America Is the Next Virginia

Often held up as a bellwether for red states shifting blue, Virginia’s as good a test case as any for the changing politics of coal.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
May 30, 2014, 6:24 a.m.

No soon­er did word spread that Pres­id­ent Obama would use his ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity to cut car­bon emis­sions from the coun­try’s coal-fired power plants than the politick­ing began.

The U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce pub­lished a scath­ing re­port. The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency fired back. Politico doc­u­mented the spat. Lath­er, rinse, re­peat.

With Obama­care’s woes ap­par­ently solved for the mo­ment, and the Benghazi scan­dal feel­ing in­creas­ingly ab­struse, con­ser­vat­ives are look­ing for a new point of con­flag­ra­tion in the run-up to elec­tions this fall — and the new EPA reg­u­la­tions on car­bon emis­sions from ex­ist­ing power plants, to be re­leased on Monday, look like prom­ising fod­der.

The new cli­mate reg­u­la­tions, as New York magazine’s Jonath­an Chait ob­served, of­fer few ob­vi­ous tan­gible selling points for Demo­crats. In­stead, the reg­u­la­tions could mean the loss of jobs and the decim­a­tion of whole towns where live­li­hoods de­pend on the coal in­dustry, as well as high­er en­ergy costs for av­er­age Amer­ic­ans. Re­pub­lic­ans hope to make these con­sequences an al­batross around Demo­crats’ necks this year.

And yet there’s good reas­on to think the dooms­day elect­or­al pre­dic­tions are wrong — that Obama’s coal-fired power-plant reg­u­la­tions, while he’s painted them as a “mor­al ob­lig­a­tion,” are not in fact some sort of polit­ic­al hara-kiri ahead of elec­tions in 2014. To un­der­stand why, con­sider the Vir­gin­ia gov­ernor’s race.

While its re­li­ance on coal for power gen­er­a­tion is lower than some oth­er states, Vir­gin­ia ranks 14th in the coun­try for coal pro­duc­tion. And the sur­round­ing coal in­dustry has tra­di­tion­ally played no small role in shap­ing the state’s polit­ic­al land­scape. That’s chan­ging though, and last year’s gov­ernor’s race between Demo­crat Terry McAul­iffe and Re­pub­lic­an Ken Cuc­cinelli shows why.

The back­drop should sound fa­mil­i­ar: In Septem­ber of 2013, Obama had just rolled out a sep­ar­ate pre­lim­in­ary reg­u­la­tion re­strict­ing green­house-gas emis­sions for fu­ture coal-fired power plants. The back­lash from the coal in­dustry was in­tense, and Cuc­cinelli was quick use it to his ad­vant­age.

“Barack Obama’s war on coal is in­tensi­fy­ing,” said a voice one Cuc­cinelli at­tack ad. “McAul­iffe would side with Obama and kill Vir­gin­ia coal, Vir­gin­ia jobs.”

McAul­iffe re­spon­ded by doub­ling down on his en­vir­on­ment­al po­s­i­tions. He sup­por­ted the reg­u­la­tions, while be­ing care­ful to not ap­pear overly ant­ag­on­ist­ic to­ward coal. “Vir­gin­ia needs to seize the op­por­tun­ity to de­vel­op and de­ploy clean­er en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies that will grow our eco­nomy while pro­tect­ing our en­vir­on­ment,” he wrote in a Politico op-ed. “Just as lim­its were pre­vi­ously set on mer­cury, ar­sen­ic, and lead pol­lu­tion, it’s time to place com­mon­sense lim­its on car­bon pol­lu­tion. And Vir­gini­ans agree with me.”

And so they did. Not only did McAul­iffe win, but he won on en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues. In a Wash­ing­ton Post poll pub­lished in the days lead­ing up to the elec­tion, he held an 8-point lead on en­ergy and en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues spe­cific­ally.

So how did a guy whose third-largest donor was the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters (and whose fourth-largest was Tom Stey­er), win in a coal state? Vir­gin­ia has a bit of a com­plic­ated re­la­tion­ship with cli­mate polit­ics — Nor­folk, in par­tic­u­lar, is among the U.S. cit­ies most threatened by sea-level rise, ac­cord­ing to the U.S. Geo­lo­gic­al Sur­vey. And McAul­iffe’s statewide ad cam­paign tar­get­ing his op­pon­ent’s cli­mate-change deni­al did not fall on deaf ears. Neither did his full-throated de­fense of noted cli­mate sci­ent­ist Mi­chael Mann, then at the Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia.

Of course, the situ­ation for na­tion­al Demo­crats isn’t com­pletely ana­log­ous to what McAul­iffe ex­per­i­enced. Obama’s ex­pec­ted car­bon an­nounce­ment doesn’t just con­cern fu­ture power plants: It will have very real con­sequences for ex­ist­ing ones. And his pledge to cut car­bon emis­sions by 20 per­cent could even­tu­ally shut down hun­dreds of coal-fired power plants around the coun­try.

But it’s also, as one Demo­crat­ic strategist noted to The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Greg Sar­gent, an op­por­tun­ity for Demo­crats to draw a con­trast with a pres­id­ent who’s widely un­pop­u­lar right now. “I’m not sure at the end of the day wheth­er people in those states are likely to say, ‘This shows Demo­crats are try­ing to screw us,’ or, ‘I’m glad my Demo­crat is stand­ing up for me, and he will do oth­er valu­able things.’ Where this really nets out is hard to know. But we’ve been deal­ing with the ba­sic them­at­ics here for a long time.”

Mean­while, McAul­iffe’s suc­cess shows that em­bra­cing cli­mate reg­u­la­tions could be a win­ner for oth­er Demo­crats, too.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×