literature.

[noneIn2008]

"Unmatched in the denial lit" This shows your lack of understanding science. Check your breadth of sources. There are a number of very different and very credible sources out there with very different perspectives. Those insisting on agreement to one model are not the scientists. There are "political" scientists who are enriching themselves pushing politically popular ideas that Congress will fund or some large Foundation will fund, but some of those advocates have blatantly falsified data to "dramatize" their cause.

For example the long term temperature data was initially massaged to create a point of view. It has since been corrected in some publications, showing the prior "dramatization". Some recent data was miscalculated. Fact 1934 was the warmest year on record, not 1998. Hansen and NASA restated the data. NASA restated post 2000 temps.
Fact, it stopped warming in 1998. It has been cooling recently. The new NOAA measures show the oceans have cooled. If there was a direct correlation, how can that be with record CO2 levels.

What about solar cycles? What about ocean cycles? There are many different perspectives worthy of investigation.

Are you willing to lock the US into rules that give China a manufacturing advantage, thus pushing more jobs to China? Are you supporting adding $1.50 CO2 tax to our gasoline? That will be popular once the people discover this scam.

[UnbiasView]

So you want to direct people to a biased website to have a serious discussion?

[cct84]

The Democrats, and to some extent the Republicans, are out to lunch on this issue. The global warming...oops, I mean global climate change movement is nothing short of a socialistic power grab by politicians and environuts under the guise of protecting the planet. Climate change legislation is a wet dream for these crooks: environuts will get to dictate how we live, what kind of car we drive, even how much air we breathe; politicians get to pick our wallets through inane "cap and trade" policies...a euphanism for tax...the proceeds of which they can then use for more pork-barrel projects intended for nothing more than to buy votes.

Fortunately, it seems the scientific community are finding their voice and publicly debunking the IPCC report and other junk science masquerading as fact:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/16/32-000-deniers.aspx

...lets hope it's not too late.

[UnbiasView]

It used to be global warming and then they found out the globe wasn't warming like they wanted you to believe and now it's climate change meaning you can blame everything from hurricanes (Al Gore) to tornadoes (John Kerry) on it . . . even though all the real people have said time and time again that single events are not relevant.

[GuyRC]

It must pain the deniers to hear their leader admit that our emissions are causing environmental harm. This is a victory for environmentalists regardless of the spin that republicans put on it. The key for democrats near-term is to come up with clear, concise statements explaining McCains lack of credibility on this issue. Obama is better at that than Kerry or Gore were. Years from now republicans will take for granted things they can't accept now, and will be ranting about things that progressives havn't thought up yet. That is how progress actually happens, so slowly it isn't noticed until you look at old books and pictures. Down the road when our investiment in clean technology pays off they will argue about who gets the credit, but today progressives can enjoy the fact that we have hit the bottom of the conservative dive, and are climbing back up.

[UnbiasView]

"It must pain the deniers to hear their leader admit that our emissions are causing environmental harm."

Evnironmental harm and global warming are 2 different things aren't they?

[technopolitical]

Yes, the first is a general category, the second is a cause of a range of instances within that category. Quite different things, really.

[GuyRC]

That actually would be a good tactic for the republicans. Shift from denial of global warming to denial of environmental harm. Would you rather be warm or cold? Warm is good for you...

[adzeman]

Just remember the golden rule: If the Republicans espouse it, it's either a lie or really bad for you. Simple enough?