Republicans Are Talking Differently About Climate Change

A suddenly more nuanced position speaks to the party’s belief in the issue’s coming potency.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 13: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during a National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon May 13, 2014 in Washington, DC. Sen. Rubio delivered a policy speech on social security and answered questions during the luncheon. 
National Journal
Alex Roarty
June 18, 2014, 5:46 p.m.

These days, it takes care­ful pars­ing to pin­point what Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates be­lieve about cli­mate change.

The GOP’s Sen­ate can­did­ate in Michigan, Terri Lynn Land, is­sued a press re­lease last month that de­clared glob­al warm­ing was “ab­so­lutely” a real­ity. Such an ac­know­ledg­ment, on its face, would once have amoun­ted prac­tic­ally to heresy for a party hos­tile to the sci­ence of cli­mate change. But lest any­one be­gin to con­fuse her with Bill Nye the Sci­ence Guy, her cam­paign’s spokes­wo­man quickly emailed a fol­low-up state­ment: Al­though Land thinks the Earth’s cli­mate is chan­ging partly as a con­sequence of hu­man be­ha­vi­or, she’s du­bi­ous about the de­gree to which hu­man­kind is re­spons­ible.

To a cli­mate sci­ent­ist, that’s a bit like watch­ing a golfer line up a per­fect putt, only to see the ball un­ex­pec­tedly lip out of the hole at the last mo­ment. But as the dust settles on Pres­id­ent Obama’s pro­pos­al to cut car­bon emis­sions, her al­most-but-not-quite em­brace of cli­mate-change sci­ence is in­dic­at­ive of a broad­er shift with­in the Re­pub­lic­an Party — one that has shucked the de­fi­ant skep­ti­cism of its re­cent past for a nu­anced view on the sub­ject.

Cer­tainly, base-wary Re­pub­lic­ans haven’t gone all-in yet. Their ad­just­ment, however, is no ac­ci­dent: While the sci­ence it­self is largely the same, the polit­ics of its le­git­im­acy has turned against Re­pub­lic­ans in all but the red­dest of states. It’s a sep­ar­ate de­bate from the eco­nom­ic-fo­cused one about the po­ten­tial loss of jobs from the reg­u­la­tions — one Re­pub­lic­ans are con­vinced they’ll win — but it’s non­ethe­less an is­sue rear­ing its head in the midterm elec­tions.

“I don’t think it would be wise for a Re­pub­lic­an to shut the door on a dis­cus­sion of cli­mate change,” said Dick Wadhams, a Col­or­ado-based GOP strategist. “But I do think it’s sens­ible for a Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ate to ex­press skep­ti­cism about this head­long rush … a lot of Demo­crats seem to be hav­ing to kill the coal in­dustry.”

Wit­ness Marco Ru­bio, who like Land sim­il­arly ar­gued that the cli­mate is chan­ging but doubted wheth­er hu­mans are the main cul­prit. Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst, two Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate can­did­ates in purple-hued North Car­o­lina and Iowa, re­spect­ively, have also ex­pressed views in shades of gray. Rick Scott, the Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernor of Flor­ida, has star­ted say­ing that he’s “not a sci­ent­ist.”

And that’s when Re­pub­lic­ans talk about the sci­ence at all: Many, such as Ed Gillespie in Vir­gin­ia or Cory Gard­ner in Col­or­ado, opt against say­ing any­thing all, in­stead keep­ing their fo­cus trained squarely on the ef­fect reg­u­la­tions will have on jobs and elec­tri­city bills.

It wasn’t al­ways this way. As re­cently as 2009, Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers such as then-House Minor­ity Lead­er John Boehner were pub­licly mock­ing cli­mate-change sci­ence. Ap­pear­ing on ABC News’s This Week, Boehner said the no­tion that car­bon di­ox­ide was a car­ci­no­gen was “al­most com­ic­al.”

“Every time we ex­hale, we ex­hale car­bon di­ox­ide,” he said. “Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more car­bon di­ox­ide.”

In many in­stances, Re­pub­lic­ans avoided talk­ing about the is­sue at all (some­times go­ing to great lengths to avoid do­ing so). It’s not that Re­pub­lic­ans have al­ways out­right re­jec­ted cli­mate-change sci­ence; be­fore the tea-party wave of 2010, the GOP had largely em­braced not only the sci­ence but some meas­ure of poli­cy­mak­ing to com­bat it. But with the rise of the ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive base, the fail­ure of the Demo­crats’ cap-and-trade le­gis­la­tion, and sub­sequent deep un­pop­ular­ity of that pro­pos­al, Re­pub­lic­an at­ti­tudes changed.

“In the af­ter­math of that, no one had to be care­ful,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a prom­in­ent Re­pub­lic­an eco­nom­ist and out­spoken ad­voc­ate about the threat posed by cli­mate change (who op­poses the pres­id­ent’s EPA rules). “You could just lam­baste everything as­so­ci­ated with it.”

Now they do. Nearly six in 10 Amer­ic­ans think hu­man activ­it­ies are mainly to blame for the rise in glob­al tem­per­at­ures, ac­cord­ing to a Gal­lup Poll from March. And des­pite the party’s long­stand­ing skep­ti­cism about cli­mate change, 41 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans say the same.

But more im­port­ant than how many voters it reaches is which voters it reaches. The re­jec­tion of cli­mate-change sci­ence — and the po­ten­tial to con­sequently be labeled as anti-all sci­ence — risks ali­en­at­ing the crit­ic­al bloc of mod­er­ate and even GOP-lean­ing voters. “There’s a slice of mod­er­ate and lib­er­al Re­pub­lic­ans, part col­lege-edu­cated, part wo­men, part un­der-50, where there is an op­por­tun­ity for Demo­crats to get a lot more of those voters than they nor­mally would,” said An­drew Bau­mann, a Demo­crat­ic poll­ster who works with en­vir­on­ment­al groups.

Cli­mate change won’t single-handedly change minds, not by a long shot. Few in­di­vidu­al is­sues do. But it’s one of a mélange of top­ics — among them im­mig­ra­tion re­form, gun con­trol, and abor­tion rights — that Demo­crats can use to win over the bloc of af­flu­ent sub­urb­an mod­er­ates, a kind of death-by-a-thou­sand-cuts strategy. It’s the same group of voters who also pop­u­late a lot of crit­ic­al 2014 swing areas, such as the North­ern Vir­gin­ia or the Den­ver sub­urbs.

Des­pite the com­pel­ling polling on the is­sue, Re­pub­lic­an strategists say it’s one that’s eas­ily nav­ig­able by tal­en­ted can­did­ates. A de­bate about sci­ence isn’t good for the party, but it doesn’t have to be, they say, ar­guing that the fo­cus on EPA’s car­bon reg­u­la­tions and the po­ten­tial job losses that res­ult steers the de­bate to­ward far firmer ground for the GOP.

Be­sides, voters still rank com­bat­ing cli­mate change near the bot­tom of their list of pri­or­it­ies.

“The ques­tion is, is cli­mate change go­ing to be on the menu of what’s driv­ing voters in North Car­o­lina?” said Paul Shu­maker, a North Car­o­lina-based GOP strategist who works for Tillis, the party’s Sen­ate nom­in­ee. “How many people in North Car­o­lina are be­ing dir­ectly im­pacted by it now?”

Ac­cord­ing to sci­ence, all of them.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×